Feingold, Reid, Censure and Stupidity

First, one should ask themselves, "WHY?" and, "What are the motives?" I like what Wake Up America said, "Let's dance". I wasn't going to blog on this until I read her piece and then a friend emailed me the YouTube of Feingold making a COMPLETE AND TOTAL ASS of himself. Listen to the video...it is in my VODPOD, right next to the video where Reid said he didn't approve of the censure. Gee...I wonder why THAT is. One MAJOR embarrassment a month is more than Reid can handle. Can the Democratic Party survive another Mitch Slapping? Let's see if Reid will prove...AGAIN...that he is a liar.

We shall see, I suppose. I would put the YouTube videos in this post but they take too long to load. Please check in the video tool above.

Thanks.

What is "Censure?"

Although ill-defined, censure is a process of Congressional reprimand--the political equivalent of a strongly-worded letter. In 1834, a Whig Senate "censured" Democratic President Andrew Jackson in retaliation for his withholding documents. Three years later, a Democratic Senate "expunged" the censure from the record. However, that act of censure had no basis in either the Constitution or the Rules of the House and Senate. This remains true today. Ordinarily, Congressional disapproval of the President is relayed either through its legislative power including the veto override power or through impeachment.

Presumably, censure of the President would take the form of a resolution adopted by both the House and Senate and then publicly announced. Legally, the resolution would have no effect. Censure derives from the formal condemnation by either the House or the Senate in rebuke of a Member of their own body. After a majority vote, the Member is publicly denounced, but still retains the position of Representative or Senator. However, the House removes the offending Member from any leadership positions in committees or sub-committees.

Probable Censure Procedure [from C-SPAN]

1. A resolution censuring the President is not contemplated by the rules of the House. This means it has no inherent privilege; it is not a question of the privileges of the House, nor is it a matter of personal privilege. Thus, there is no framework for considering it.
   
2. A special rule from the House Rules Committee would be required for its floor consideration and to set debate parameters.
   
3. A censure resolution could be drafted, considered, and then reported from the House Judiciary Committee, or
   
4. A censure resolution could be introduced and taken up immediately under the auspices of a special rule from the House Rules Committee, or
   
5. A censure resolution could be introduced by an individual Member, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee for its consideration.
   
6. In the Senate, a censure resolution could be introduced and would be referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, or
   
7. The Senate Judiciary Committee could draft, consider and report out a censure resolution to the full Senate; or
   
8. A unanimous consent agreement could be worked out in advance to introduce a censure resolution by sending it to the desk and providing for its immediate consideration.
   
9. Floor debate and possible amendment of a censure resolution would most likely be governed by a unanimous consent agreement among all Senators.
   
10. If there is a single objection to a unanimous consent agreement, the Majority Leader could move to proceed to a censure resolution.
    
11. Adoption of a motion to proceed requires a majority vote, unless it is filibustered. In that case, a 3/5ths vote (60 or more) is required to end the filibuster.

Feingold wants to censure President Bush. He tried that last year and it didn't work. What this measure is, is the prelude to an impeachment. Seeing that there are NO constitutional violations perpetrated by President Bush or Vice-President Cheney, there are no grounds for the impeachment procedures. Another article is here. Feingold's retarded rhetoric is here.

Feingold whines about the "domestic spy program" (which it isn't) and the courts have said the "domestic spy program" (which it isn't) is legal; that issue is a debunked one. He goes on about the Attorney General which we all know is another Leftinistra Witch Hunt and is another non-issue.

We hear every day what "violations to the Constitution" were made by the sitting Administration yet no one has said anything specific. Bring it on. Let's dance.

Both of these "educated beyond their abilities to comprehend realities" idgits have said that GWB "has the label of the worse president we ever had" (snicker-snicker snort-snort). I guess in their estimations Carter and the other Clinton were the cat's meow? Good Lord. No wonder they are so dumb.

Anyway, Feingold's video is about 5 minutes and Reid's is about 2 minutes. Listen carefully and those of you that have had the training I have had, watch the bl.