# Remove Nancy Pelosi **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 21, 2008, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731 "2008-06-21T23:32:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/21 "2008-06-22T02:13:32Z")
What reason is there to think they’d want to? They’ve ll made the same calculations and most likely have reached the same result. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/22 "2008-06-22T05:13:07Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] BTW, “convict” is an inappropriate term for the result of an impeachment trial. That can only be to remove the officeholder from office and/or disqualify him from future office. The process’ borrowing of terms from the legal system has been a source of considerable confusion, unfortunately, but the Constitution itself is clear enough. [/QUOTE] Quite so. The Constitution is very clear in its use of the term “convicted”. Removal from office is the punishment following upon conviction. See the [Constitution, Article I, s. 4, paras. 6 & 7](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/art1.htm): > [@](#): > > 1. 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. > > 2. Judgement 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, judgement and punishment, according to law. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/23 "2008-06-22T05:18:32Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Plus, God Forbid, but there is also the possibility that such a thing could actually foster sympathy for the nasty little cocksucker! [/QUOTE] I would, as self-appointed representative for the homosexual delegation here at the SDMB, ask you to please keep Mr. Bush firmly on your side of that particular fence. We do not want him. We may be forced to admit such sleazoids as Mark Foley and Larry Craig into our little pink country club, but we do draw the line at Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/24 "2008-06-22T05:33:04Z")
Shit, how do you think I feel, he claims to be a Texan! Bush, Hagee, DeLay, Gramm and Sen. “Cornhole” Cornyn! You guys got it easy. Besides, I was referring to a personality type, not a recreational endeavor. Fully half the human species, if not more, regards a “prick” as somewhat appealing. For me, of course, two gym classes and I had already seen as many as I’d ever want. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/25 "2008-06-22T11:38:59Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] For me, of course, two gym classes and I had already seen as many as I’d ever want. [/QUOTE] The first class wasn’t enough? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/26 "2008-06-22T11:57:31Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Not after he pardons himself. BTW, “convict” is an inappropriate term for the result of an impeachment trial. That can only be to remove the officeholder from office and/or disqualify him from future office. The process’ borrowing of terms from the legal system has been a source of considerable confusion, unfortunately, but the Constitution itself is clear enough. [/QUOTE] Couldn’t we hand Bush over to an international war crimes tribunal after his term, though? How satisfying it would be to see the Bush administration serve a 3rd term in Guantanamo. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/27 "2008-06-22T13:11:43Z")
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief] Couldn’t we hand Bush over to an international war crimes tribunal after his term, though? How satisfying it would be to see the Bush administration serve a 3rd term in Guantanamo. [/QUOTE] First, one would have to have a legal justification for taking Bush into custody against his will. And here I’m with **Bricker** all the way: one would need to be able to point to chapter and verse in the U.S. Code. Being at war doesn’t trump our rights under the Constitution, even if Bush believes otherwise. And a desire to see Bush tried for war crimes - a heartfelt desire of my own - doesn’t trump _his_ rights under that same Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/28 "2008-06-22T18:50:21Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] First, one would have to have a legal justification for taking Bush into custody against his will. And here I’m with **Bricker** all the way: one would need to be able to point to chapter and verse in the U.S. Code. Being at war doesn’t trump our rights under the Constitution, even if Bush believes otherwise. And a desire to see Bush tried for war crimes - a heartfelt desire of my own - doesn’t trump _his_ rights under that same Constitution. [/QUOTE] I suppose Guantanamo is out, then. But what if an international war crimes tribunal found him guilty, then? Could Abu Ghraib be too much to hope for? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/29 "2008-06-22T18:56:57Z")
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief] I suppose Guantanamo is out, then. But what if an international war crimes tribunal found him guilty, then? Could Abu Ghraib be too much to hope for? [/QUOTE] First things first: Who is to bell the cat? No U.S. authority will ever arrest W, nor allow foreign officers to do so within our borders. Yet another reason the U.S. should be signatory to the [International Criminal Court.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_court) (Obama, take note!) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/30 "2008-06-22T19:27:29Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] First things first: Who is to bell the cat? No U.S. authority will ever arrest W, nor allow foreign officers to do so within our borders. Yet another reason the U.S. should be signatory to the [International Criminal Court.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_court) (Obama, take note!) [/QUOTE] Methinks Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfie, Feith, etc. will enjoy uninterrupted freedom for the rest of their lives. But I also suspect that their choice of foreign travel destinations may be somewhat limited. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/31 "2008-06-22T20:48:03Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] How about you focus on disenabling Democratic leaders who are impeding the rebuilding of the country. [/quote] I’d prefer we remain focused on winning the presidency for the next few months. We do not have a veto-proof majority in Congress and likely won’t for many years. The sight of a Democratic congressional caucus in turmoil will do nothing to convince swing voters that Democrats are capable of good governance. Our chances of winning the White House could be spoiled, not to mention the odds of gaining congressional seats. > [@](#): > > Pelosi is Bush’s blow-up doll. He wants war funds, she gives him war funds. He wants to eavesdrop, she lets him eavesdrop. Granting your highly questionable premise for the sake of argument, the puppeteer is a greater concern than the puppet. Getting Obama in instead of McCain will make a far greater difference than exchanging Pelosi for.. who? Hoyer? > [@](#): > > Her Congress has an approval rating lower than he has, and bears the nickname “The Do-Nothing Congress”. Goodness! A disparaging nickname! That proves it! Never mind that of the “6 for '06” agenda, four items were enacted in the first session of the new Congress: the miminum-wage increase, implementation of 9/11 Commission recommendations, college cost reductions, and a comprehensive energy bill. A measure to support stem cell research passed but was vetoed. Ethics and lobbying rules received the biggest overhaul since Watergate, > [@](#): > > Yeah, I know… minimum wage and blot blot rot rot. Yeah, I know, minimum wage and Social Security and such don’t score any points with libertarians, but they mean something to us liberals. > [@](#): > > Maybe impeachment is out of reach or ill-advised, but the fucking LEAST she could do is oppose him. MAYBE? Do you really, sincerely, believe that impeachment might be in reach or well-advised? If so, I don’t know what else to say. If not, then you and I agree that the central premise of the OP is deeply flawed. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/32 "2008-06-22T21:02:49Z")
[QUOTE=TWDuke] Do you really, sincerely, believe that impeachment might be in reach or well-advised? [/QUOTE] Not now, no. Starting hearings and investigations to find the evidence that would make impeachment a no-brainer to the general public would have been effective if it had been done in 2007, after the Democrats took the majority in the House. It’s so incredibly obvious that Bush and his administration have performed probably hundreds of illegal actions since they took office that actually investigating, with an impeachment inquiry to power things so the White House couldn’t claim executive privilege on anything, would have turned up incontrovertible evidence, in the face of which the Senate Republicans wouldn’t dare have acquitted. But instead, impeachment was taken off the table by the House leadership and we’ve dilly-dallied our way to 2008 with no action outside of some sternly worded letters to various executive branch bureaus who never had any intention of actually doing anything to answer them. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2008, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/33 "2008-06-23T01:27:14Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] First things first: Who is to bell the cat? No U.S. authority will ever arrest W, nor allow foreign officers to do so within our borders. Yet another reason the U.S. should be signatory to the [International Criminal Court.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_court) (Obama, take note!) [/QUOTE] It’s claimed that the treaty, as is, is legal under the US Constitution. \*US Senators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment. Others have commented that it violates international law, that it is a political court without appeal, that it denies fundamental American human rights, denies the authority of the United Nations, and denies US national sovereignty. (see above for details and citations) \* In any case, the war in Iraq is not prosecutable under that body of law: _On 10 February 2006, the Prosecutor published a letter responding to complaints he had received concerning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[114] He noted that “the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal”, and that the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the actions of nationals of states parties.14] He concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that a limited number of war crimes had been committed in Iraq, but that the crimes allegedly committed by nationals of states parties did not appear to meet the required gravity threshold for an ICC investigation.[66]_ GWB really hasn’t commited “Crimes Against Humanity”. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2008, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/34 "2008-06-23T01:42:29Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] GWB really hasn’t commited “Crimes Against Humanity”. [/QUOTE] Instituting a policy of torture, and providing such lax supervision that ~25 people died under torture, [doesn’t count](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=471238&page=6), I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Dave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Great\_Dave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Dave)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2008, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/35 "2008-06-23T03:48:10Z")
Was it just me, or did anyone else hear a (possibly ex-)general on NPR say that the question isn’t whether Bush has committed any war crimes, but if he will be prosecuted for them? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2008, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/36 "2008-06-23T03:53:02Z")
[QUOTE=Great Dave] Was it just me, or did anyone else hear a (possibly ex-)general on NPR say that the question isn’t whether Bush has committed any war crimes, but if he will be prosecuted for them? [/QUOTE] General Antonio Tabuga, who was the officer investigating the Abu Ghraib tortures. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2008, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/37 "2008-06-23T03:54:01Z")
[QUOTE=Great Dave] Was it just me, or did anyone else hear a (possibly ex-)general on NPR say that the question isn’t whether Bush has committed any war crimes, but if he will be prosecuted for them? [/QUOTE] That was [retired Major General Antonio Taguba.](http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/?iref=mpstoryview) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2008, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/38 "2008-06-23T04:49:03Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Instituting a policy of torture, and providing such lax supervision that ~25 people died under torture, [doesn’t count](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=471238&page=6), I guess. [/QUOTE] Well, either you and **BrainGlutton** think that the International Criminal Court is worth a damn or it isn’t. If it _is_, they have given their opinion that GWB has not commited any crimes that can be prosecuted by their Court. Morally and ethically I agree he’s gone beyond the pale, but _not_ Legally. Like it or not. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2008, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/39 "2008-06-23T10:13:49Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Well, either you and **BrainGlutton** think that the International Criminal Court is worth a damn or it isn’t. If it _is_, they have given their opinion that GWB has not commited any crimes that can be prosecuted by their Court. [/quote] Based on your cites, they haven’t issued an opinion that _nothing_ Bush has done rises to the level of a war crime. They’ve only looked at Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2008, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731/40 "2008-06-26T23:10:27Z")
[QUOTE=Northern Piper] There’s that old saying in politics: “When your opponent is busy committing suicide, don’t distract him.” [/quote] Bush insists he’s winning the war. The Democrats don’t run on his criminality, but on pulling out of Iraq–which looks to me mostly like giving Moqtada a chance to win a civil war. Which side is “committing suicide” depends on your prejudices. > [@](#): > > George Bush is a deadweight around the Republicans. If the Democrats were to start impeachment proceedings, it would provide the incentive needed to revitalize Republican supporters and bring them to the polls in November. At least they should do committee investigations. There are people on this board insisting that Bush broke no laws. A failure to impeach is an implicit concession that there is nothing impeachable. > [@](#): > > The long-term goal for the Democrats is to re-take the White House, because in their view, that is the best way to stop all of Bush’s policies. Yeah? They’re going to retake the White House. Do they have any plans after that? My definition of “long-term” is not something that ends in the next election cycle. And a better goal in a two-party state is standing for rule of law. > [@](#): > > When the electorate is as finely balanced as it currently is, the Democrats have to take the long-term view - better to win the general election than to start impeachment proceedings which may galvanize Republican supporters. The electorate with a massive loss of GOP numbers in the last several years? That electorate? The country was 50-50 after eight tiresome years of Clinton. It got to be more like 70-30 after six frightening years of Bush. If McCain is doing well now, it’s because the Democrats are proving they also are vapid. > [@](#): > > Plus, there’s the point that **Marley23** makes: the Democrats only have 49 Senators, plus two independents who caucus with them. They need 66 to convict in the Senate. Where are those 15 votes going to come from? which Republicans do you see as likely to switch sides and vote to remove a Republican President? We don’t need him convicted so much as we need an effort. Failure even to begin proceedings says that the President can break the law & never be challenged by Congress. > [@](#): > > Plus, do you really think that President Cheney would be any better? Or are you thinking of the “twofer impeachment”, which would make Pelosi President? Again, impeachment does not necessarily mean removal. I want Bush to have as big a black mark as WJC, even if he’s not removed. I’d settle for censure & loss of pension. I want a clear commitment to the idea that the POTUS is not above the law. And I think it’s quite clear by now that Pelosi desperately does not want to the be the first SotH to ascend to the WH. > [@](#): > > Finally, there’s the fact that no President has ever been convicted and removed. The drafters created a system that in practise, makes it nearly impossible to remove a sitting President. What realistic chance is there that it could be invoked this time? Well, then, the Framers were wrong. I suppose I will have to advocate for amending the Constitution to give us a proper parliamentary system, with votes of no confidence possible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remove-nancy-pelosi/453731.md?page=3)