Could you cite an example where Bush went to war without securing the consent of Congress?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Shodan
The issue of whether the United States should have a parliamentary government is a whole different debate. But at the moment we don’t - we have a President who is chosen by general elections not acts of Congress.
No, but I can cite an example wherein that consent was gained under false premises. No need to thank me.
That’s why the specific charge has to be about something he’s already done. Even if the underlying reason is to prevent him from doing it again, establishing factually that he’s done it before has to be the charge, and that can be defended against if there’s a defense case available to be made.
Look where it is now. How much lower could it get?
Now I’m really confused. Has the United States invaded Iran? Because that’s what I thought we we’re talking about. I must have been confused by the thread title which is “Bush/Cheney Simulpeachment: to Pre-Empt a War With Iran” - that would seem to imply a plan to impeach Bush and Cheney for something that hasn’t happened yet.
If you want to discuss impeaching Bush for invading Iraq, you might be able to make a case. But I’m guessing there’s a few people in Congress that don’t want to raise that issue because they’re worried about being listed as co-defendants.
What is the purpose of impeachment? Not punishment, surely; there is no punishment involved in informing someone that they no longer hold an office.
Not to remove from office anyone who has ever made a mistake. By that standard, every President, Vice President, Cabinet officer, and Federal judge who has ever served, except William Henry Harrison and Rufus King the younger, should have been impeached and removed from office, because they all made some mistake at some time during their term.
Rather, it is to remove an incumbent from his office when by malfeasance, nonfeasance, incompetence, or declining faculties, he becomes manifestly unfit to hold that office. What we use to judge this is past performance. But the reason we remove him is to prevent a continuance of such malfeasance, nonfeasance, incompetence, or declining faculties in the future, and to bestow the office on somone able to carry out its duties in accordance with law.
This is not necessarily and specifically to argue that Messrs. Bush and Cheney are in fact guilty of crimes rising to impeachable level, on which reasonable men can hold differing opinions. It is to make clear the purpose and function of impeachment as a general rule.
If Sylvester T. Katz is serving as a Federal district judge, say in the Northwest, and is demonstrably taking payoffs from lumber companies and rendering decisions manifestly favoring them and in direct violation of Federal law governing the cases in question, Judge Katz should be removed from office and prosecuted. Prosecuted for the crimes he has already committed; removed to hold him open to prosecution and to prevent him from continuing to commit such crimes.
The same holds true for any officeholder outside Congress, up to and including the President. (As noted above, impeachment does not apply to Senators and Representatives; they are instead removed by a simpler procedure, the ability of the house of Congress in which they serve to be the sole judge [other than the voters, of course, at the end of a term] of the qualifications of its members.)
But the point is: we impeach on the basis of past misdeeds – but we impeach for the purpose of preventing continuing future misdeeds.
This part of your argument falls apart when you look at the text of the Constitution and also when you consider the debate at the Constitutional Convention about what impeachment should be about.
The Constitution, of course, does not list malfeasance, incompetence, or senility, or any other general fitness test as the grist for impeachment. The Constitution says “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” How you get from specific crimes to “we don’t like you anymore” is just beyond me.
Also, according to the link that ElvisL1ves provided earlier, the Constitutional Conventioneers specifically rejected the proposal that impeachment be based upon “malpractice or neglect of duty.” To quote,
I don’t understand how you can say that impeachment proceedings are intended for acts which the Framers specifically rejected impeachment.
Let me just add one other point: for those who believe that impeachment is based upon whatever a majority of the House says it is, the statement itself is slightly ironic because when Gerald Ford uttered it, the House then failed to impeach Justice Douglas from the Supreme Court. And while the topic is still debatable, there’s a fair amount of evidence to suggest that Ford was pursuing the impeachment more for personal or ideological reasons, rather than because of there being any evidence that Douglas violated the law.
You’re getting funnier by the minute, Elvis!
John, if you have anything substantive to say, please feel free to begin to contribute it. :rolleyes:
ravenman, yes, the basis for impeachment is indeed whatever Congress wants it to be. There is *no * check and balance on it. What the framers (ordinary men doing their best, no need for capitalization as if they were gods, okay?) said in debate is, as I’ve said repeatedly, of historical interest only. The “meaning of the Constitution” includes its both its’ clear text and the interpretations accreted onto it over the centuries, and for impeachment, that includes a lot. Reasons for impeachment do include “high crimes and misdemeanors” that were never charged, as Clinton’s case shows. “High crimes and misdemeanors” for which a President can be impeached includes making derogatory speeches about Congress, as Andrew Johnson’s case shows. But the underlying reason, one which the Constitutional Convention may not have debated because it was simply understood, is to remove an unfit officeholder from office for the protection of the nation, just as imprisoning a violent criminal is intended (among other things) to protect society from someone with a proclivity to commit violent crimes.
You don’t have to agree, but don’t claim the argument doesn’t exist.
To claim that a President can be impeached for minor crimes associated with a sex scandal cover up, but that a President cannot be legitimately impeached for incompetence and malfeasance makes a mockery of the Constitution. Might as well say the framers were morons, drooling into thier oatmeal while they created a structure that will protect us from a horndog Chief Executive but not from a war mongering idjit.
Define “other high crimes or misdemeanors.” Show evidence that that is what the FF meant by the term. Otherwise, allow Congress to do its job and interpret the phrase as it deems proper – the House as the “grand jury equivalent” passing impeachments, the Senate as the Court for the Trial of Impeachments.
I may, and in fact do, disapprove vehemently of the grounds on which the Republicans in Congress impeached William Jefferson Clinton. I defent equally vehemently their right to do it under the Constitution.
Stop it, please, you’re absolutely killing me! I’m in stitches!!!
Malfeasance means an illegal act by a public official. I think that comes under “high crimes and misdemeanors”. In fact, it would seem to be synonymous. No?
Malfeasance is, as I said above, easily covered by the text of the constitution. I’m curious, though, what part of the text you get “incompetence” from. Can you quote it for us?
Looking forward to:
Tighty righty poster: “…as well as the utterly unConstitutional removal of GeeDubya from the Presidency…”
Me: “Well, that’s all in the past now, you guys should just get over it. And let me help you out a bit here, some kindly advice: this kind of thing is just exactly why you guys never win any elections…”
Better than sex. Well, better than some sex.
As well as somewhat redundant. Wonder why? Unless, of course, to the framers the two phrases were not as synonymous as they are to us.
You evade my point. Your literalist interpretation presents us with an absurdity, that a President can be impeached for the commission of a crime, however trivial, but cannot be impeached for the misperformance of his duties. It impugns the Constitution and its framers by suggesting that they were stupid enough to either overlook misperformance, or, worse still, condone it with a special immunity. This from men with a very special understanding of the arrogance of a stupid leader (by coincidence, also George).
It is famously suggested that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I agree, apparently, you do not.
I take friend Poly’s point well: that the Congress is empowered to decide such as this. Let them, then. And if George is removed, we can breathe easy while we squabble over the semantic nit-pickery of the literalist mind.
I’ve supplied cites in this thread for the meaning of all three phrases: High crimes, high misdemeanors, and malfeasance. If you have other cites about their meaning that conflict with mine, I’d love to see them.
Or, perhaps they just understood that we had elections every 4 years to take care of that. A process, if you remember your history, that the other George did not have to worry about. The framers were smart men. If they wanted a president to be impeached for “incompetence”, I see no reason to assume that they wouldn’t have thought to put it in. You are, of course, free to lead the charge to amend the constitution to include that offense.
You may have an irrational fear of dying because Bush is president, but I don’t.
I’m cool with that. And I’m quite confident that 2/3 of the Senators will not read the constitution as you do.
Bullpucky. You’d rather drink poison. Don’t kid a kidder, John
As always, I defer to your vast erudition. Thought I heard about something called a “Parliament”? A figment of my sparse education, no doubt.
And, once again, your literalist mind traps you in an absurdity. Can you really mean to suggest that the Framers, these “smart men”, intentionally excluded issues of competence? Why, in the name of Paine? Why would they place us in a position wherein we can remove a criminal, but not a dangerous fool?
I’m happy for you. Meds, or sublime optimism?
Could we get done with the issue of whether or not they can, and then perhaps fiddle with whether or not they will?
Are you calling me a liar? Look, your posts are typically long on opinion and short on cites. I would genuinely like to see you back your opinions more often with cites.
Your point being…? I wasn’t aware that Parliament held elections for kings every four years.
Once again an opinion without a cite.
The term “high misdemeanor” can be interpreted as “maladministration”, but that’s more along the lines of deliberately using public office for ill purposes. Bush’s misadventure in Iraq could certainly fall under that term, but that still wouldn’t be “incompetence.”
I’m open to a wager about that if you think I’m wrong. If you’re interested, I’ll deposit money in an escrow account just in case I’m wrong. I’ll be happy to give you odds, too.
Oh, that’s been covered in many threads. They won’t. I’m open to a wager on that, too, btw. And just in case you’re worried, the kids have all the shoes they need. 
And so you stick by your position that the Constitution permits impeachment for petty crimes, but draws a line providing a special sanctuary for the incompetent? What if the President starts biting the heads off of bats during press conferences, and drinks their blood. Will you stand there and tell us that so long as bat exsanguination is not a crime, he should remain? And that such a special protection is clearly the Framer’s intent?
Such a deal! If GeeDubya gets me killed, I collect! Maybe, I’ll think about it. If I win, they bury it with me! Every dime! Spite from beyond the grave is perfectly in line with my character.
Probably not. Different argument. Used to be impossible, now, just unlikely. But the tide turneth.
Until you can show that otherwise, yes. And when I say “show” I don’t mean give your opinion. The constitution says what it says-- not what you want it to say.
There are plenty of good reasons to exclude “incompetence” from the impeachment process. Was the miserable economy we had during Carter’s term due to his incompetence? I’m sure many Republicans would have argued that it was. The impeachment process is political enough as it is without making it more so.
That would be sooooooo rad!
Yep. Unless that were part of a pattern of behavior that could trigger invoking article II section 1, clause 6 of the constitution (emphasis added):
Look, the constitution is quite clear about what the grounds of impeachment for the president should be. Note that it sets a different standard for judges, more along the lines of what you are thinking. Did the Founders put this in for judges, but “forget” to put it in for the president (my emphasis)?
Uhm, the bet is over what we were discussing-- my demise, not yours.
Well, anything is possible. But let’s remember that impeachment does mean diddly unless you can get 2/3 of the Senate to vote for removal of office.
Please, please, please offer any kind of validation of your opinion by someone in a position of knowledge or authority. Seriously, what good is the Constitution if both the text and the intent can be disregarded at the drop of a hat?
I’m still mystified at how you get from “plain text” to “Congress can do anything it wants.” It just doesn’t make sense to argue that the plain text means anything under the sun, because the plain text clearly is linked to wrongdoing; and then argue that the text doesn’t matter because Congress can do anything it wants. So which is it?
Your opinion about what happened at the Constitutional convention would hold more water if you could actually prove what you’re arguing. You seem to go to extraordinary lengths not to provide any evidence of what you’re saying.
There’s also a case that people can tell the future by examining sheep entrails. I acknowledge that the argument exists, but I go on to say it is pretty much without proof.
Did you see my citation earlier in which it is shown that “malpractice or neglect of duty” was rejected by the Framers as a matter for impeachment? Now, of course, there’s the 25th Amendment so we don’t have to be burdened with a senile president if the Cabinet thinks he’s gone off his rocker.
Instead of trying to get John and me to disprove your claims, why don’t you come up with some proof that your views on impeachment have some grounding in the law?