"Illinois State Legislature to Impeach Bush" - Is this real?

[fighting_ignorant]

PLease please please let’s not make this a great debate. Or even a little debate

I am however quite curious about this story:

Bush Impeachment - The Illinois State Legislature is Preparing to Drop a Bombshell :

Representative Yarbrough stumbled on a little known and never utlitized rule of the US House of Representatives, Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature. From there, Illinois House Joint Resolution 125 (hereafter to be referred to as HJR0125) was born.

I have yet to see a mainstream news organization run this story… what’s the Straight Dope? Is this for real?

[Diceman]

@fighting ignorant

I have yet to see a mainstream news organization run this story… what’s the Straight Dope? Is this for real?

I think you’ve answered your own question. If this was for real, don’t you think it would be a bit more prominent in the media?

[groman]

@fighting ignorant

I have yet to see a mainstream news organization run this story… what’s the Straight Dope? Is this for real?

I suppose state legislature can do whatever the fuck it wants, but what legal standing would such a proceding hold? It’s not a state is allowed to not recognize the POTUS as a POTUS. They can’t secede. Sounds like complete nonsense to me.

[fighting_ignorant]

Well, at least it seems to be somewhat real… Here’s a lonk from the Illinois legislature:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=125&GAID=8&DocTypeID=HJR&LegId=25794&SessionID=50&GA=94

[drewbert]

Here seems to be the relevant passage from Jefferson’s Rules, with distracting section number stuff edited out, and a little emphasis edited in:

In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House.

Now whether that has any real force to it, or if there are easy ways around it, or if anyone is really going to try this, I wouldn’t know.

[friedo]

Here’s the actual text of Illinois Joint Resolution 150:

RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
NINETY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE
SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the General Assembly of the
State of Illinois has good cause to submit charges to the U. S.
House of Representatives under Section 603 that the President
of the United States has willfully violated his Oath of Office
to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States; and be it further

RESOLVED, That George W. Bush, if found guilty of the
charges contained herein, should be removed from office and
disqualified to hold any other office in the United States.

The text of the resolution refers to “Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of the Rules of
the United States House of Representatives.” The document in question can be found on the GPO website here. § 603 (page 303) states:

In the House of Representatives there are various methods of setting
an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the
floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II,
1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536);
by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually
referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364,
2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543); or by a resolution dropped in the
hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941–
42; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a message from the President (III, 2294,
2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III,
2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or from
facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House
(III, 2399, 2444).

So that’s what the Illinois folks are using as the basis for their resolution. In the unlikely event that the Illinois resolution ever makes it out of committee, the House has no obligation to act on it unless it wants to.

[Kent_Clark]

I have to ask: so what?

So the Illinois legislature calls for impreachment. They could also call for war on Wisconsin.

And what does “initiated” mean? IANA consitutional authority, but I’m guessing the most it could mean is that a House bill gets introduced without a sponsor’s name attached to it. A bill of impeachment would be assigned to a committee (if I recall, the Judiciary Committee) for study.

And, since Republicans currently hold the House, every committee is headed by a Republican.

Just for the record, I once again point out that impeachment does not equal removal from office. An official who is impeached by the House must be tried by the Senate. Conviction and removal from office requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

[Squink]

At Yahoo: Impeachment From Below: Legislators Lobby Congress

Outside the Beltway, legislators are far more comfortable with censure and impeachment – at least in the state of Vermont. Sixty-nine Vermont legislators, 56 members of the state House and 14 members of the Senate, have signed a letter urging Congress to initiate investigations to determine if censure or impeachment of members of the administration might be necessary.
…
There’s no question that Vermont is in the lead, but legislators in other states are also exploring their options for pressuring Congress to act on articles of impeachment. A trio of Democratic state representatives in Illinois – Karen A. Yarbrough and Sara Feigenholtz from the Chicago area and Eddie Washington from Waukegan – have introduced a measure similar to the one Zuckerman is preparing in Vermont.

[Rhubarb]

When the Texas legislature calls for Bush’s impeachment, then I’ll be willing to put some cash into the office pool on when formal impeachment procedures are started.

But as kunilou pointed out, the current flap from Illinois and Vermont is fairly meaningless. It is likely just pre-election political posturing. Even if enough seats in the House and Senate swing left this November, this is still not going to mean much. While his approval ratings are quite low, that does not equate to the widespread voter outrage needed to push the Senate into voting for removal.

[Squink]

@Rhubarb

But as kunilou pointed out, the current flap from Illinois and Vermont is fairly meaningless.

This opinion, comforting as some may find it, is completely irrelevant to the OP’s factual query.
The answer to the GQ here is YES, the story is real.

[scm1001]

It is going before the Californian State leglislature too
http://www.democrats.com/node/8696

[vetbridge]

@kunilou

So the Illinois legislature calls for impreachment. They could also call for war on Wisconsin.

Damn! There go cheese prices.

[Sequent]

Literally five minutes after reading this thread, I saw this story on CNN (Jack Cafferty, uh, “reporting”). Apparently there’s a similar initiative in Vermont and one other state whose name I didn’t hear. It’s mainstream, baby.

[brianmelendez]

The Illinois resolution is essentially equivalent to a motion introduced by a representative. It is a legitimate proposal for action, but it goes nowhere without political support from the House leadership or from a substantial insurgency within the House ranks.