Chris Dodd for President

Those were all good answers to those questions. I sincerely hope that Sen. Dodd does well in the debate tonight.

I understand that the impeachment will cause the congress to spend time away from other important issue, such as the war on Terror, the War in Iraq, and energy independence.

The only problem I see with the argument is this: what progress has the congress made on changing how we fight the war on terror, or how we get out of and deal with the mess in Iraq after we leave, or energy independence?

The way I see it there is no way congress is going to be able to work on a non-partisan solution to any of these until the democrats have a super majority and a president that won't veto their efforts. Republicans just don't want the same things most Americans do.

PS I'd also like to see the congressional raises attached to the minimum wage. If Congress gets a pay hike then so should those workers making the minimum wage, at the same percent increase as congress.

I have a concern about the impeachment response. Indeed, it will take time: But that's why we have a problem: The leadership ha refused to confront these issues: This President's illegal conduct. Impeachment, regardless the results in the Senate, would prohibit the President and VP from being pardoned; and state prosecutions of a sitting President could commence. It doesn't matter what the US Atty's have been instructed to do, the State AG's could move forward with prosecutions, secure future Presidents will not undo their work as the President did with Libby.

Again, I appreciate the argument that there will be a distraction or there are "other" things that are more important. I do not find this argument persuasive: The highest 5 USC 3331 duty is to defend the Constitution: Part of that defense means exploring what went wrong, then confronting -- now -- what is wrong, to ensure this abuse does not happen again.

As to the argument "there are more important things to do than impeachment" -- I agree: Sadly, this President hasn't dealt us those cards: He's put his impeachable offences at the top of the deck. Every time we might try to hide the cards in a new hand, they're still there. Indeed, even if we were to believe the argument "we can't afford time on impeachment, we have other things to do," I'm not seeing the GOP embrace that: They're blocking the "other things" that were supposedly "higher priorities." If we really had "more important things to do," I would hope the GOP and President do those things, not have an across the board response of defiance to the law and legislation.

Further, in light of this President's refusal to enforce the existing laws, I fails to see what's the rush to pass new laws that are equally not going to be enforced "unless the President feels like it." I fail to be persuaded by any argument that a President who is ignoring the law should be rewarded with more smokescreen-legislation that he could very well ignore as well. It makes more sense to stop passing new legislation, and focus on what will make this President enforce the existing laws.

As to the argument "we don't have time" an d"there are other things to do", that works in the world where the present problem is avoidable, and the larger problems are pressing. I do not see that: This country has survived without this "new" legislation; but this President has put himself above the law. I can hardly be persuaded that something as a defacto dictatorship is something that can be set aside. It must be dealt with.

Yes, it would be nice to pass legislation; but it appears this President is using the "potential harm to the Congress in passing or not passing legislation" as a smokescreen tow whether the Congress enforces the existing acts: FISA. I understand the argument that there is "limited time," there are also limited rights which this President has ignored. Time and schedules are not excuse to say "press on" to other things, while the clearly promulgated rights, which are in the Bill of Rights, are not respected.

I must differ with the leadership. Sadly, it appears the nation's leadership is, in effect, abdicating it's leadership position. yes, the oath of office was meant to compel action; and the oath is there to bind leaders to do things that are not convenient, but difficult: Lawfully defending the Constitution. Congress has great power, and the decision to not assert power does not mean the power is gone. But stepping into that vacuum are not small special interests, but another branch of government intent to keep violating the number one tool of this Legislature to assert its will: Legislative Acts. I have heard arguments that the Appropriations cannot be cut; or that there is no way to change policy. I disagree: The budget documents in committee can be marked up, and budget lines can be zeroed out: The burden would be on the GOP to pass amendments to add money back. That this option exists, but is not used, makes me believe Congress is not interested in using the power of the purse, but enjoys being pulled by the purse strings to follow a dictatorship.

We the People are not required to perform on contracts that put this illegal dictatorship into effect. Whether the Judiciary does or does not challenge illegal conduct is not the question: Its whether, when they know or should know of the illegal conduct, refuse to check this power, whether the Judiciary can be trusted; or whether lawful prosecutions of the Judiciary -- outside Impeachment -- must be done to ensure this Constitution is defended. If this Congress will not assert its power to defend this Constitution, there is nothing stopping We the People agreeing to a New Condition outside Article V. That option remains on the table. Further, all non-delegated powers are retained by We the People: It's time for the public to discuss these powers and decide how we're going to assert them to defend what Congress apparently finds to inconvenient to defend: The Constitution.

Shortly, the debate will turn from whether the Congress is or isn't relevant; to what must be done when the Congress illegally refuses to enforce Geneva and the Constitution. On the table are prosecutions of sitting Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Prudent outside impeachment. Members of Congress have been charged by DoJ officials in private with malfeasance on issues of war crimes, FISA violations, and grave breaches of the Supreme Law. There are serious issues. That we have an "upcoming" election is not news: The framers intended the elections to be a catalyst for action, not an excuse to assent to a dictatorship.

We the People have lawful option; and we cannot be compelled to assent to a dictatorship, regardless whether the political winds favor that dictatorship; or whether the passing winds favor silence. The oath demands action and confrontation; not dreams that this ends on its own. It will not end until it is forced to end. That reality is the hard truth this Congress refuses to accept: Indeed, it is going to likely get more abusive before it ends. That is not an excuse to do nothing, but the catalyst to accept: We must start now; waiting will not address what must be ended.

Future Presidents will not be well served if we do not take the time to explore what this President did to get himself and this Country into trouble. President's deserve the confidence that when they waiver, they will be challenged; not left to wander making reckless mistakes, without the needed feedback. I would hope that the candidates take the time now to review the issues warranting impeachment: Future Presidents will need to understand today what went wrong so they support the needed reforms to ensure this does not happen again. Future Presidents who refuse to cooperate cannot be rewarded with songs of, "We have ore important things to do." No, We the People -- as was done with the Magna Carta -- will have more important documents for the President to assent to. He will not have a vote, but be forced, as was King John. Future Presidents cannot argue they are defending what has not been defended as an excuse not to embrace what must be embraced: New Institutions to check power regardless which political faction makes the excuse to do nothing and not prosecute or impeach. Thank you for considering my views.

Canditates for President may desire to enjoy Presidential power, but they must heed their oaths today as elected officials. Yes, a future President may want to avoid thigns that will curtail their power; but We the People expect members of Congress to check power as Members of Congress, not from the perspective of what might be in the interests of Presidential power. If you show you can focuse on today's job in Congress, we might believe you could be trusted with more power as President. Use the power you have now to impeach this President. If you cahllenge him, it is more likely that you will appreciate the power of Congress; without impeachment, you as President do not appear to have anything to fear. That is not the intent of the Constitution or We the People.