# In the USA what is the balance to impeachment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 11, 2015, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168 "2015-12-11T15:28:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/81 "2015-12-14T23:11:57Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Sooner or later, it would get to someone who would accept it. Indeed. Second in line is Speaker of the House. Since the House is the body that impeaches the president, it’s hard to imagine the Speaker would be so out of tune with his own party. And at some point, we get President Roslyn. 🙂 Actually, how far down does it go before it’s not defined anymore? VP -\> Speaker -\> SecState -\> ? I guess if the Speaker resigns, the House elects a new one…? ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/82 "2015-12-14T23:12:00Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > What if everyone else in the line of succession threatened resignation? While it’s obviously never been tested, some Constitutional scholars believe the language of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 includes whatever assistant secretaries acting as cabinet secretaries at the time of sucession (since assistant secretaries also were confirmed and not just hired). Also, the House and Senate would have to elect a new Speaker/President Pro Tempore, who would immediately be in the line of succession. If you get to the point where there’s no Vice President, no cabinet officers and both the House and Senate can’t even elect their presiding officers, we’re gonna be in a lot more trouble than worrying about an impeachment. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/83 "2015-12-15T00:51:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Indeed. Second in line is Speaker of the House. Since the House is the body that impeaches the president, it’s hard to imagine the Speaker would be so out of tune with his own party. And at some point, we get President Roslyn. 🙂 Actually, how far down does it go before it’s not defined anymore? VP -\> Speaker -\> SecState -\> ? > > I guess if the Speaker resigns, the House elects a new one…? I believe it goes all the way through the cabinet, in the order the positions were created, but I think I heard that on _ **Scandal** _. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/84 "2015-12-15T00:59:06Z")
Yes, so the last one on the list is the Secretary of Homeland Security. If you get to him, the Union is definitely in trouble, but he should know what to do about it, unlike say the Secretary of Agriculture, who doesn’t know beans about security. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/85 "2015-12-15T02:37:59Z")
> [@j666](#): > > I believe it goes all the way through the cabinet, in the order the positions were created, but I think I heard that on _ **Scandal** _. The order of succession is: Vice President Speaker of the House President pro tempore of the Senate Secretary of State Secretary of the Treasury Secretary of Defense Attorney General Secretary of the Interior Secretary of Agriculture Secretary of Commerce Secretary of Labor Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Secretary of Transportation Secretary of Energy Secretary of Education Secretary of Veterans Affairs Secretary of Homeland Security ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/86 "2015-12-15T07:19:44Z")
But whereas a motion of non-confidence in a parliament is pretty much routine (and almost routinely defeated), impeachment is seen as a weapon of last resort for heinous crimes (and misdemeanours). Presumably the constitution was written vaguely to not restrict this option when necessary. But, since Johnson’s removal failed, it has not been seen as a simple political tool to attempt to change leaders. Since it’s possible, IIRC, to initiate proceedings with a simple majority in the house, it’s not impossible to tie up an executive with futile time-consuming trials as a threat or political lever. It’s just “not done”. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/87 "2015-12-15T09:48:58Z")
Yet I continuously hear - on the Dope and elsewhere - about impeaching the President. Of whichever hue. Jeebus but you guys really need to sort yourselves out. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/88 "2015-12-15T11:06:02Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > But whereas a motion of non-confidence in a parliament is pretty much routine (and almost routinely defeated), impeachment is seen as a weapon of last resort for heinous crimes (and misdemeanours). No. The “high” in [High Crimes and Misdemeanors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors) does not mean “heinous”. > [@](#): > > A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes. > [@md2000](#): > > Since it’s possible, IIRC, to initiate proceedings with a simple majority in the house, it’s not impossible to tie up an executive with futile time-consuming trials as a threat or political lever. It’s just “not done”. Just to be clear, an impeachment is an act in and of itself, not the initiation of something. And yes, we’ve already covered the fact that it only takes a majority in the House to impeach. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/89 "2015-12-15T16:35:42Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Yet I continuously hear - on the Dope and elsewhere - about impeaching the President. Of whichever hue. Jeebus but you guys really need to sort yourselves out. 😃 Someone who comes from a country with Question Time in Parliament doesn’t understand the power of political theater? ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/90 "2015-12-15T17:16:51Z")
Obviously they never read about the 1840 Presidential election campaign. ---
**Author:** ![NeonMadman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58f4c7/32.png) [@NeonMadman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NeonMadman)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/91 "2015-12-15T17:52:18Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Impeachment is the last resort of all last resorts. It was not designed as a political move but as a way for truly dangerous, criminal, or incompetent office holders to be safely removed without a coup. Otherwise, as with Clinton, it was indeed seen as an attempt at a coup and quickly backfired. I don’t think you can really categorize Clinton’s impeachment as an attempted coup. I’m not saying it wasn’t a political move by the GOP House members, but it’s not like the Republicans would have gotten to take over if he had been convicted. In that case, Al Gore would have become president, and his politics were arguably further from those of the GOP than Clinton’s. For many people, there really was a moral issue involved. It shocks nobody today to think of Clinton getting oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office (though one can imagine the outrage of the media and the left if GW Bush had been caught doing that), but back then, such conduct on the part of a president was unthinkable. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/92 "2015-12-15T18:29:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No. The “high” in [High Crimes and Misdemeanors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors) does not mean “heinous”. > > Just to be clear, an impeachment is an act in and of itself, not the initiation of something. And yes, we’ve already covered the fact that it only takes a majority in the House to impeach. Maybe I missed something, but didn’t my comment essentially say the senate portion was the trial? Yes, High Crimes and Misdemeanors could mean anything relating to the office - but nobody tries to impeach (or have a trial) over, say, an assertion of executive privilege or similar executive-legislative face-off, even if the majority congresscritters think the president is blatantly in the wrong. Non-confidence motions are routine political theatre. > [@NeonMadman](#): > > I don’t think you can really categorize Clinton’s impeachment as an attempted coup. I’m not saying it wasn’t a political move by the GOP House members, but it’s not like the Republicans would have gotten to take over if he had been convicted. In that case, Al Gore would have become president, and his politics were arguably further from those of the GOP than Clinton’s. For many people, there really was a moral issue involved. It shocks nobody today to think of Clinton getting oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office (though one can imagine the outrage of the media and the left if GW Bush had been caught doing that), but back then, such conduct on the part of a president was unthinkable. Let’s clarify again. Clinton was accused of perjury, a fairly serious crime. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Nobody cares (except maybe Hillary) that Monica gave him a flute solo. The key offense is that he disregarded one of the fundamental rules of law. Of course, depending on your interpretation and weasel wording and thanks to an interrogation with imprecise vocabulary, he also may not have lied. So he was impeached but not convicted. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/93 "2015-12-15T18:47:51Z")
Mainly, I just wanted to point out that “high” does mean “heinous”. It’s a term of art, relating to the status of the office or officeholder, not the degree of offense. A “heinous” crime would be something like rape or murder, not perjury. One has to be careful when reading The US Constitution because words in it don’t necessarily mean the same as they do in the modern, colloquial language. For instance, if the prez decided: Fuck it. I’m going to take 3 weeks and go hike in the Andes and not tell anyone. That would be an impeachable offense, although that would hardly be a heinous crime. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/94 "2015-12-15T19:23:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > For instance, if the prez decided: Fuck it. I’m going to take 3 weeks and go hike in the Andes and not tell anyone. That would be an impeachable offense, although that would hardly be a heinous crime. I don’t know, ‘hike in the Andes’ might be a euphemism for something heinous. You could do your hiking on any mountain range, but you gotta wonder about someone making references to lamas. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/95 "2015-12-15T20:09:01Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I don’t know, ‘hike in the Andes’ might be a euphemism for something heinous. You could do your hiking on any mountain range, but you gotta wonder about someone making references to lamas. Lamas are Himalayan. Llamas are Andean. Lllamas are Welllsh. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/96 "2015-12-15T22:13:04Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Lamas are Himalayan. Llamas are Andean. Lllamas are Welllsh. “The one-l lama, he’s a priest. The two-l llama, he’s a beast. But I will bet a silk pajama There isn’t any three-l lllama.” –Somebody like Ogden Nash. Maybe even Ogden Nash. Of course, as was pointed out by someone like Willard Espy, maybe even Willard Espy, there is a type of fire known in some circles as a three-l lllama… ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/97 "2015-12-15T22:33:29Z")
> [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](#): > > Of course, as was pointed out by someone like Willard Espy, maybe even Willard Espy, there is a type of fire known in some circles as a three-l lllama… Any Bostonian will tell you, a three-l lama is a wicked big fiah. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2015, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/98 "2015-12-15T23:54:26Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Someone who comes from a country with Question Time in Parliament doesn’t understand the power of political theater? PM’s Questions - Question Time is a TV program - is different every week. Talk about impeachment seems incessant. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/99 "2015-12-16T01:08:43Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > PM’s Questions - Question Time is a TV program - is different every week. Talk about impeachment seems incessant. Cable and talk radio and the internet are every minute. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2015, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168/100 "2015-12-16T01:12:09Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > PM’s Questions - Question Time is a TV program - is different every week. Talk about impeachment seems incessant. Talk about impeachment is hardly “incessant” unless you spend all your time listening to the same fringe elements that think (on the right) income tax is unconstitutional or (on the left) that police are carrying out an organized conspiracy to kill minorities. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-usa-what-is-the-balance-to-impeachment/740168.md?page=6)