The OP is proposing impeachment. The burden is on him to establish that Rove is, in fact, a civil officer. I haven’t seen a definition of that term, but I can’t accept that it’s simply anyone who works for the president.
So you and Mr. Moto and John Mace would be PERFECTLY OK if a Democratic politicial type did the same thing during a Dem presidential election?
Or are you just wanting to get your ducks in order before you join in a move against Rove?
He’s not a military officer.
If the Secretary of War can be impeached, why can’t Karl Rove? Neither the Secretary of War nor the Cabinet are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as “civil officers.” The Constitution empowers the President to appoint people to head various executive departments to advise and assist him, but it does not name those departments or duties.
It seems to be Cheney-like weaseling to say that the Secretary of War counts as an appointed executive officer because he heads a department, but Karl Rove doesn’t count because he isn’t head of any particular department per se.
Got a cite on that?
I refer you to the comment I made some time ago.
^
|
|
Normally, I’d agree with you. But this Administration clearly isn’t going to prosecute one of its own.
Besides, the fundamental offense here is political, not statutory. The Cabinet departments and lesser but similarly situated agencies aren’t supposed to be part of a political machine. Of course every Administration makes policy choices based on politics, but this is straight-up briefings on partisan electoral politics. There’s no ambiguity here at all. Hatch Act or no Hatch Act, this is just one more move into banana-republic territory.
I have made no judgement one way or the other. I’m simply trying to establish if Rove is impeachable first. That has not yet been accomplished.
Then let’s do it, put it before the American people, and let them decide. Much as I appreciate the continued concern on the part of SDMB conservatives for the well-being of the Democratic Party, I get a bit suspicious when their concern arises almost exclusively when the Dems consider taking a strong position against the GOP. Which, of late, is when the Dems have been most popular.
That may or may not be true. When you provide a decent cite, I will believe the cite. It’s kinda like “trust, but verify,” except without the trust.
You realize that has zero to do with this discussion.
Shoulda quoted:
Okay. So the first half of the discussion is: By tradition, impeachment is reserved for an office which requires Senate confirmation.
The second half is now, “Is it limited to said office, or is any civil officer possibly subject to it?”
And the third half is, who are the civil officers?
Regards,
Shodan
And yet who in recent years was actually impeached, and under what circumstances?
Like Scooter Libby?
Then I’d disagree with impeachment. Impeachment should be about treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors, not political disputes.
I’ve shown three examples where the House seriously considered impeachment of lower-ranking civil officers (but did not ultimately pull the trigger). RTFirefly has shown a legal definition of “civil officers” that includes anyone working for the executive branch can be impeached, whether they are in the “highest or lowest” departments.
In rebuttal, we’ve heard: 1) a Stephen Colbertism “impeachment doesn’t feel right” for lower-level officers, 2) an incoherent argument that “civil officers” doesn’t always mean “civilians in responsible positions in the government” (I am parsing words there), 3) the fact that lower-level employees have not yet been impeached, or 4) warnings about political fallout.
1 & 2, in my mind, should be dismissed immediately because nothing of substance has been offered to support those positions. 3 would call into question any Constitutional provision that hasn’t yet been exercised (there hasn’t been a Constitutional convention called by the states yet, so it can’t happen). 4 is a point I agree with but has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitutional power at issue.
As a Democrat, I’m not going to sign up to every ill-conceived idea just because it “takes a strong position against the GOP.” The merits of the idea must be considered. While I’m increasingly convinced that there is no bar whatsoever to Congress impeaching anyone in the Executive Branch, the dog and pony show of trying to impeach Karl Rove is just below ridiculous in my view. If he broke the law, he should be arrested, but not understanding what these briefings were all about, I just have no clue whether he did or not.
Based on the discussion above, I’m inclined now to agree that Rove is a legally- appropriate subject for an impeachment proceeding.
I hadn’t seen the quote when I posted that. I think it’s reasonable, given RTF’s cite, that Rove is impeachable.
If the Dems want to pursue this, that is their perogative. If it looks like a crime has clearly been committed, and Bush won’t prosecute, than impeachment might be the appropriate action. But I’m not an advocate of impeachment for the sake of impeachment (ie, in cases like this when a conviction clearly won’t occur). That goes for both parties. I don’t want the situation to arise where every time the Congres and the presidency are controlled by different parties, we will get impeachment efforts. That’s exactly where I would see us headed if the Dems did decide to go forward.
I would disagree. Article II, Section 4 provides that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office” on impeachment and conviction. This implies that all civil “Officers” may be removed.
This, of course leads to the question of what is an officer. The appointment clause in Article II, Section 2 sheds some light on this, providing that:
[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. This divides federal “Officers” into two classes, superior officers requiring Senate confirmation and “inferior Officers” who may, by law, be appointed by the President, heads of departments or courts.
The question of which executive branch civil employees are “Officers” has not been exhaustively determined, but the Supreme Court has held in Buckley v. Valeo ,424 U.S. 1, 127 n.163 (1976):“Officers of the United States” does not include all employees of the United States, but there is no claim made that the Commissioners are employees of the United States rather than officers. Employees are lesser functionaries subordinate to officers of the United States, see Auffmordt v. Hedden, 137 U.S. 310, 327 (1890); United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879), whereas the Commissioners, appointed for a statutory term, are not subject to the control or direction of any other executive, judicial, or legislative authority.
This raises the question of whether Carl Rove (who did not require Senate confirmation) is an “inferior Officer” or mere “lesser functionary employee.” On a common sense level, there is little chance anyone would consider him to be a mere lesser functionary, but rather an occupant of a high level policy post.
I don’t know exactly the law that authorizes the position he holds, but I expect that it is either 3 USC 105 or 107, which authorize White House Office staff, Domestic Policy staff and Administrative staff. Under those sections, the President is authorized to “appoint and fix the pay of” various White House functionaries, including many at high level Executive Schedule or General Schedule pay scales. In addition to these specific “appointment” clauses, section 107(2) provides that: “In addition to any authority granted under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the President (or his designee) is authorized to employ individuals in the Office of Administration in accordance with section 3101 of title 5 and provisions relating thereto.” 5 USC 3101 provides generally that federal agencies may employ such employees as covered by Congressional appropriations.
Because Karl Rove was appointed to a high-level political post in the White House President, and is not a mere civil-service employee serving there, it is almost certain that he he would be considered to be an “inferior Officer” in an office Congress designated by law as subject to Presidential appointment only, without the need for Senate confirmation. As a “civil Officer of the United States”, he may be removed from office after impeachment and conviction under Article II, sec. 4.
Just for clarification - did you think there was a chance that Pres. Clinton would be convicted?
No, and I thought the impeachment efforts were a waste of time by a Republican party that was more concerned with striking against Clinton than doing what was actually best for the country. It set a dangerous precedent, and I hope we don’t continue that spiral downwards.
Agreed