But, in the history books he’ll always have that asterisk - only one of two presidents impeached and sent to trial, or however the exact wording goes. That detail will follow long after approval ratings are forgotten. Nixon probably won one of the widest landslides in modern presidential history, yet his legacy is - only president to resign under threat of impeachment.
Seriously. It would only have been coup if it had been orchestrated by Al Gore, since he’s the guy who would have taken over.
Nope, that doesn’t work even on a hyperpedantic level.
As I have emphasized many times, the Dope does not require and generally avoids hyperpedantic language or formal academic precision. Colloquial English is used. In this case, the colloquial use of coup was denotationally and connotationally correct. As far as one can objectively use the word in GQ, the Republicans tried to remove Clinton from power for partisan political reasons. This represented a fundamental shift from the attempt to impeach Nixon that was largely, although not entirely, bipartisan.
You appear to be conflating the word with coup d’état, but that is normally saved for violent overthrows and so is doubly not the proper usage here.
And you are accusing John Mace of being pedantic. That’s an honest LOL here.
I honestly don’t understand what you are on about, but I have to admit the irony in that post is rather humorous (emphasis added).
So, I’ll just say I agree to disagree, and let the readers sort it out. I’m not looking to score a semantic coup here…
That’s a hilarious statement, considering the earlier discussion in this very same thread about the correct use of “impeachment”.
Sorry, Exapno, you’re wrong, or are at least guilty of poor communication. While “coup d’etat” often implies violence, it doesn’t have to. Since your original post referred to a change in government, it is reasonable to read “coup” as referring not simply a decisive action but as a coup d’etat, even if not a forcible one. And as John Mace says, it couldn’t really a have been a true coup d’etat since Gore would have succeeded Clinton.
The colloquial meaning of “coup” in your original post would certainly be “coup d’etat.” If you actually meant something different than that, as a professional writer and editor I would say you were guilty of poor writing that obscured what you intended.
Yes, I fail to see how following an established constitutional procedure to effect a change in leadership amounts to a coup.
Getting back to the question from Quartz, who I believe is British, I would just point out that if the Opposition in Parliament attempts a motion of non-confidence and fails, there is no sanction. It’s a purely political process, one which the voters may take into account in the next election. It’s much the same for a failed impeachment.
I don’t think Clinton’s impeachment proceedings qualify under any definition of coup, whether plain language or pedantic.
-
It would not have been a quick and decisive action. Clinton was subject to a very lengthy series of investigations since the Lewinsky news came to light in November 1997, culminiating in his trial in January 1999. When I hear of a coup in this sense, it’s like striking while the iron is hot – the leader is out of the country on a trip, and someone seizes power, etc.
-
It doesn’t fit the ordinary meaning of coup d’etat. Forget the pedantic criticism that a coup d’etat is an extra-legal event, and impeachment is a process that is quite specifically allowed for by the Constitution The ordinary meaning of coup d’etat would be to have the head of state replaced by some kind of rival. At the very least in this case, one would expect a Republican coup d’etat to replace a Democrat with… wait for it… a Republican, and not a different Democrat.
I would not conclude that the impeachment of Clinton was a good thing, but calling it an attempted coup is total exaggeration.
Yes, it would be interesting to see which of those definitions that EM cited was the one he thought he was using.
We always get to this point. The pedanticists won’t listen unless you use the most formal language with them. I can if I need to, so I do.
Coup d’état does imply violence. Go back to the various dictionary sites I used to pull definitions for coup.
The Clinton impeachment was not an attempt at a coup d’état. Calling it an attempt at a coup is perfectly cromulent. This is GQ so I’m limited in what I can say, but it’s simply ridiculous to call it a normal action of a normal political process. It was an endrun around the voters made possible by the letter of the Constitution but not the spirit of it.
If a Democratic majority in congress impeached a Republican president under the same circumstances as the Clinton impeachment I’m positive that FOX News would call it an attempted coup.
I’m referring to the first Clinton impeachment there, we’re still awaiting news on the second one.
So tell us which definition you are using for “coup”. None of us knows what you are talking about.
As I said, calling it a coup was poor communication since in a political context it would imply a coup d’etat. If that’s not what you meant, it was poor writing. You really can’t have it both ways.
Moderating
I think further discussion of this is getting too political for GQ, as well as being a bit of a hijack on the precise meaning of “coup.” Let’s get back to the question in the OP. If you want to discuss if the Clinton impeachment constituted a coup in any sense, it would be best to start another thread in GD.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
To be more specific, that clause sets a limit on the penalties for conviction upon impeachment. It does not specify what the penalty must be.
But that no longer seems to be the case. Is it possible for a President faced with impeachment to force an election? What if everyone else in the line of succession threatened resignation?
Why? Because it was used, once, over 25 years ago?
No. Elections are set per the constitution and run by the states.
For that to happen we’d be in some sort of revolution so the constitution would be thrown out the window.
Sooner or later, it would get to someone who would accept it.
No, as has been said, the impeachment of Clinton demonstrated that the strategy was ineffective. It hasn’t been seriously attempted, even though two presidents who were widely hated by elements of the opposing party have been in office, and even though the opposing party has had a majority in the House of Representatives.
No. The President’s term in office cannot be changed short of a constitutional amendment. Federal Election day is determined by Federal statute, and can’t be changed except by Congress. The President has nothing to say about when an election will be held (aside from signing or refusing to sign changes made by Congress).
What, if the President was impeached and removed from office? Since the second and third in the line of succession are the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the president, and Congress would have to approve impeachment/conviction, it’s certain that someone who approved of the impeachment would be in the line of succession, or could be placed there by elections within each house. If the VP resigned all it would do would be to put the Presidency in the hands of the people who were impeaching the president.