There couldn’t be a “simulpeachment” anyway. One necessarily has to be resolved before the other. Further, someone would have to be nominated for succession purposes. In other words, the majority party can’t just push the Speaker into the Presidency via impeachment (the 25th Amendment lays it out with this line: “Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress”). Since we can’t leave the executive open for the length of time it would take to break the fight over the nominee, someone would have to stay.
That’s not even to mention the fit that the American people would have over something like that.
I get the sentiment, but it’s better suited for Fantasyland.
I would also like to note for the argumentative among you that the above is not a question of the possibility of Congress doing it or whether they should do it or not, this is an argument for why its impossible any way you look at it.
Not having myself been in the military, I don’t have the facts at my fingertips, nor do I have anecdotal evidence.
But the military is very, very firm on three things: (1) You must obey a lawful order from someone above you in the line of command; (2) You must not obey an unlawful order, regardless of who gives it; (3) You must be able to discern the difference, and act accordingly.
There is zero chance that the Bush Administration will get an AUMF against anyone they do not already have one against. I don’t care if they have a notarized statement from Kim Il Sung that he plans to invade Alaska the day after tomorrow, they won’t get it.
If Bush says, “Invade Iran,” the one thing his generals are entitled to say back to him is, “No. That is an unconstitutional order, and we are obliged to disobey.”
As for impeachment, there is not yet enough popular consensus. Popular support, yes. But Nancy Pelosi is a good moderate* practical politician. She would be a fool to repeat the Johnson/Clinton Republican faux pas, on the basis of a small-but-growing leftist call for impeachment. To make it political would be the biggest mistake she could make.
On the other hand, as more and more moderates and moderate conservatives begin to see the real problems associated with the Bush-Cheney Weltanschaaung, and the damage being done to our national institutions by his high-handedness, popular support for impeachment will increase. I do not pretend to prophesy when it will reach the critical point, if ever. But if it does, Pelosi will unleash her impeachment-minded followers and let them have their pleasure. And the closer it gets to the '08 elections, the more likely it is that she’ll get support from Republicans who have tested the national temper and who have to run for reelection, even if Bush doesn’t. (Plus there are no doubt at least a few honest politicians who will do the right thing out of a sense of honor and duty, even if it hurts their party. They seem to be scarce lately, but I’m sure there are still a few around.)
As opposed to extreme; I refuse to answer any hijack about where on the political spectrum she falls.
How about “the Constitution is not a suicide pact”?
That I would normally fully agree with. Because technically, Congress sets policy, and the President theoretically has to go through Congress in order to enact new policy.
The problem here is that we’ve got a President and Vice-President who have refused to make it clear whether they will ask Congress’ permission before getting us into a war with Iran, or possibly some other country.
Whether impeachment is justified under such circumstances depends on whether one believes the risk of going to war with Iran is one that is worth bearing in order to keep impeachment sacrosanct (eight years too late for that, IMHO), or whether one believes that preventing that outcome is sufficiently important to merit impeachment on those grounds alone.
I think it’s fair to say that we have to live with the mistakes they’ve already made, unless they amount to impeachable offenses (and there’s certainly an argument there, but that’s a separate argument from this one); ditto ongoing mistakes of theirs, and even their future mistakes, that they’ve been empowered by Congress to make.
But I can’t see why we must wait for a President to drop the Bomb on Tehran before we impeach. We, the people, through our elected representatives, are the deciders when it comes to policy. If we have sufficient reason to be concerned that the President may do something totally unauthorized and totally crazy, then ISTM that we should prevent that with the means we have available. The only legal means we’ve been given is impeachment. If there were another, I’d be all for that. But there isn’t.
I have no problem at all with what the Constitution actually says, because it’s silent on what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor; that has been left for each generation to decide for itself.
I would claim that what you’re defending here is a particular view of what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor, rather than the Constitution itself. As you’ve said, you “don’t see any high crimes here.” That’s your view. As far as the Constitution is concerned, an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House says it is, as Clinton found out the hard way.
There’s another loose cannon in the arena : the president of Iran. Who is also trying his damnedest to start a war-- as soon as he gets his nukes, (which may be sooner than the 23.6 months mentioned in the OP.)
Me, I’d rather have Bush or McCain in charge of the cannons when it becomes necessary to retaliate.
rtfirefly-you may disagree with me, and you may be genuinely worried that Bush might be nuts. Just remember that there are other loose cannons out there who we know for certain are nuts.
It’s a dangerous world we live in. Impeaching Bush (which will never happen) may delay the war you fear. But please admit that another 9/11 carried out with nukes might change your mind.
(and no, I’m not advocating a pre-emptive strike on Iran. I’m just tired of Bush-haters who think that a nice,safe, peaceful world will appear as soon as he is gone.)
chappachula, in your opinion, is the world (and the US in particular) in a more stable international situation than we were before Bush began the war in Iraq? Or is it in a worse situation? Are tensions higher, mostly because we’ve bulled our way into a tenuously stable region of the world and taken out one of the larger, more secular players?
In other words, if we’d just minded our own damn business with Iraq, we’d not HAVE to worry so much as we do about Iran now. I don’t see how keeping the blinkered, war-mongering idiots who started the whole thing in the first place in power is going to help us all that much.
you may be completely right…But impeaching (or getting rid of) the idiots won’t make us any safer, either. And many Bush-bashers can’t even understand that concept.
The genie is out of the bottle. We need to recognize that, and not hide behind blind theories that we will all be safe, if we can just get the Dems back into power.
We are still facing a clash of civilizations on the scale of the cold war. We won the cold war by patience ,and not by force–but it was patience backed up a strong army, and a commander-in-chief (Reagan) who was willing to use it.
The Democrats will probably win the white house in 2008. The jihadis will interpret that as giving them freedom to act with no fear of military response by America.
That doesnt mean a Democratic president is bad for America- but voting Democratic does not mean that you are making America safer. It means you want to use diplomacy without any military options; Speak softly , but don’t carry a big stick. I hope it works.
No matter how badly Bush & Cheney fuck up congressional Republicans won’t vote to put Pelosi in the Oval Office. Either they’d need to promiss to appoint a suitable Republican caretaker as VP then resign (& convince them she’d follow through) or the House would have to elect a suitable Republican caretaker as Speaker the day the Senate votes.
Right. Because no Democratic President has ever used the military option in time of need. Must be Jackson, Polk, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton were DINOs?
??? How does reducing the level of idiocy in the administration *not * make us safer?
The “blind” theory is the one that caricatures the argument in such a way. :dubious:
Utter bullshit. You’ve bought into another caricature there too, one that cannot withstand even the mildest scrutiny, that Democrats will never use force to defend our nation. Utter, utter bullshit, and gratuitously insulting bullshit at that. ravenman, Nixon went from a historic landslide to a certain impeachment in less time than Bush has had since his second squeaker. Was that improper?
alphaboi, yes, I agree there would have to be a choreographed sequence resulting in the caretaker President being a Republican. The process would never be accepted by We the People otherwise. The problem would be getting Bush to consent to it, and you know how he gets.
First, if he gets his war it’ll probably be because Bush gives it to him. Second, I don’t believe for one moment they’d use nukes if they had them. Iran isn’t nearly that crazy, despite the Right’s use of them as a bogeyman. Third, if they or someone else did set off a nuke in America somehow, you don’t really think a Democrat wouldn’t retaliate ? If anything a Democrat would be more frightening, because they are more likely to go after our actual enemies instead of a third party like Bush and Iraq.
Of course it will. It wil offer us a chance to mend alliances; stop making new enemies; attend to actual security concerns instead of spying on the ACLU or the Democrats; not get in another unnecessary war; leave Iraq;and in general stabilize both America and the world.
Utter garbage. The Soviet union had the power to destroy our civilization; the Islamic fanatics are a trivial danger in comparison. You might as well compare the Mafia to the Soviets.
And damned near got us all killed; the Russians admitted some years back that his mere election was nearly enough to provoke a nuclear first strike by them, out of fear he’d do the same. And he did kill thousands; Reagan was a stupid, irrational man and a monster, just as Bush is a stupid, irrational man and a monster.
Garbage again; that’s what they interpeted Bush’s victory as. Well, worse than that; they knew that Bush would do everything in his power to help them, and he has.
Oh, nonsense, the Democrats are perfectly willing to use military force. And they are more likely to go after our actual threats, instead of torturing and killing and raping and looting and destroying nearly at random, which is what the Republicans do.
The first rule of digging a hole is: When you realize it’s gotten too deep, you put down your shovel and stop digging. This administration has never met a shovel they didn’t want to use faster and longer than the last one.
Well, you said exactly what I was thinking when I read the OP. Exactly.
Impeaching someone for something you think he might do in the future is beyond the pale. It’s unconstitutional and completely contrary to our system of government. The war in Iraq, as fucked up as it is, was approved by Congress. And let us not forget that Bush was re-elected after that failed policy had been put into effect. No, what the OP is asking for is to subvert the constitution for purely political reasons.
The proper thing for Congress to do is not to impeach Bush, but to revoke the AUMF. Bush might veto that, but I think if Congress puts a firm deadline for some reasonable time in the future (12 -18 months), that it might able to pull it off-- especially if it’s tied to a defunding measure. Revoke the AUMF, and lead some massive demonstrations in DC every damn day until Bush agrees to get us out of there.
As I pointed out a caretaker President could be installed without Bush’s involvement. Either the House could elect a Republican Speaker (who doesn’t even have to be a member) who’d automatically act as President if Bush/Cheney were removed or Pelosi would appoint a Republican as VP and then resign. Rice could prove a problem. She could declare herself President on the grounds that the Speaker and President pro term aren’t constitutionally eligable to succeed to the Presidency. SCOTUS would need to weigh in. It would make for some damn interesting newscasts.
Really, RTF, how in the hell do you figure that is legal to impeach someone for a possible future act? Where do you get that from the constitution?
Every president in recent history, except maybe Carter, used military force w/o the approval of Congress. I hate to bring up “Clinton did it, too”, but… well, Clinton did, too! In fact, it’s not even proper to say “too”, because Bush did have Congressional authority to invade Iraq. Should Clinton have been impeached and removed from office for bombing Iraq or for bombing the hell out of Serbia?
Bush is a terrible President. But his actions have not rose to the impeachment level. And Cheney’s certainly have not. An impeachment attempt against either man would be the same kind of partisan attack that the attempt to impeach Clinton was.
What Congress needs to do is start using its legitimate powers to control the executive branch.
You might want to rethink your standard. Setting the bar on Presidential instability at “has nuclear weapons and invades Iraq” raises some awkward issues.
to invade someone’s country, chase him down and have him executed, destroy the nation he ruled, and kill hundreds if not thousands of his citizens. I see. Maybe you guys should learn how to duck, then, in case the rest of the world uses your logic on you. :rolleyes:
Anyway, as people have pointed out more than once, the impeachment is about the lies Bush and the Bushites have told and the laws they have broken.
