I seriously think the US is in danger of moving back to the days of 17th/18th century England. For a while, especially in the reign of Queen Anne, it was customary for the members of each outgoing administration to be impeached by the incoming one, as Lord Harley was by the triumphant Whigs at the time of Anne’s death and the accession of George I.
Impeachment should be reserved for ‘high crimes and misdemeanours’, not political differences.
Violating a law passed by Congress is a civil offense and not criminal? I’ll take you at your word on this as IANAL but seems odd. Either way he was “breaking” a law.
As for Clinton “perjury” (or rather “perjurious”) was definitely in the Articles of Impeachment against him. Sure seems like they used the word to me.
And Glenn Beck is an honorable man…
Impeachement is the American version of a vote of no confidence. It wasn’t designed to be, but it is.
Going by Wiki, it isn’t clear he even violated it.
:shrug: Bricker also said “and can prove”.
Now don’t get all wee-wee’d up over it.
No, it isn’t. Name one time that impeachment was seriously discussed for a president due to policy differences or unpopularity.
Um, the aforementioned Andrew Johnson.
Drat…beaten to it.
What he said.
Still, that’s once in two-hundred years, and as stated above, even then Congress felt it needed to come up with at least the appearance of finding a crime rather then just being honest and saying they hated the guy.
I don’t think it’s really accurate to say that its become a “vote of no confidence”.
Actually I’d say Clinton falls in this category too. He was guilty of perjury but it was a witch hunt that went on for years to finally “get” him for really little more reason than the Repubs didn’t like him.
I would also say there is room for a vote of no confidence (in essence). Hypothetically suppose the president has a psychotic break while in office and literally becomes batshit crazy (and refuses to resign). While he may not have broken any laws I would hope Congress would see to his removal.
Twice, if you consider (as you must) the environment and context of the Clinton impeachment. Four, if you count the failed votes against Jackson.
It isn’t. That’s just a vote to declare the PM incompetent, not a grave danger to the nation.
Congress passed a law, which I believe is unconstitutional, and Johnson violated it. Was the law passed because Johnson was unpopular? Yes. But the fact remains that Johnson violated a (crappy) law. That was the basis of impeachment.
Actually, Section 5 and Section 6 of the Tenure of Office Act do specify that violations of the Act will be considered “high misdemeanors.” Given that the primary focus of the Act dealt with presidential hire/fire power for executive office positions, this language was undoubtedly designed with impeachment in mind.
For a violation of a law to be criminal, it must specify criminal penalties should the law not be followed. If a law doesn’t include this, then violating the law may be illegal, but wouldn’t necessarily be criminal (unless one could argue or prove that violating the law involved committing another recognized criminal act).
Well, you wouldn’t have to impeach. There are procedures already set up to remove power from the President due to illness and the like.
Stupid fast-posting thread. That reply is to Whack-A-Mole.
The actual definition of impeachment in the Constitution really is irrelevant. It seems to me that to your average American, impeachment just means “removal of the president from office”. Hell, even with the Clinton Impeachment within the adult lives of most Americans, people still don’t seem to know what the process is or even why he was impeached.
So I think the “Impeach Obama” sticker really just means “I think Obama is a bad president.” As for whether or not he’s done anything impeachable, even the hardcore Obama haters I know don’t have anything on which to base an impeachment, they’ll say he’s ruining the country or birther stuff, but that’s about it. Besides, it’s a Democratic Congress; he’d have to do something pretty obviously bad to get impeached.
Tenure of Office Act Sec. 5 provided a penalty of a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both, for any person attempting to take office in violation of its terms.
On its surface, this would apply only to the putative new officeholder, not the President. But the common law of conspiracy would allow the prosecution of another person who jointly planned to violate the law.
Of course, a similar law was later found unconstitutional. But at the time, it’s clear that the Tenure of Office Act was criminal in nature.
Yeah but I doubt that covers just crazy.
Say the president decides to stay perpetually on vacation. Or just flatly refuses to sign any Bill…at all. He’s still walking and talking but abdicated his responsibilities (which is not actually illegal AFAIK).
How else would you get him out except impeachment?
But thankfully, Minnesota leans heavily Democratic fl.
Clinton was accused of perjury in his Senate trial and it was also suggested by Starr that he could be indicted. He was acquitted by the Senate, which is the only time anyone bothered to indict him for perjury. Nailed implies a conviction.