There’s no provision for the cause of removal, as long as there is consensus. He could be perfectly sane and one of the most popular Presidents in history, but if the Cabinet signs him out and the Congress supports the Cabinet, he’s gone. Again, that would be a flagrant abuse of the statute, but a literal reading allows the President to be removed because his subordinates don’t like the way he burps during meetings. If that constitutes “inability to execute”, then that’s what it is. Otherwise the stateute as written is toothless, because someone has to determine inability, and that has been left to the President’s immediate subordinates. If it defers to someone else, who does it defer to? If the President is going to do something loony, is there some sort of intermediate step before removal? No. By my reading it is entirely up to the Cabinet and the VP.
No, the Dems controlled the Senate when Nixon was impeached. The Dems controlled the House from 1948 - 1994; they controlled the Senate 1948 - 1980, and 1986 - 1994.
I didn’t say a republican system, I said our republican system.
The Watergate hearings in the Senate and the impeachment hearings in the HJC were as nonpartisan as could be arranged, the participants being aware of the gravity of their responsibilities. The Senators, for instance, were screened for their lack of Presidential ambitions. A number of Republicans voted to impeach, and enough GOP Senators had decided similarly to ensure his removal. Contrast that to the Clinton lame-duck, partisan farce.
Johnson was a Democrat.
Suppose the president went to the Supreme Court and demanded to be reinstated because he was not unable? I presume that it would be the Court that would ultimately decide what “inability” means and if Congress wrongfully enacted that procedure.
BG Is correct on this matter, Elvis. While Johnson was a Democrat, the main fight in Congress on Johnson’s impeachement was between the Radical Republicans who favored an oppressive Reconstruction, extensive civil rights for blacks, and Congress as the dominant branch of the party vs. the moderate Republicans who were more moderate in their views.
The Democrats, following the 1866 elections, were practically non-existant in Congress.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. It’s never been tested before, for obvious reasons.
To be entirely correct, Johnson was a Unionist – in his case, part of a splinter from the Democratic Party that wanted to work with the Republicans to preserve the Union during the Civil War. While Lincoln won the Presidency as a Republican in 1860, he ran for re-election as a Unionist backed by most Republicans and the Unionist group among the Democrats.
In the broadest of terms, this was a temporary fusion party, and Lincoln was a Republican and Johnson a Democrat for their political careers. But it’s worth noting that he won as Lincoln’s running mate on a Unionist ticket.
=========
Addressing the broader principle, much as I find Bush the most incompetent President since Buchanan (with a few exceptions worth noting), I believe that impeachment should be reserved for either gross incapacity in office (e.g., the drunk judge impeached around 1801) or acts tending to destroy our system of government (e.g., Watergate). It’s arguable that some of Bush’s acts (signing statements, Guantanamo policies) fall in this last category, but whether they rise to the level of impeachable offenses is very much up in the air IMHO.
Because some Republicans have made impeachment a partisan football in 1867 and 1998 does not justify our abuse of the process.
Hey, it worked for the Republican Party in 2000 and 2004.
My answer to the OP is that it would be pointless. Why impeach Mortimer Snerd when Edgar Bergen is the one screwing up?
Because Edgar just isn’t used to doing the whole act by himself. 
Well, it did in the feverish minds of the faithful anyway…
-XT
I guess the drafters couldn’t forsee everything.
:dubious: Anyone who values stability more than democracy is a friend to neither.
Just because I place some value on stability doesn’t mean that a value it more than democracy. Shall we dispense with representative democracy altogether and just vote on everything on-line? Be careful what you wish for, BG!
I’ve argued many times against trying to apply “direct democracy” on any scale larger than a New England township. The people at large are not and cannot be organized as a policymaking assembly. OTOH, we could use much better and faster real-time democratic feedback on policy directions than our present system allows. If we had, we might not be in this fucked-up mess.
…If we had, we might not be in this fucked-up mess…
Sadly, no. Our Congressional representatives were staggering drunk on Kool Aid, for the most part, and those sober enough to know better were cowed into cringing submission, save for a brave few. Americans, you will recall, were of the opinion that Saddam was intimately involved in 9/11, and we were only too ready to believe whatever horseshit we were served.
I know, I know. But in light of W’s plummetting approval ratings, a little effective democratic feedback after the 2004 election might at least have made it impossible for him to “stay the course” and keep throwing good money/lives after bad.
As Winston Churchill said (more or less), “Americans can be counted on to do the right thing after they have tried everything else.”