Then essentially you have transferred responsibility for impeachment to the SCOTUS. Well and good, but given the furore over Bush v. Gore in 2000 I wonder if this is what you wanted.
But, suppose we do. Congressperson X reads articles of impeachment, it whips straight to SCOTUS, they rule 9-0 (or 5-4) that Bush hasn’t broken any law. This is better in what way?
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah…fine. So what investigation of Bush are we talking about here?
That is the point! I think there is more than sufficient question to merit official legal scrutiny of Bush’s actions. If through the course of the trial it is determined he did nothing wrong then fine. But you should have the trial! Instead we get nothing. Bush is untouchable.
C’mon…it may well be that Clinton dragged his heels making it go on longer than it might have but in the end Ken Starr was out-of-control. Hired to investigate a real estate issue after years of crawling up the Clinton’s ass with a microscope he eventually hands Congress 11 points to impeach Clinton on none of which have to do with Whitewater and all of which have to do with Lewinsky and a blowjob.
And the real point here is if Clinton merited such scrutiny over a $300,000 scandal why does Bush not merit similar scrutiny? Hell, what little investigation the Dems have brought to bear Bush is just ignoring. Rove snubbed a subpoena to appear before congress and to my knowledge has not even been held in contempt for that. Pretty sure if I did the same I’d be in jail right quick.
I have not transferred responsibility for impeachment to the SCOTUS. Someone in Congress has to initiate it just like they do today. SCOTUS merely looks at it to say if it has any merit or not. If there is no merit to it the thing dies (or Congress decides on its own to go ahead). If SCOTUS thinks there is enough merit to the claims laid out then the House has to do its thing like it would do in any case and it is all back in their hands and works as it has always worked.
If the SCOTUS says no then so be it. However, they would provide an opinion as to their rationale. As mentioned the House could still proceed if it really wanted to just like it does it today. SCOTUS merely provides a, presumably, non-partisan and legal look at what is being alleged. They provide an alternate route around the obvious and intentional political roadblocks placed to stop such a thing today.
And if they are partisan about it then so be it. Not sure what else is to be done about that but at least some measure of accountability looms over the presidency as it should.
And yes I know a president can technically be impeached for anything including farting during a cabinet meeting. The SCOTUS would look at it strictly from a legal standpoint and would say no, farting is not illegal. If Congress still really wants to persue that they can.
The responsibility is that of deciding what is a high crime or misdemeanor, and whether or not the charge has merit. This would be transferred from the House (who impeaches) and the Senate (who conducts the trial) to the Supremes.
It looks rather like an end run around the legislative function of Congress. One disaffected Congressperson can decide that he thinks X is a high crime or misdemeanor, and if five Justices agree, then it becomes law.
I don’t see the advantage in your system still. If there is not the political will in Congress to actually remove a President, then any preliminary impeachment is rather beside the point, as well as a waste of time.
Regards,
Shodan
The SCOTUS in my scheme merely says Yes/No we believe there are actual crimes listed in the article of impeachment and Yes/No we think that at first glance there seems to be sufficient/insufficient reason to think the president might be guilty of the allegations and it merits a closer look/should be ignored. Further, even if the SCOTUS said there is nothing there Congress could still proceed precisely as they would today.
The SCOTUS are not fact finders or investigators. They would act as a Grand Jury does only. It is left to Congress to investigate and vote as they do currently. That is the whole point of a trial. Grand juries send people to trial all the time saying they think the allegations have merit only for it to be found during trial that the defendant is innocent.
And yes, there may not be votes in Congress to impeach/convict. But this would force an investigation, the details would go on the record, the president could not evade it and congress would be answerable to the public on why they voted the way they did (whichever way that is). It is one thing for a politicain to block it from ever happening and a different thing to have all the cards on the table and then try to ignore it.
So what happens when the supreme court returns a finding that an impeachable offense occured, and Congress ignores them? What punishment do the house leaders face?
Look, what your scheme does is make Congress LESS likely to impeach, not more. Because now, in addition to Congress having to agree to impeachment, SCOTUS also has to.
SCOTUS can order Congress to open an investigation all they like, but Congress is the body that has to investigate.
Your proposed reform adds nothing. You want to give one House member the power to initiate impeachment proceedings. Except what you forget is that individual house members already have that power. What they don’t have is the power to force the House leadership to vote for such proceedings. So Kucinich can introduce his impeachment bill, and the leadership ignores it, and it goes nowhere. What’s the value added by injecting SCOTUS?
It seems you’ve got the idea that what we need is a mechanism to force the house leadership to investigate the president’s misrule. Except if they don’t want to investigate the president’s misrule, forcing them to do so isn’t going to return the results you want. And forcing an up or down vote that the impeachment side is going to lose isn’t going to help to actually, you know, impeach the president.
If you want to impeach the president you shouldn’t be advocating to give the Congress new powers to impeach, you should be convincing your average apathetic voter that the president should be impeached, and those voters will light a fire under the apathetic congress. But without that fire, Congress isn’t going to act. Or if they do act, it’ll be a repeat of the Clinton debacle. A congressional leadership determined to push through impeachment despite opposition from the rank and file isn’t going to get anywhere either, they’ll just make themselves look stupid. “The Republicans did it to Clinton!” is not and should not be the standard.
I fail to see what good this would do. Without an investigation by SCOTUS how would they determine whether it was yes or no? Flip a coin? And if Congress could just proceed anyway…well, what good would it do? How would this be better than what we have now? It would merely add another useless layer on top of the current process.
They would have to base their decision on something though. How would they judge the merits of the case even to simply determine if there is enough to go to a trial? I do see what you are getting at here, but it seems like if Congress can simply ignore the ruling and proceed if they want to (or I assume not, as they currently are with Kucinich’s impeachment actions against Bush) then you are merely adding a useless layer on top of the current process. I don’t see the point or what this could possibly ‘fix’.
You said in the first paragraph that Congress could ignore whatever SCOTUS said and proceed if they wished…this implies the converse is true as well. So, I don’t see how this would force an investigation. Conversely if you gave SCOTUS the full power to decide (without Congress having the ability to overrule) then you would need to empower a fuller investigation on SCOTUS part.
It’s a lose/lose situation from my perspective.
-XT
Lemur866 & xtisme: I’ll reply to both sort of at once as you both said similar things.
Perhaps the SCOTUS idea is not the best. I do not see it as bad an idea as you two do but I’ve said my peace on it and if it is fatally flawed so be it.
My overriding goal in all this is to bring some accountability to the office of President of the United States.
As I established with Bricker the President is essentially immune from any prosecution as long as whatever he did was done under his Art II powers. The very worst thing that can happen to him is he is impeached. That is it.
Why you and others think this is ok is beyond me. No one is supposed to be above the law. Special protections are fine given the nature of the job but an absolute bar to prosecution? These are not some nitpicky, minor events we are talking about but egregious abuses of power.
Firing up the public is not a workable alternative. There are already a LOT of people who would like to see Bush impeached. There are books and websites and media articles galore on it. Besides, I do not think an impeachment should rely on mob mentality. To our elected officials this should be a solemn duty and be approached carefully and reluctantly. Ideally they would go there because justice the rule of law demand it.
But clearly it is all political. Nevermind what was done. Nevermind what laws were broken. Nevermind the (considerable number) of people affected by it. Nevermind justice. The politicians provably cannot be trusted to exercise their duties here in anything like a coherent and appropriate manner. They got it wrong with Clinton. They are getting it wrong with Bush. Underlying it all is politics…nothing else. No morals or ethics to be seen anywhere.
My SCOTUS as Grand Jury scheme was to open a route to impeachment that could evade obvious and overt partisan politics. There is currently only one way to go about an impeachment and thus it is all too easily blocked. Justice is thwarted. And note I am not even assuming justice must include a conviction but I certainly think there is more than enough to merit a trial. Lay the evidence out and then let the chips fall where they may.
But even if you want to toss the SCOTUS scheme I would still argue that an impeachment strips the president of his Art II protections on the specific points he was impeached for. I see no reason he should be above the law on those counts and if he abuses his power so completely as to be impeached he should be held criminally responsible too (assuming there are laws applicable to it…doubt there is a law in the US covering invading a foreign nation on trumped up charges).
So – nevermind what the majority of the population wants to do. YOU think the President should suffer some criminal penalty. Therefore, he should?
You keep recasting what I’ve told you as “The President is above the law.”
In fact, I keep telling you, “Point out the law that the President has broken.”
And you keep sputtering impotently and mumbling about how he SHOULD be locked up.
“Above the law,” means that the law doesn’t apply to him. In this case, you’re not upset that he’s above the law. You’re upset that you can’t pinpoint a law that he’s broken, so you’re reduced to begging for agreement on the issue of how we should craft new laws to prevent the “above the law” nonsense.
But it just isn’t true that Bush has absolute immunity from acts carried out as president. If he violated the law he can be prosecuted.
Take Nixon for example. He obviously committed crimes while president that could have sent him to jail. Now, proving the case to a jury might have been a problem, and Ford made the whole thing moot by pardoning Nixon.
And impeachment does NOT strip the president of protection for acts he committed. Impeachment does NOTHING besides removing the president from office. You don’t need to impeach Bush before he can be charged with a particular crime, you just need a prosecutor with the stones to level charges that Bush violated a particular law.
You are conflating things here. Bush can be charged with violating particular laws, and if convicted he can be sentenced appropriately. Bush can be impeached for being a shitty president and kicked out of office.
One has nothing to do with the other. Bush’s impeachment or lack thereof has no bearing on what crimes he could hypothetically be charged with. And the crimes Bush could be hypothetically charged with have no bearing on his impeachment or lack thereof.
And it’s not true that impeachment is the only way to remove the president from office, the president can also be removed via the 25th Amendment. But yeah, to remove the president requires people in leadership positions to want to remove the president.
Impeachment is and MUST BE a political decision, because how else can it be handled? You can appoint a Wise Man and give him the sole power to decide impeachments, but how does such a Wise Man get chosen? What happens if the Wise Man goes off the rails and needs to be impeached? What happens if the Wise Man is trying to impeach the Rogue Official, and the Rogue Official claims that the Wise Man needs to be impeached. And this is why the ONLY ultimate guarantee of good governance is the citizenry, and why impeachment must reside with a body accountable to the citizenry. And this is why your complaint about mob rule is misplaced. The public HAS to at least retrospectively endorse an impeachment. Rule by Wise Men is dictatorship, we have to rely on rule by the unwashed ignorant masses, which is unfortuneate until we consider the alternative.
The mere fact that Congress isn’t pleasing YOU doesn’t mean the system is broken. It just means that Nancy Pelosi and her cronies can count to 66. Lack of impeachment hearings doesn’t mean Bush therefore gets away with his stipulated crimes, lack of impeachment hearings doesn’t grant Bush immunity.
Look at your history of impeachments. In the decade or two before Clinton, perjury was considered a serious offnce. IIRC, there were 3 impeachments with convictions for perjury before Clinton. Especially look at the trial of Judge Claiborne. Very similar to Clinton’s trial including many of the same Senators (of course the Democratic senators had to justify a 180 turn from their views in the Claiborne case).
Huh? What majority of the population wants what?
I stated explicitly just above your post: “I see no reason he should be above the law on those counts and if he abuses his power so completely as to be impeached he should be held criminally responsible too (assuming there are laws applicable to it…doubt there is a law in the US covering invading a foreign nation on trumped up charges).”
Not sure what got your panties in a wad here.
As for laws I think he potentially could be held liable for:
FISA violations (I know you said this is a terribly difficult case but one for which a law was broken and his fingerprints are on)
Attorney General scandal currently being investigated (I think this falls under corruption)
Torture of prisoners (Federal Anti-Torture Statute 18 U.S.C. § 2340A)
Geneva Convention (yeah I know you said there is no punishment for this but I looked it up and I think there is: War Crimes Act 18 U.S.C. § 2441 which seems to pretty much incorporate the same prohibitions as the Geneva Convention…also as Commander-in-Chief could it be argued he violated the UCMJ [arts. 77-134]? I don’t care…one or the other should apply).
Extraordinary Rendition (violates international law…not sure how that all works though)
There is more of course to impeach him but not perhaps prosecute him for but I think the above could keep him busy.
In the end though, as I have said, is HAVE THE TRIAL! If a court finds him innocent so be it. As it stands seems he is immune to all the above. I am saying a president should be held accountable if it is proven, in court, he is guilty of acts such as those. Why do you find that so wrong?
What I gathered from Bricker and others in this and other threads is that a president pretty much holds immunity for anything he does that falls under his duties as president. Basically you cannot bust him later for doing his job no matter how much you dislike his decisions and that makes sense.
I am suggesting if a president breaks the law in the course of his duties then he should be liable for it, Article II powers or not. Police enjoy immunity in the same fashion but it is not absolute. If a police officer breaks the law in the course of his/her duties they can be held accountable for it.
Nixon was not protected because what he did was not a part of his duties. The example earlier was if Bush took a baseball bat to a congressman he is guilty of assault and being president won’t help him.
As for stripping the president of his protections I know impeachment does not do that. I am saying it should. For any matter he is impeached under he should not enjoy the protection of acting under his Article II powers. If there is no law regarding that (e.g. impeached for invading Iraq…do not think there are laws in the US dealing with invading foreign nations) then nothing, criminally, is done on that count. I’d say he would deserve it but if there is no law that is the end of that.
You are talking past the point. The President does NOT have immunity from anything he does that is illegal. Taking us to war was NOT illegal…even if he out and out lied to get us there.
Put a different way, explain which law the President broke that you think he is hiding behind his office to gain immunity from.
Right, cool, agreed. If the President breaks a (US) law then he can, should and would be held accountable for it. What law has he broken that he could be taken to court over? AFAIK he has broken none. Even if he out and out lied to both Congress and the US public afaik (not being a lawyer) he has broken no US laws. I don’t think he lied to Congress or the American people so much as exaggerated the evidence to put it in the best possible light and achieve the agenda he wished to achieve…but even if he flat out lied his ass off I don’t think he broke any US laws.
What Nixon did was illegal. If Bush took a baseball bat to a congressman it would be illegal and the process we have would remove him from office. We don’t need any special laws or processes to do so…we already have the means.
-XT
Torture of Prisoners (Federal Anti-Torture Statute 18 U.S.C. § 2340A)
FISA violations
Violations of the Geneva Convention which are covered under the War Crimes Act
I believe Bush says these things are necessary in his prosecution of the war and his duty to protect the United States (i.e. his job).
Forgot this part…
I know. I agree that is fine as is.
I don’t know about this one…my understanding is this is a gray area, though if there is any case against Bush my guess is this is the most legit. Maybe Bricker will wander back in and give his more informed thoughts.
Not illegal AFAIK.
To broad, but at any rate I don’t think there is any case to be made. Since there is no body to interpret the GC (or enforce them), it would be up to individual countries to decide whether or not they have violated them. Again, my understanding is that, at least WRT the initial invasion, it’s a gray area and depends on how one interprets the various provisions. In any case it’s moot…according to our own system and laws the invasion of Iraq was perfectly legal.
I believe that what Bush says or doesn’t say has little bearing…the key point is are they illegal by US law? My guess is that none of them (with the possible exception of the first one) would be considered illegal in a court of law.
-XT
Bricker noted earlier that this is a real crime. He also noted it’d be near impossible to prove in a court room. Bush’s fingerprints are all over it but I believe it if Bricker says good luck getting a conviction on it. Still, it is technically a possibility if a huge long shot.
Not broad at all. As it happens violating the Geneva Convention is against the law in the United States (note section C-1…also note the potential penalties in the first paragraph):
Torture is included in there but is also covered under a separate statute. However it also lists other violations that could be relevant which to me would be:
Cruel or inhuman treatment
Intentionally causing serious bodily injury
Willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians (section C-4, several cases for this are documented [cite])
Yeah, they are illegal. Question is can it be proved and pinned to Bush? For the zillionth time I would like to see him in court and have that question settled. I think there is more than enough evidence to merit a trial.
Did he torture anyone?
Is there a written order or evidence of a verbal order for torture?
What specific crime do you think that Bush committed?
A General does not need to stick pins in prisoners to be guilty of torture. If he tells his troops to do it or abets their crimes he is as guilty as they are.
The Bush administration has repeatedly supported torture. As Commander-in-Chief he is responsible for the military’s actions. He is not culpable if one trooper goes nuts and does something stupid. He is culpable when he sets up Guantanamo Bay as a detention center and does his level best to permit torture (do we really need to cite the history on this…it is not hidden or reading between the lines…his efforts in this area are overt).
If a CEO of a corporation tells his accounts to get creative with the books the CEO can be guilty of a criminal act as if he himself cooked the books although he never actually touched them. I’m sure I will be corrected if I am wrong but I thought this was a pretty basic feature of US jurisprudence.
If you want a specific crime that I think has already been judged again I refer you to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld where the administration was guilty of violating the Geneva Convention and the Universal Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for suspending habeas corpus illegally. That was the Supreme Court deciding that.
That is one narrow case on one issue but I offer it as support that the administration (led by Bush and approved by Bush) has already been called out on Geneva Convention violations. There are more out there waiting to be heard.