Posted on 02/16/2007 5:27:21 PM PST by Chi-townChief
Impeach the president? Impeach President Bush? We learned from the attempt to oust President Bill Clinton that there are few rules for indicting and convicting a president.
A high crime and misdemeanor can be anything that a majority of the House of Representatives says is a high crime or a misdemeanor, and proof of guilt is anything that two-thirds of the Senate says is proof. Thus, a man can be indicted (impeached) for an alleged perjury in a civil trial over private sexual behavior (usually meriting only a civil punishment), and he could be deposed if two-thirds of the Senate accepted the evidence. There is no appeal, no higher court that can declare that such perjury, while lamentable, is not a high crime. To get rid of a president, all you need to do is to have enough votes.
The only president ever forced out by an impeachment proceeding was Richard Nixon, and he was never indicted or convicted, but quit (wisely) before votes could be taken. For there to be a successful impeachment, the Congress and the public had to conclude that there was no other choice. There was no such consensus in 1998. Three-fifths of the American public approved of the way Clinton was doing his job, and everyone knew there were not enough votes in the Senate. The House voted for impeachment because, as Newt Gingrich said, ''We can do it.'' It was an empty, partisan and vindictive choice. The national media hyped it into a big deal when it was only a shabby political trick.
What, then, about increasingly frequent cries for impeachment proceedings against Bush? There are certainly enough votes in the House to indict him, just as the Gingrich House indicted Clinton, but hardly enough in the Senate to convict him.
What would the charges be? Launching a war based on lying to the people, incompetent and corrupt administration of the occupation after the war, deceiving the people about conditions in Iraq and refusal to begin removing the troops when the public had made it clear that they wanted an end -- all substantially more serious than perjury in a civil trial. Not valid reasons for removing a president? If a majority of the House should say that they are valid reasons, then they become valid reasons. What better cause for dumping a president than monumental and stubborn incompetence that has caused tens of thousands of deaths?
Neither the country nor the Congress is ready for such a battle now -- though three-fifths of Americans wish his term was over. When U.S. Rep. Bob Drinan of Massachusetts, a Jesuit priest, introduced a motion to impeach Nixon in 1973, it was quickly shunted off the agenda. Yet, a year later it was voted out of committee, and Nixon left the White House. The public and Congress had all they could take of the man. Should Iraq keep deterioring until the end of the summer, impeachment might make more sense than cutting funds for the war, although both the president and the vice president would have to be convicted of high crimes at the same time.
I am not advocating the deposing of the president by congressional vote. Nor would I, unless the country was ready for it and enough of those senatorial Republicans up for re-election were eager for such a vote lest their future be tied to the fate of that swaggering, stupid man.
The firing of a president is a traumatic event. It would cause a deep wound in the body politic. It took a couple of decades to recover from the shock of deposing Nixon, though after the trivialization of the process by Gingrich it might be less shocking. It may be necessary to strike back at the pernicious claims of extra-constitutional presidential power by the administration. It is not true, as Garry Wills has reminded us, that the title of ''commander in chief'' magnifies the constitutional power of the president. Indeed, his title of commander in chief of the Army and the Navy is limited by the constitutional powers of the president. He is not the commander in chief of all of us, and perhaps that needs to be made clear. Yet, deposing a president is a savage and blunt instrument to be used only when absolutely necessary and at the risk of poisoning the political atmosphere for decades.
mailto:agreel@aol.com
With less than 2 years left, why go through the process now? I seriuosly doubt they will risk it, as much as they'd love to and the left is eager for it.
You missed the two most important ones:
"The British and the American people loudly declared their support for their leaders decision to attack Iraq. It is the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill them."
Osama bin Laden, December 26, 1998
"Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner . . . Take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests, and exalted values."
Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999
In the bad old day, that was quaintly known as a declaration or war. Clinton, of course, responded by attacking Yugoslavia.
No honest person would claim that perjury by the defendant in a workplace sexual harassment lawsuit doesn't qualify.
I've a feeling it would also fatally cripple the WOT and the market.
And, I've got a feeling that such would be precisely what the dems want.
Don't look for this stuff to go away.
Come on. As I recall Newt had resigned as Speaker before Clinton was impeached. Had Newt remained there would probably have been no impeachment.
Ah yea there is that.
I was just having visions of a political coup by removing President Bush and Vice President Cheney at the same time.
President Cheney?
Has a nice ring to it.
VP Rumsfeld. ;-)
Of course that is exactly what he is advocating. This article is utterly worthless. But thank you for posting it, because it is important to continue to keep track of what the radical left is thinking.
No, nominated. I doubt that if Cheney were to be removed, the houses would concur with his choice.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
But, Pelosi will never have to worry about becoming president.
Andrew Greely is scum. HHC's husband
Right. Clinton broke the law and others have been imprisoned for the same thing. Nowhere in that stupid article is it stated that Clinton broke the law and lied about it and Bush didn't.
I strongly urge the Democrats to throw caution to the wind and IMPEACH THAT SOB NOW!!!! (for the children of course)
Since WE have the guns, BRING IT ON! < /sarc >
I see no particular reason why the President and VP could not be constitutionally impeached and removed simultaneously, perhaps in a single legislative act.
In any case, if Bush were impeached and removed from office, whoever he nominated to be the new VP would not actually be VP until approved by majority vote of both houses of Congress, as Ford was. So the House of Reps and Senate could just proceed to impeach and remove from office President Cheney, who would then be replaced by formerly Speaker, now President, Pelosi, next in the line of succession.
Whether this is politically feasible is another question entirely.
First time I read Mr. Greeley. It was like watching a train wreck--horrible, but I couldn't stop reading. I lost track of the counterfactuals after the first paragraph. Has he not heard that Pres. Clinton was guilty of perjury? Doesn't he know that is a felony? Does he really think we want a felon as President? The popularity of the president should not be a factor in the Senate trial--only the facts of the case.
But Ann Coulter does this better in "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".
Nonsense. An impeachment trial is by definition a political act, not a legal proceeding.
Yo, Andy! Heads up! I thought I saw an 11 year old boy walk by!
"Thus, a man can be indicted (impeached) for an alleged perjury in a civil trial over private sexual behavior (usually meriting only a civil punishment), and he could be deposed if two-thirds of the Senate accepted the evidence."
If there was nothing wrong with perjury, perhaps Greely can tell us why Scooter Libby is on trial.
Ironic. BJ's from barely legal interns in the oval office, perjury, sale of missile technology for Chinese money, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom; none of these "trivialized" the office of the President, did they?
These people could rationalize pedophilia if it was committed by a office holding Democrat. Talk about selling one's soul.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.