lately i’ve heard people talking about wanting to impeach bush. while i don’t support him or his agenda, i don’t see any reason for an impeachment. can anyone tell me if there is a just cause?
I was wondering about the fact that you needed Congress to approve starting war.
Obviously, they haven’t.
Is this illegal, or is there somethign written somewhere where the Presdient may declare it himself?
No, there is not.
Ramsey Clark, a well-known left-wing fruitcake, is making the effort. He has a website for the purpose.
Clark’s notions of impeachable offenses include overthrowing the Taliban, enforcing the no-fly zones in Iraq, and a number of more vaguely formed accusations of bribery, murder, kidnapping, and “creating a climate of fear”.
I rather doubt Bush is tremendously worried about the prospect of impeachment.
Regards,
Shodan
The President may only be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) there is a considerable dearth of precedent for what that means. The have been only two impeachments - one against President Johnson for trying to fire his Secretary of War, and one against President Clinton for lying under oath. Neither president was actually convicted and removed by the Senate.
I would say that at a minumum, a proponent of impeachment should be able to point to a law that the President violated while in office, and be able to convincingly argue that the violation constituted a “high crime.”
- Rick
Hi, vanilla -
There was a Congressional resolution supporting the use of force by Bush. I can dig you up a cite if you like.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, okay.
No, I believe you.
A congressional resolution last October gave the President the authorization he needed to start this war. So it’s perfectly legal. There are a number of GD and GQ threads about it.
Here’s what it said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/10/attack/main525165.shtml
There’s more. Wayyyyy more. :rolleyes: 
Anyway, it’s legal. And if you don’t believe me, here’s a cite.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1048156715207072.xml
Yes, it’s written somewhere.
“The Congress shall have Power … To declare war, …”
Article I, Section 8., of the US Constitution.
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; …”
Article II, Section 2., of the US Constitution.
Don’t get hung up on the concept of “declaring war.” The US was last in a “declared war” in WWII.
Notwithstanding the constitutional requirements, one does not need “permission” to start a war.
could there be reasons to impeach that aren’t war related?
vanilla -
Forgive me if this is overkill, but the Congressional resolution specifically states:
It is very clear, and very specific. I don’t think it could be more so.
Regards,
Shodan
Francis Boyle also helped write the resolution referred to here. He happens to be able to hold down a job as a professor at the University of Illinois School of Law, so he can’t be a complete fruitcake.
Ramsey Clarke is also a former US Attorney General, left wing he may be, fruitcake he is not.
Here’s the resolution:
http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html
In all of this he focuses on GW’s conduct as a violation of his oath to defend the constitution.
No, Ramsey Clarke IS a fruitcake. He is stark raving bonkers. He is a few eggrolls short of a pu-pu platter. He has so many issues he has a subscription. He is so crazy his delusions have delusions.
Being a former US Attorney General is no defense against schizophrenia.
Reasons to impeach George W. Bush? I don’t think so. Do you know something we don’t know?
And, his father was a Supreme Court Justice. But, I’m afraid Ramsey is nevertheless a fruitcake.
BTW, I read an article a few days ago saying that some Congressmen were actually looking at this impeachment proposal. But, there appeared to be little likelihood that any of them would actually introduce it as a formal resolution in Congress.
Just give Ken Starr six years and $10 million dollars. I’m sure he’ll find some excuse, however tenuous it may be. Heck, Dick Cheney and the recent Haliburton contract awards alone is already more fodder than Whitewater ever was.
As far as I can see, the just cause is “just 'cause.”
JOhn.
No chance in hell of impeaching President Bush.
If you want to remove him from office before his term is up, you’ll just have to convene a competency hearing.
although i don’t particularly favor bush being in office, i’m not set out for an impeachment. i’ve just heard people talking about it and was wondering if there was cause. i was just wanting facts about it before i consider support this cause or not.
so far though it doesn’t seem like there are. most of what clarke seems to be talking about relates to the patriot act. although it seems to be in violation of the constitution, it is considered war time and from past supreme court decisions (for some reason the korematsu case is coming to mind, not sure if that’s correct though) national security can be placed above individual rights.
i don’t see how this could be a high crime or misdemeanor though. is there something there i’m not seeing where there could be any other cause?
No, WYSIWYG. Unless you are Mr. Clarke, or someone like him, and believe that every Republican should be impeached and removed from office just on general principles.
The Patriot Act is an act of Congress, so it would be difficult to impeach the President for it. Even if it were found to be un-Constitutional, Bush could not be impeached for it. Congress passes un-Constitutional laws fairly often, possibly even including the amendment of the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 to add the words “under God”. It would be silly to go back and try to impeach Eisenhower for that.
Mr. Clarke does not understand the nature of the American system of government, or if he did, he has forgotten. Working to get legislation passed with which the furthest-left faction of the Democratic Party disagrees is not an impeachable offense. Lying under oath, obstruction of justice, covering up a crime, these are impeachable offenses.
Mr. Clarke’s list of accusations against Bush range from the ludicrous (“Threatening the use of nuclear weapons and ordering preparation for their use” - by that standard, every President since FDR should have been impeached) thru the unenforceably vague (“condoning bribery and coercion… to obtain his war ends”) and out into the far fringes of paranoia (“Authorizing, ordering, and condoning assassinations, summary executions, murder, kidnappings”, etc., etc.)
This is not new - Clarke does this every time the US uses its military. He tried to get an indictment after the US bombed Yugoslavia, after the first Gulf War, and he is practically having kittens over the war in Iraq.
He is a left-wing crackpot. Mildly entertaining, although only in smaller doses than one usually receives of him.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, I’d offer that “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are whatever the House says they are. Since the House’s decision to impeach is unreviewable, theoretically they could say that Bush’s decision to place the lives of Americans in danger in Iraq, even after Congress authorized force, is a high crime.
The chances of that are… very small. But it’s well to remember that this is a political question, not a criminal one. There is no appeals court to quash the indictment. The House impeaches you - you’re impeached. The only option you have is to wait for the Senate to convict or not.
Or resign.
Clinton committed acts that were felonies, but that would likely not have been prosecuted had they been committed by Joe Q. Average. The House believed this was sufficient to impeach.
Harding was never impeached, even after his administration illegally leased government oil wells to private companies. (This may be because he died half-way through the scandal).
Johnson was impeached for violation of the just-passed Tenure in Office Act. There’s no question he was guilty of the violation; the controversy was over whether the Act was constitutional. The Senate did not convict him.