impeachment arguments...

One of the main arguments against impeachment of the Bush/Cheney administration is the turmoil that it would bring to the country like the circus of the Clinton impeachment. It's an acceptable argument. The time spent on hysterics was critical for the wing-nuts (i'm sorry. social conservatives) to foment its hatred for the Clintons as well as make a name/reputation for themselves.

Another argument against impeachment is timing. There are only 463.5 days left for the Bush/Cheny administration. In other words, "Surely, we can last this short amount of time?"

Still one more argument against impeachment is the length of time it would take to actually follow the process. There are many other arguments.

BUT...

what about the precedent that is being set?

There has been an ample amount of proof that both Bush and Cheney have not upheld their end of the bargain when they swore at their inauguration to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The lead up to the Iraq incursion was illegal. The denials of torture are found in not only statements from military but also in "leaked" internal documents. Mr. Bush's "signing statements" actually say that he, not the Federal Courts or Congress, has the right to make the law and have the final say in its constitutionally.

The Constitution creates three equal parts to the federal government - the executive, the congressional and the judicial. One of the functions each has is a check and balance on the other two. The framers of the Constitution did not want to place all of the power in one element, let alone in the hands of one man/woman. The term often used to describe the Bush/Cheney administration is "imperial presidency." Of course, they, and their supporters refer to it as the "unitary executive." Semantics.

The best argument for impeachment is the possible example it sets for future presidential administrations to use the justification that, "It's been done before, so why shouldn't we?" Bush/Cheney has used less than this to defend their actions. In effect, one of the issues of the current political race for the White House runs something like this: "Do we really want Hillary Clinton to have all that power?" Of course it is the wing-nuts, who spearheaded the current "unitary executive" theory who are crying this the loudest.

One other thing. The House of Representatives and the Senate take the same oath. Below is the first sentence/paragraph of that oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

If the House and Senate is aware of only the things being reported by media about the Bush/Cheney administration's actions [that is all we know, so i'm sure they actually know more], aren't they breaking their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... also?

just asking...