Vermont Town Votes On Bush 'Indictment'

[Kor37 9]

Vt. Town Votes on Bush 'Indictment'

By JOHN CURRAN,AP

Posted: 2008-03-04 16:11:20

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. (AP) - Voters in this southern Vermont town were deciding Tuesday whether to approve a measure calling for the indictment of President Bush and Vice President *Richard* Cheney on charges of violating the Constitution.

 

The symbolic article seeks to have police arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit Brattleboro or to extradite them for prosecution elsewhere - if they're not impeached first.

 

"Our town attorney has no legal authority to draw up any papers to allow our police officers to do so," said Town Clerk Annette Cappy, "but the gentleman who initiated the petition got the signatures (and) wanted it on the ballot to make a statement."

 

A steady stream of voters paraded into the Brattleboro Union High School gym to cast their ballots on a day when school board elections and Vermont's presidential primary were also on the slate.

 

Organizers of the indictment campaign were frustrated that the printed ballot ended up relegating the Bush-Cheney indictment article to the back side, which they said would cause some people to miss it.

 

The 8-by-14-inch yellow cardboard ballot listed the offices and candidates in the local election on one side, and at the bottom in block letters "Turn Ballot Over and Continue Voting."

 

"Turn Over Ballot and Indict Bush," read a 3-by-4-foot handmade picket sign carried by Kurt Daims, 54, who organized the petition drive and stood outside the school Tuesday.

 

Voters interviewed after casting ballots said they saw the article as an opportunity to express their frustration over the war in Iraq and Bush's tenure in general.

 

"I realize it's an extreme thing to do, and really silly in a way," said Robert George, 74, a retired photographer. "But I'm really angry about us getting involved in the war in Iraq and him (Bush) disrespecting the will of the people."

 

Ian Kelley, 41, a radio DJ, said he didn't vote on the article.

 

"It's not a good reflection on the town," he said. "Do I like either of them and would I vote for them? No. But I don't think it's cause to arrest them."

 

Barbara Southworth, a 66-year-old nurse, said she would have voted against it.

 

"I forgot to vote because it was on the flip side," she said.

 

The White House press office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. But a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee denounced the article.

 

"It appears that the left-wing knows no bounds in their willingness to waste taxpayer dollars to make a futile counterproductive partisan political point," said Blair Latoff. "Town people would be much better served by elected officials who sought to solve problems rather than create them."

 

 

All Federal funds should be pulled from this town. How ridiculous!...

[Wishfire 2]

Federal funds should be pulled from a town for making a political statement? Now that's ridiculous. Doubly so considering that not everyone went along with it, so you're advocating pushing all for the actions of few.

[Kor37 9]

Federal funds should be pulled from a town for making a political statement? Now that's ridiculous. Doubly so considering that not everyone went along with it, so you're advocating pushing all for the actions of few.

Whats ridiculous is that it was put on a ballot in the first place.

[Wishfire 2]

Well, that's how things work... you get enough signatures on a petition, you get the issue on the ballot. You think this is the first stupid thing on a ballot?

[Kor37 9]

Well, that's how things work... you get enough signatures on a petition, you get the issue on the ballot. You think this is the first stupid thing on a ballot?

Well, I think that anything illegal, which this is, should not be placed on a ballot no matter how many signatures they get. What if I get enough signatures on a petition which calls for the legalization of throwing puppies off a cliff? Should that be put on the ballot?

[Wishfire 2]

So because something is illegal people trying to legalize it should not be allowed to get a measure on the ballot? That's the one of the very purposes of petitions!

[Theunicornhunter 2]

It's a waste of taxpayer money (which IMO is criminal) if it lacks any legal basis. And yes it is ridiculous for the "town" to make a political statement. Government bodies should be apolitical - if a group of private citizens wanted to file a case and make a political statement that is a different situation.

 

What are we going to do - every time a different party takes the white house tie up our courts with lawsuits against the party you don't like. So every four years one half of the country will be at odds with the other.

 

If there is anything this country needs it is less devisiveness and some common ground andto stop wasting taxpayer money

 

So because something is illegal people trying to legalize it should not be allowed to get a measure on the ballot? That's the one of the very purposes of petitions!

 

That's a different situation - they're not trying to change the legality of something - they're trying to pass a worthless petition because the town lacks the legal authority to enforce it.

Edited March 5, 2008 by TheUnicornHunter

[Wishfire 2]

It's a waste of taxpayer money (which IMO is criminal) if it lacks any legal basis.

 

How is it a waste of taxpayer money when it's the responsibility of the person/group/organization who initiates a petition to pay the costs?

 

And yes it is ridiculous for the "town" to make a political statement. Government bodies should be apolitical - if a group of private citizens wanted to file a case and make a political statement that is a different situation.

 

Yes, they should be apolitical... but they rarely if ever are. Besides, filing a case would be the true waste of taxpayer dollars.

 

What are we going to do - every time a different party takes the white house tie up our courts with lawsuits against the party you don't like. So every four years one half of the country will be at odds with the other.

 

And when has this ever happened? When was it even suggested?

 

If there is anything this country needs it is less devisiveness and some common ground andto stop wasting taxpayer money

 

So people who are displeased with Bush should just shut up? What, they have no rights to take actions they deem necessary (so long as those actions are legal)?

Edited March 5, 2008 by WishfireOmega

[Theunicornhunter 2]

WFO, you have an amazing ability to put recharacterize what I said to something I did not say.

 

If people are displeased with Bush - then let them pursue whatever legal options are available to them - including petitioning their elected officials to investigate any potention reasons for impeachment. But to waste the taxpayers time and money to make a "personal" statement that lacks legal authority is not one of those options.

 

Individuals do not pay for printing of ballots or costs associated with the voting process - these are paid by the taxpayer.

 

Filing a case is a waste of taxpayer dollars? Not if there is a legal basis for the case. If there's not, the party bringing the case has paid the court costs and there is potential for fines against lawyers and/or parties bringng baselss cases though I don't know how often they are used.

 

The bottom line is it is not my responsibility as a taxpayer to pay for someone's political statements - that's their responsibility.

 

What are we going to do - every time a different party takes the white house tie up our courts with lawsuits against the party you don't like. So every four years one half of the country will be at odds with the other.

And when has this ever happened?

Regardless of whether he deserved it the move to impeach Clinton was more political than actual concern for what he did (as most of the people leading the charge were guilty of the same thing) and I found it outrageous the amount of money wasted on that - I view the impeach Bush movement as the same. And at the rate we're going it'll probably happen again with the next president as well. Presidents should be impeached for breaking the law - not because the people that didn't vote for them want them out of office.

[Wishfire 2]

WFO, you have an amazing ability to put recharacterize what I said to something I did not say.

 

I take your words at face value. If you mean something other than what you say, then make it clear.

 

If people are displeased with Bush - then let them pursue whatever legal options are available to them - including petitioning their elected officials to investigate any potention reasons for impeachment. But to waste the taxpayers time and money to make a "personal" statement that lacks legal authority is not one of those options.

 

Whether or not you like it, the method they chose is legal. So they did persue a legal option.

 

Individuals do not pay for printing of ballots or costs associated with the voting process - these are paid by the taxpayer.

 

They don't pay the direct cost, no. But once they get enough signatures, they do have to pay a fee to get the measure on to the ballot. That fee is supposed to go to paying the cost of the additional measure on the ballot. If none of that fee goes to it, then it's not the people trying to get the measure on the ballot who waste the tax payer's money, but some bureaucrat.

 

Filing a case is a waste of taxpayer dollars? Not if there is a legal basis for the case. If there's not, the party bringing the case has paid the court costs and there is potential for fines against lawyers and/or parties bringng baselss cases though I don't know how often they are used.

 

Court costs do not pay for everything. Tax payers pick up the slack.

 

The bottom line is it is not my responsibility as a taxpayer to pay for someone's political statements - that's their responsibility.

 

Yes. And they're taking it. Not you.

 

What are we going to do - every time a different party takes the white house tie up our courts with lawsuits against the party you don't like. So every four years one half of the country will be at odds with the other.

And when has this ever happened?

Regardless of whether he deserved it the move to impeach Clinton was more political than actual concern for what he did (as most of the people leading the charge were guilty of the same thing) and I found it outrageous the amount of money wasted on that - I view the impeach Bush movement as the same. And at the rate we're going it'll probably happen again with the next president as well. Presidents should be impeached for breaking the law - not because the people that didn't vote for them want them out of office.

 

I'd say that there's a huge difference between being impeached for sexual impropriety / being charged with perjury and being impeached for war crimes, political misconduct, and god knows what else.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

WFO, you have an amazing ability to put recharacterize what I said to something I did not say.

 

I take your words at face value. If you mean something other than what you say, then make it clear.

No, you don't but I'm sure you already know that.

 

Example

 

If there is anything this country needs it is less devisiveness and some common ground and to stop wasting taxpayer money

 

So people who are displeased with Bush should just shut up? What, they have no rights to take actions they deem necessary (so long as those actions are legal)?

 

If people are displeased with Bush - then let them pursue whatever legal options are available to them - including petitioning their elected officials to investigate any potention reasons for impeachment. But to waste the taxpayers time and money to make a "personal" statement that lacks legal authority is not one of those options.

 

Whether or not you like it, the method they chose is legal. So they did persue a legal option.

 

No, it's not that' the whole point. Sure the process of putting something on the ballot may be legal but what they're voting to put on the ballot isn't - thus it is a waste of money. Free Speech does not mean the taxpayer has to foot the bill.

[trekz 7]

UPDATE: MEASURE PASSES

 

Vt. Towns Approve Bush 'Indictment'

By JOHN CURRAN | Associated Press Writer

7:23 PM CST, March 4, 2008

 

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. - Voters in two Vermont towns approved measures Tuesday calling for the indictment of President Bush and Vice President *Richard* Cheney for what they consider violations of the Constitution.

 

More symbolic than anything, the items sought to have police arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit Brattleboro or nearby Marlboro or to extradite them for prosecution elsewhere -- if they're not impeached first.

 

In Brattleboro, the vote was 2,012-1,795. In Marlboro, which held a town meeting on the issue, it was 43-25 with three abstentions.

 

"I hope the one thing that people take from this is, 'Hey, it can be done,'" said Kurt Daims, 54, who organized the petition drive that led to the Brattleboro vote.

 

The measure in Marlboro isn't binding because it didn't appear on the warning for the meeting, according to Nora Wilson.

 

"It was emotional. There were heartfelt speeches on both sides," Wilson said.

 

The question put to voters in Brattleboro referred to "crimes against our Constitution" but did not specify the allegations.

 

In Brattleboro, a steady stream of voters paraded into the Union High School gym to cast their ballots on a day when school board elections and Vermont's presidential primary were also on the slate.

 

Voters interviewed after casting ballots said they saw the article as an opportunity to express their frustration over the war in Iraq and Bush's tenure in general.

 

"I realize it's an extreme thing to do, and really silly in a way," said Robert George, 74, a retired photographer. "But I'm really angry about us getting involved in the war in Iraq and him (Bush) disrespecting the will of the people."

 

Ian Kelley, 41, a radio DJ, said he didn't vote on the article.

 

"It's not a good reflection on the town," he said. "Do I like either of them and would I vote for them? No. But I don't think it's cause to arrest them."

 

Barbara Southworth, a 66-year-old nurse, said she would have voted against it.

 

"I forgot to vote because it was on the flip side," she said.

 

The White House press office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee denounced the indictment effort.

 

"It appears that the left wing knows no bounds in their willingness to waste taxpayer dollars to make a futile counterproductive partisan political point," said Blair Latoff. "Town people would be much better served by elected officials who sought to solve problems rather than create them."

 

Copyright 2008 Associated Press.

[Wishfire 2]

No, you don't but I'm sure you already know that.

 

Example

 

(Removed because quote boxes weren't working.)

 

Well, if that's not what you meant, then you should've clarified beforehand. Because that's what it looked like you were saying to me.

 

No, it's not that' the whole point. Sure the process of putting something on the ballot may be legal but what they're voting to put on the ballot isn't - thus it is a waste of money. Free Speech does not mean the taxpayer has to foot the bill.

 

Since the taxpayer doesn't foot the bill, you protestations are irrelevant.

Edited March 5, 2008 by WishfireOmega

[BKY1701 0]

It's a waste of taxpayer money (which IMO is criminal) if it lacks any legal basis.

 

Sounds like they would be right, then. How many billions has Bush wasted in Iraq? Oh wait, you don't agree Iraq was a waste of money? It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

 

But to waste the taxpayers time and money to make a "personal" statement that lacks legal authority is not one of those options.

 

There are quite a many stupid laws that are not enforceable, for many reasons, including being unconstitutional, impossible to enforce and pointless. How is this any more worthy of having federal funding cut off? Oh right, because it's a statement against Bush. And any statement against Bush should be countered as strongly as the law allows- if not more so.

 

Heres what's funny: doing so would most likely not be legal. By what legal reasoning would said funding be cut off? "You made me mad"? "You wasted some money"?