Can doing nothing be grounds for impeachment?

[Blalron]

Say there’s a huge natural disaster or terrorist attack, and the President of the United States just sits on his ass and does nothing… and I do mean NOTHING, in response. Let’s say he’s busy playing tetris, or the guitar, and completely ignores his aids requests for orders.

What can Congress do? Impeach him? Would this technically be a “high crime or misdemeanor”? And if not, what remedy could the american people have for a leader who refuses to lead?

[Jonathan_Chance]

I’d be surprised if that were an impeachable offense, though maybe on the grounds of ‘inability to perform the office’ the President could be removed. And I suppose it might have applied to Wilson after his stroke if his staff (and wife) hadn’t taken the reins in hand.

In any event, I’d think we’d see Congressional leaders filling the gap as they can. Certainly the Speaker of the House can command vast resources if the President doesn’t intervene.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Blalron

What can Congress do? Impeach him? Would this technically be a “high crime or misdemeanor”? And if not, what remedy could the american people have for a leader who refuses to lead?

If the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet determine that the President is unable to execute his duties (or unwilling, which amounts to the same thing), they can have him removed until such time as he is capable of reassuming those duties. It’s not impeachment, but it’s also putting the burden on the President to demonstrate to the Congress within three weeks that he is capable of returning to office, otherwise the Vice President will continue on indefinitely as Acting President. This is according to Amendment XXV, Section 4.

It is not entirely certain as to how this would all work because it’s never happened. For instance, if you are Acting President for 3 years can you run for your own 2 terms? There does not seem to be a mechanism for promoting the Vice President permanently to the position of President, barring the resignation or death of the sitting President.

[Psycho_Pirate]

@Blalron

Say there’s a huge natural disaster or terrorist attack, and the President of the United States just sits on his ass and does nothing… and I do mean NOTHING, in response. Let’s say he’s busy playing tetris, or the guitar, and completely ignores his aids requests for orders.

What a nightmare scenario! Let’s hope this never happens.

Because it sure hasn’t happened yet…

[Smapti]

Given that there’s nothing in the Constitution or US law requiring the president to do anything in response to a natural disaster (and what was Teddy Roosevelt doing during the Great San Francisco earthquake, for that matter?), I don’t see how it could be a high crime or a failure of his oath of office. What we’d like the president to do is seldom the same as what the president is legally obligated to do.

[BobLibDem]

@Airman Doors

If the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet determine that the President is unable to execute his duties (or unwilling, which amounts to the same thing), they can have him removed until such time as he is capable of reassuming those duties. It’s not impeachment, but it’s also putting the burden on the President to demonstrate to the Congress within three weeks that he is capable of returning to office, otherwise the Vice President will continue on indefinitely as Acting President. This is according to Amendment XXV, Section 4.

I’m not entirely sure if unwilling = unable. I think a president could say the he could be removed for being unable to do his job, but he has a right to inaction.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

How about depraved indifference?

a person is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of that person [or of a third person].

Some of the terms used in this definition have their own special meaning in our law. I will now give you the meaning of the following terms: “recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person” and “depraved indifference to human life.”

A person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another when he or she:
engages in conduct which creates a grave and unjustifiable risk that another person’s death will occur,

and when he or she is aware of and consciously disregards that risk,

and when that risk is of such nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Smapti

(and what was Teddy Roosevelt doing during the Great San Francisco earthquake, for that matter?)

It looks like he placed the city under martial law, sent troops to police the city and shoot looters, and also turned down foreign aid. He also named the American Red Cross the official relief agency and told San Francisco that they couldn’t discriminate against Chinese in providing relief.

[RyJae]

@Captain Amazing

It looks like he placed the city under martial law, sent troops to police the city and shoot looters, and also turned down foreign aid. He also named the American Red Cross the official relief agency and told San Francisco that they couldn’t discriminate against Chinese in providing relief.

Acknowledging that large numbers of people, many of them stranded tourists, would be unable to leave, the city set up 10 places of last resort for people to go, including the Superdome.

The mayor called the order unprecedented and said anyone who could leave the city should. He exempted hotels from the evacuation order because airlines had already cancelled all flights.
**
Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding**…

Link
*bolding mine.

So do you think they should impeach the mayor, and praise the president for saving perhaps thousands of lives? I blame Katrina for killing these people, for now. There will be plenty of time to sort the blame for this piss poor management of the disaster relief. Bush I am sure will share this blame. But can we not wait until after everything gets on track to find out why it jumped the tracks?

[Bricker]

@Hentor the Barbarian

How about depraved indifference?

From your own quote: engages in conduct which creates a grave and unjustifiable risk that another person’s death will occur…

The OP’s hypothetical posits a total inaction. That’s not “engaging in conduct.”

To use another example: you walk by a lake in which someone is drowning. You’re right next to a life preserver and an emergency phone. You do nothing.

You are not guilty of any crime.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Abbie Normal

So do you think they should impeach the mayor, and praise the president for saving perhaps thousands of lives?

If that was to me, I don’t think anybody should be impeached for this. I was just talking about what Teddy Roosevelt did in relation to the San Francisco Earthquake.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@BobLibDem

I’m not entirely sure if unwilling = unable. I think a president could say the he could be removed for being unable to do his job, but he has a right to inaction.

He can still be removed from power pending review of the Congress. He can be removed by the VP and the Cabinet for farting in bed, but if they can’t make it stick with the Congress then we have a Constitutional crisis.

I am optimistic enough to believe that indifference under certain circumstances would be upheld by the Congress. The government cannot and should not be held captive by a madman.

[ElvisL1ves]

Cause for impeachment can be whatever the House collectively decides it is. It’s a *political * process, not a legal one. The intent is to provide for the protection of the government from an elected officeholder who presents such an “imminent threat” to it that it can’t wait for the next election, and the people’s elected representatives do it instead. Severe neglect of duty might certainly be adequate political grounds for undertaking the political effort and political risk.

[Blalron]

@ElvisL1ves

Cause for impeachment can be whatever the House collectively decides it is. It’s a *political * process, not a legal one. The intent is to provide for the protection of the government from an elected officeholder who presents such an “imminent threat” to it that it can’t wait for the next election, and the people’s elected representatives do it instead. Severe neglect of duty might certainly be adequate political grounds for undertaking the political effort and political risk.

The upside is that any decision by the Senate to convict, no matter how dubious the grounds, would be unreviewable by any court. How does “Dereliction of Duty” sound?

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@ElvisL1ves

Cause for impeachment can be whatever the House collectively decides it is. It’s a *political * process, not a legal one. The intent is to provide for the protection of the government from an elected officeholder who presents such an “imminent threat” to it that it can’t wait for the next election, and the people’s elected representatives do it instead. Severe neglect of duty might certainly be adequate political grounds for undertaking the political effort and political risk.

Does lying about a personal matter such as an affair count as an “imminent threat”?

[ElvisL1ves]

I said that was the intent of the provision. But I also said that grounds are whatever the House wants to be grounds.

Even if it’s only by the opposition party in the House as long as it has a bare, whippable majority, and even if it’s during a lame-duck session with no functioning Speaker to provide adult supervision, with several members already fired by the voters for saying they were going to do it. That’s why the Senate has to weigh in, too, although the adulthood of its own supervision is not always clear.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Blalron

The upside is that any decision by the Senate to convict, no matter how dubious the grounds, would be unreviewable by any court. How does “Dereliction of Duty” sound?

Who needs the Senate? The Cabinet can invoke the 2th Amendment, vote the President incapacitated, and have the same effect. The scriptwriters on “24” wouldn’t make that shit up, would they?

[ElvisL1ves]

Er, 25th Amendment.

[Blalron]

@ElvisL1ves

Who needs the Senate? The Cabinet can invoke the 2th Amendment

I wonder what the Secret Service would have to say about that.

[John_Mace]

@ElvisL1ves

Cause for impeachment can be whatever the House collectively decides it is. It’s a *political * process, not a legal one. The intent is to provide for the protection of the government from an elected officeholder who presents such an “imminent threat” to it that it can’t wait for the next election, and the people’s elected representatives do it instead. Severe neglect of duty might certainly be adequate political grounds for undertaking the political effort and political risk.

Yep, that’s exactly right. “High crimes and misdemeanors” can be whatever the House decides it is. We should remember, though, that impeachment is not removal from office. Clinton was impeached, but the Senate voted not to convict.

Also, it’s not only the President who can be impeached. Congressmen, SCOTUS Justices, Federal Judges all can be (and have been) impeached. If it’s anyone but the Prez, the VP precides over the hearings in the Senate. For the Prez, of course, it’s the Chief Justice.