Is It Time to Impeach Bush for Incompetence?

Whether you agree with Bush’s policies or not, he looks like a deer caught in the headlights lately. Iraq is going to hell, the mid-east has erupted, and it seems like he has no plan. Is it time to impeach him just to get someone competent in there?

*Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. *

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4

So that would be a no.

I’m no fan of Bush & Co., but what would be the point? Let Cheney run the show? If we give him the boot, too, who would we want in charge? Is there really anyone out there that could clean up this mess?

Is incompetence viable ground for impeachment? I do seem to recall reading somewhere that Congress has basically carte blanche to impeach for whatever they’d like, but I can’t back that up.

Personally, I think Bush should have been impeached long ago. Maybe there should be some sort of provision that if you stay under a certain approval rating for long enough, you get an insta-impeach.

Sorry, I just assumed there was already enough evidence of crimes that something could be trumped up to meet the constitutional requirements.

Nope. Not in April, not in February, not three years ago, and not in 2002 either. And those were just the ones with “impeach” in the title…

Interesting. You propose subverting the Democratic electoral process simply because you do not agree with the result?

Did you think I was a Supreme Court Justice?

No, I was wondering if it is getting to the point where it is too dangerous to leave this guy in power. I’m also questioning whether those who agree with Bush’s policies are also worried.

Only pragmatically speaking, in that if the Congress had the capability of manufacturing an impeachment, there wouldn’t be any way to stop them and the check on that power would be to throw the bums out in the next election cycle. As Oakminster noted, the Constitution requires some crime to occur.

As a mild hijack, I wrote a message board post once about whether the Supreme Court would have the power to overturn a wrongful impeachment. It’s been a while, and I don’t remember my rationale. I decided that there’s nothing absolutely, but that a hypothetical Court with no political agenda would probably find the issue nonjusticiable because the impeachment process is textually delegated to the legislature. Would anyone care to correct me or help me flesh out the reasoning?

Or put another way…

Listen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony

Article I, Section 2:

*The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment. *
Article I, Section 3:

*The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. *

And the link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section2

No. I did not think that. Not even once.

I understand. I’m just surprised you would state it so baldly, and appear to be pretty cavalier about subverting the agreed upon procedures for electing leaders by vote, and think it might be okay to throw away the Democratic process and Ginny up some excuse to get what you want.

I think that the Democratic process should be respected and that for better or for worse he should be accepted as the President.

I think the impeachment exists explicitly to remove Presidents who commit criminal acts.

Thinking that he is a bad President or “does not have a plan” does not constitute a criminal act.

Impeaching Bush for this reason you’ve stated means that you will have to search for a criminal act that you can use as a pretense for impeachment, or you will have to fabricate one.

I think that’s an abuse equally as distasteful as accusing a spouse of beating you so that you can get more money in a divorce. You are subverting the law to your own ends.

I have long thought that many on the left have sought or fabricated scandals against this President for similar motivations, or simply to regain power.

I’m just surprised that it has gotten to the point where people no longer try to hide the fact that that’s what they are doing.

Very nice, Garfield, very nice. I think that says everything that needs to be said about this OP.

The 25th Amendment allows for removal due to incompetence:

There’s literally no chance of that happening, and it would not be within the bounds of the intent of the drafters of the amendment to remove the President because he’s a moron, but this amendment as written provides for a means for it to happen without impeachment.

Blowjob.

Don’t speak of that as if it ran against the democratic principle. Many state constitutions provide for recall elections.

Unfortunately, the federal constition does not.

If only incompetence were an impeachable offense . . .

On an upward note, you guys can appearently get anti-Bush bumperstickers by simply clicking on the (2) links in the advertising section. :stuck_out_tongue:

As for the OP…give it up already guys. The odds of it happening in the time he has left are vanishingly small at this point. Focus on what you will do NEXT time…unless you want yet another Republican running the shootin match again.

-XT

Well, no. Actually “Perjury.” I am however, on record multiple times on these boards as stating that the attempt to ramrod Clinton on a pretext was a bad thing that I disagreed with, though I was not a fan of Clinton.

I think it’s a bad idea still.

Well, to be fair, it provides for removal if the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” at all, not competently. At least, that’s how I read it. I.e., the prez would have to be clinically insane or non-communicative or comatose for that clause to apply. Just being an America-destroying dumbass doesn’t rise to that level.