The penalty for conviction after impeachment is removal from office, and that’s it. A president who had been removed from office could in theory run again in the next election if he had not previously been elected twice.
Again, the backlash from the Clinton impeachment means that impeachment will never be used politically in the lifetimes of people who remember it. The American people have overturned that impeachment: they love Bill.
People talk about everything, and much of that talk is stupid beyond belief. Actions are a whole 'nother thing.
True, but I think that is widely regarded now as a mistake even by many Republicans.
Talk isn’t doing. Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Bush but they ultimately went nowhere, even though the House of Representatives had a Democratic majority. Despite some threats on the part of some Republicans none have actually drawn up articles of impeachment against Obama.
As has been said, impeachment is generally regarded as a nuclear option against a president, which should only be employed in extreme circumstances (Clinton’s case notwithstanding).
There may be a precedent for that:
Before Gray Davis in California, the only governor to be recalled was Lynn Frazier of Montana, in 1921. The next year he was elected to the United States Senate!
Art I, Sec 3, Clause 7:
(emphasis added)
Damn. A minute too slow… But good catch.
Charles I gets his head cut off.
Yes, but it’s not automatic. For instance, Alcee Hastings was convicted and removed from his position as a federal judge, but has since been elected to the House.
That’s what got to me about all the calls to impeach George W. Bush when he was President, and I was no Bush supporter. Dick Cheney would have become President if Bush were removed from office, and he would not have been an improvement.
Oops. I only looked at Article II, which says:
Yes, disqualification is an additional punishment in addition to removal. Looking at the list of impeached officials, a number were removed from office but apparently not disqualified in the future.
In Nixon’s case, the joke was that Spiro Agnew was his insurance policy against assassination. In the event, Agnew’s resignation opened the door for Nixon to be impeached. If Agnew had been VP instead of Ford, impeaching Nixon would have been much less palatable. (It probably still would have happened, but it would have taken longer to get people on board.)
So you’re saying that newspapers using the word “impeachment” correctly is just a crass ploy to sell more newspapers. Got it. :dubious:
It’s not about selling newspapers. You are simply wrong and the newspapers are right. Clinton was impeached. Andrew Johnson was impeached. Not sure why you are insisting on doubling down on incorrect information in a forum dedicated to factual answers.
Something I recall reading about the impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson said that had it succeeded, it would have become a standard tool of recall for any party that disagreed with the executive policies. The fact that it failed gave it a bad name for decades (century?) after, and made it a tool of last resort.
How could it have been a “coup” when the result would have been Al Gore becoming president?
My reading of that entire sentence, (relying only on English grammar and not on the nuance of legal precedent), indicates limits placed on the impeachment process, but does not indicate that the bolded section is a required result.
Am I reading that wrong? And what is the process that might invoke the bolded portion if it is not explicitly stated in the bill of impeachment or in some aspect of the trial?
No, you’re right: it’s a possible punishment but not a required one. The judgement of conviction by the Senate would have to include the explicit penalty in the resolution of conviction.
As was the attempt with Andrew Johnson, it was a partly a political way to remove the leader who belonged to a rival party- a form of recall. Had it succeeded, it would have weakened the office of President. (IMHO Clinton got what he deserved - the historical ignominy of actually going to a trial, as an indication of broad disapproval, but not removal from office.)
ISTM impeachment exists because criminal conviction is not necessarily also a consequence or outcome of some actions, and even so the criminal penalties do not include removal from office.
Seriously?
You can do better.
Ignominy? Clinton’s approval rating after his failed impeachment was 73%, one of the highest ratings for any president ever.