Well in reality-land, I didn’t find that claim in the text of any of Obama’s State of The Union speeches. But then again, reality has a well known liberal bias.
And where, exactly, in “reality-land” did I claim he did?
Then I don’t understand. Are you equating any random comment by a president with a constitutionally required communication to Congress?
I repeat my claim that there is a better case to be made for impeachment if a president lies to congress in his State of the Union speech than committing perjury in a deposition about a blowjob. Not that that excuses Clinton: I thought he should have resigned.
But “lying” to Congress in the State of the Union isn’t under oath and it isn’t a crime. When the Constitution says that impeachment can be done for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, I’d tend to think that the act that is an actual crime is more likely to result in impeachment.
Several of the examples linked-to by Mr. Clark were elected Members of the House of Representatives calling for Obama’s impeachment. Are you stipulating that GOP Representatives are not “serious”?
Do we need to find a Senator, before the “case” is “serious”?
Your comment has made me curious. Not about the letter of the law: I’m willing to wait for Bricker to give definition to that. But since you’ve gone this far, I beg for clarification, Hamlet:
In your opinion, Which of the two lies – Bush’s pretext for war or Clinton’s protecting his wife – was more serious, more morally deserving of impeachment?
If the President does not carry out his constitutional duties then he should be impeached. One of those duties is to communicate to congress once a year on the state of the union. If the president knowingly presents misinformation to congress at that time, then he is failing to carry out his duty.
What Clinton did was wrong (both the act and lieing about it), but it had nothing to do with his duties as President. The far more serious issue to me is when a President lies to congress about substantive issues when he is constitutionally required to inform them.
No. Why do you think I said that?
The SoTU speech, for all its hoopla, is a political act. I don’t think impeachment should turn on a political act. A deposition is a legal act. Quite different.
I said that one specific case of lying should be an impeachable offence and then you replied that we can’t impeach people for just lying to which I said that no, I just meant during that one specific time when they are fulfilling their constitutional duty to inform congress. ETA: and then to make it less clear you referred to a specific “lie” by Obama that was not in any of hist SOTU speeches. So, to be clear, I’m saying that misinforming congress when you are constitutionally required to inform them is a serious and to my mind impeachable offense. Lieing in general is just asshattery.
So much for original intent I guess.
I don’t think Bush “lied”, I think he’s a complete moron who repeated what was told him by people who cherry picked evidence that supported the conclusion they wanted to reach and ignored the evidence that contradicted it. Someone in his chain of command may have “lied” to him, but I think it much more likely that they and Bush himself, were willfully ignorant, incompetent, and deliberately misleading in their selection of evidence than Bush lied. Clinton, however, clearly lied, in that he said something he absolutely knew was false. Part of the reason for my conclusion is that I have a very high opinion of Clinton’s intelligence, and an extremely low one of Bush’s. As another aside, I think you’re kidding yourself due to partisan politics when you conclude that Clinton lied to “protect his wife”.
That said, I think you would have to either be rabidly partisan or incredibly dumb to conclude that the ramifications of the “lies” were worse in Clinton’s case than in Bush’s.
You’re going to impeach every President in the last 100 years or so? Because that seems to be the path your on. Every President lies, every President shades the truth, misuses information, hides evidence that contradicts them, and deliberately makes their ideas sound better than the others in their State of the Union address. I do not think “lying” to Congress in the State of the Union address means you can’t do your duty as President.
It very well may be much more serious when you lie to Congress in the State of the Union or even to the American people than lying to cover your affair. But that’s not the standard for impeachment, nor is it a “crime”.
I never referred to Obama in that post. I said “a president”. That’s a hypothetical.
What presidents do every year has evolved well beyond what is required by the Constitution. If they thought they could be impeached for something they said in the SotU speech, they would probably just stop giving them. If I were a president, I wouldn’t put my career on the line like that.
No, it means you have *not *done your duty as president as specified in the constitution. What possible use is it to require a president to report on the state of the union but not require that it be truthful?
What constitutes grounds for impeachment is debatable, but failing to exercise your duties as president is clearly not outside its bounds.
ETA:
They are required to report on the state of the union. It does not need to be a speech, but lying in a memo sent to congress would be just as bad.
That’s really the point. The SOTU report is *required *by the constitution.
Here’s the text of the constitution:
“He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
Now, if you want to stipulate that, from this point forward, Congress will impeach any president who lies in the SotU address, that’s fine. You will, I’m sure, change the nature of the game. The president will find some other venue where he can give the political part of that speech.
You are not going to change anything, but it might make you feel better.
An impeachment is really a congressional equivalent of a grand jury indictment. It is not a finding of guilt. I believe it is the Senate that presides over the actual trial, which is controlled by the Democrats. He would have to be found guilty at a trial to be removed from office.
The only legal grounds for impeachment are high crimes and misdemeanors: he would have to have broken the law. There would have to be evidence to support such a claim as well (well, enough to convince a politically motivated body to convict). Disliking his policies and views is not sufficient grounds for impeachment.
Trying to impeach without any actual evidence of wrongdoing would be political suicide.
Sorry, you’re wrong about all of that, even the part about political suicide. There are *no *legal, or illegal, grounds for impeachment. Legality has nothing to do with it, because it is not related to the legal system. Evidence has nothing to do with it, either. Disliking his policies and views IS sufficient ground.
It’s intended as a tool of statecraft that has, 2 out of 3 times in cases of Presidents, been used merely as a weapon of political vengeance - and without significant consequence to its users.
The “trial” is held in the Senate, but is presided over by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.
“High crimes” is an historical term that doesn’t necessarily mean “criminal” in the usual sense of that word. Link.
Even with evidence of wrongdoing, it can be political suicide.
You’re right. I forgot about the Chief Justice being the one to preside.
Interesting read. My mistake in trying to interpret that passage with my modern English brain.
With the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS presiding, I would think that he would have some authority to ensure that the president would only be removed for those specific causes in the constitution, even if “high crimes” may be a rather broad designation.
An article linked within the Wikipedia article goes into more detail.
I have to admit that I did find it despicable that the President chose his constitutionally required report to congress as an opportunity to provide a phony justification for a war that cost billions, caused thousands of American deaths, and distracted us from the search for OBL. So yes I would feel better.
If the standard of power of each branch of government consists of what they can get away with without having another branch of government block those actions, we are contemplating a dangerous world. In such a world, the three legitimate ways to amend the Constitution are 1. Congress and the states ratify an amendment, 2. Through a constitutional convention, 3. The President directs a revolution and uses his power of pardon to make everything totally legal.
I’d prefer that the House actually conform to the “high crimes” language and not honestly believe it could lawfully impeach a president for, say, being of the incorrect race, or ant other imaginary crime you may propose. In more elegant words, that’s what Ford was arguing.