Copacetic won the Face Off.

World Wide Waco vs Copacetic

Independent
Face Offs: 2
Wins: 0
Losses: 2
Ties: 0
No City, XX
All Face Offs
4
Votes
Fighting
Face Offs: 2
Wins: 2
Losses: 0
Ties: 0
Lawrence, KS
All Face Offs
9
Votes

Should Nancy Pelosi BE IMPEACHED for taking an OATH TO GOD to UPHOLD OUR CONSTITUTION and then 'TAKING IMPEACHMENT FOR TREASON OFF THE TABLE'?


I guess I'm OLD school but when an individual takes an OATH TO GOD to UPHOLD OUR CONSTITUTION, my view IS IMPEACH A TRAITOR FOR TREASON. Failure to do so, would in my 'quaint' world of 'crazy' 'absoluteism' result in an information against all who were derelict in this duty...However Pelosi beats us ALL to the punch and actually states that ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT IF NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT SACRED TRUSTS, DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS: read LAWS: WILL NOT BE EXECUTED FAITHFULLY IN HER DUTIES...
call me a throwback, but ISN'T THAT IN FACT: AN ACT OF TREASON?!!?

Just to continue in this neuveaux approach to fullfilling oaths of hers: What about lesser and included offences...like say BANKROBBERY...I figure that the treasury IS the president's bank account, and despite all the war profiteering, tax breaks for the wealthy, coporate raiding ect. ect.(sec files destroyed in WTC # 7-enron, securacom, california 7 billion dollar electricity swindle), HE HASN'T ACTUALLY PUT ONE DOLLAR IN THE BANK HAS HE! In fact one could argue he is purposefully bankrupting the treasury due to his personnel feelings about social security ect. Is bankrobbery also off the table Cuz I could really use the money


The Constitution defines, and strongly restricts the definition of, treason as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." Bush's actions that you mentioned do not clearly benefit any specific country, so the definition of treason is not clearly met. Additionally, even if one did think somehow that these actions benefited a specific government, they would fit a more subjective notion of treason, so there could not be any objective proof that Pelosi failed to live up to her oath.


No, you MISS the point...there IS NO ASSERTION OF BUSH's TREASON- although I would easily be able to make the case. Pelosi has gone so far as to make that point moot...I am NOT asserting SHE IS BEING DERELICT- again I could make that point.

BY ACTUALLY TAKING IMPEACHMENT- FOR ALL OFFENSES INCLUDING TREASON OFF THE TABLE- SHE HAS IN FACT COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE...SHE TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAWS FAITHFULLY...how many seconds before SHE VIOLATED THAT OATH by DECLARATION...IF I DECLARE I AM GOING TO ROB A BANK DOES THAT MUTE THE LAW?

The reason censure IS NOT ENOUGH is because SHE DIDN'T JUST TAKE IT OFF FOR MINOR OFFENSES...BUT SHE TOOK IT RIGHT OFF- EVEN FOR TREASON.

That requires the MOST severe corrective act- impeachment.


While I do not deny that Pelosi's actions were wrong, they still do not fit the definition of treason as stated in the Constitution. In addition, the action of changing laws, while certainly not advisable in this case, does not violate the concept of upholding laws. Using this logic, any constitutional amendment ever passed would have been grounds for impeachment. The reason this is so is that the Constitution nowhere requires that treason charges apply wherever possible - it only restricts when they can be applied. Clearly, Pelosi's actions do not meet this brightline.


Look-stop playing it cute and clever and ignoring the FACTS:

She WAS sworn in to uphold the constitution.
Whether informatio


You have not at all addressed my previous quotation of the Constitution, which clearly defines treason. You persist in inserting your own definition of treason. Clearly we are at an impasse, and I contend that Constitutional definitions win out over all other dictionary definitions in a legal sense.

Comments

Add Your Comment
Obama

Insta-win for Copacetic for WWW's misquote of Pelosi, who actually simply said that "impeachment is off the table," referring at the time only to Bush's current offenses. She did not preclude the possibility of impeachment due to future treason.

Report Offensive Comment
Stewart

Hey WWW, this isn't a gamer forum. No one respects you more WHEN YOU TALK IN ALL CAPS TO EMPHASIZE YOU SCREAMING WHILE YOU TYPE. Copacetic gets the win for being the quick gun in accepting an open challenge from you. Now I'm trying to figure out if I should declare you or Hadrian the bigger loser on this site. Even Odom was at least passionate about his ideas.

Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee-button

There is no question about this.

Report Offensive Comment
Stewart

And, for the record, now that I'm debating Hadrian, I realize his previous arguments were more for satirical purposes. I misspoke. The winner is clear.

Report Offensive Comment
Fighting

I've come across Hadrian on a similar website and he's the ultimate Jonathan Swift.

Report Offensive Comment
Independent

Great the freakin arguement didn't transfer when I hit the transmitt button...man it's almost like some kinda creepy 'FAILURE TO EXECUTE' thing going on...to finish my final summation: Look-stop playing it cute and clever and ignoring the FACTS: She WAS sworn in to uphold the constitution. Whether information exists a priori or posterior to her being SWORN IN TO UPHOLD THE LAW...it IS irrelevant. We are NOT supposed to have fealty to people but fidelity to the law. Ex post fact provisions deal with THE LAW pre-existing the facts that give rise to the claim...when the executors, judges ect. are sworn in IS IRRELEVANT. She WAS SWORN IN TO UPHOLD THE LAW not to sweep it aside UNILATERALLY in some genius lawyer politician democart gemeinschaft. We are supposed to be a country of LAW...people ARE put to death-DESPITE BEING INNOCENT- due to the LAW...NO ONE is supposed to be above the law... Again...she has jumped the gun...REGARDLESS of whether information has,does, or will exist of treasonable offenses by bush & co. IT IS WITHOUT DISPUTE that she has not merely been derelict in her duty...information WOULD HAVE TO EXIST for that to occur...NO, clearly in taking Impeachment OFF the table...SHE HAS IN FACT COMMITTED AN ACT OF TREASON.

Report Offensive Comment
Clinton-button

I don't really feel either side did too well arguing their points. Copacetic was stuck on Pelosi committing treason or not. You do not need to commit treason to be impeached, so that point seems rather moot. Bill Clinton anyone? WWW didn't really offer a strong enough argument for Bush to be impeached. He vaguely skirted around a few reasons without actually hitting them. 1st, he needs to prove Bush should be impeached, and then he needs to prove it is Pelosi's duty and an impeachable offense to not follow up on.

Report Offensive Comment

Post A Comment

Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


or cancel

CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES

TOP STORIES on TIME.COM

TIME PHOTO ESSAYS

Photos: The Hajj Goes High-Tech

Advances in infrastructure and security improve the experience of Islam's holiest pilgrimage

( )


Athens in Flames

A massive student protest against proposed government reforms of state universities developed into major rioting in the streets of the Greek capital following the shooting of a teenage boy by riot police.

(Louisa Gouliamaki / AFP / Getty)