Posted on 05/22/2013 6:36:35 PM PDT by neverdem
You may be appalled about IRS inquisitions for Tea Party groups and dragnet subpoenas for investigative reporters, but what's really outrageous, according to some commentators, is that a couple of Republicans recently dared to use the "I-word"—"impeachment."
I'm not convinced that any of President Obama's recent scandal eruptions constitute an "impeachable moment." But surely something's gone wrong with our constitutional culture when opinion leaders treat the very invocation of the "I-word" as akin to screaming obscenities in a church.
"The notion of impeachment is industrial-strength insane," Michael Tomasky fumes in the Daily Beast. Over at the Atlantic, "communitarian" guru Amitai Etzioni moans "I see no way to protect the president and all of us from the second term curse."
"First among" the serious issues that confront us, Etzioni insists, is "the threshold for impeachment." It's distressingly low, he argues in a piece entitled "Why it should be harder to impeach the president."
"Harder"? We've impeached a total of two presidents in our 224-year constitutional history: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton (Richard Nixon resigned before the full House had a chance to vote on articles of impeachment). Let's be charitable and call it three. The question that should have occurred to Etzioni is, if we only manage to impeach a president once every 75 years or so, just how easy can it be?
As Alexander Hamilton explains in Federalist No. 66, the impeachment power was supposed to serve as "an essential check in the hands of [the legislature] upon encroachments of the executive." Unfortunately, that power has been too rarely used against presidents, and, on occasion, it's been abused.
One such case, argues constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, was the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson for firing his secretary of war and, through various intemperate speeches, "excit[ing] the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress," which is hardly a "high crime."
"The Johnson case shows the danger majority factions may pose if the constitutional standards for impeachment are ignored," Turley writes, but given how infrequently presidents are impeached, "a more significant danger lies in impeach[able] conduct that is ignored by the majority," as when presidents assert "a relativistic view of their authority to claim extraconstitutional powers at times of crisis."
That was a worry shared by many of the Framers. As Virginia's Edmund Randolph noted at the Philadelphia Convention, the impeachment power was essential, given that "the executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power; particularly in time of war. ... Should no regular punishment be provided, it will be irregularly inflicted by tumults & insurrections."
In this regard, the Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf makes a key point: "The biggest Obama scandals are proven and ignored." Among other offenses, Friedersdorf writes, the president has "violated the War Powers Resolution ... when committing U.S. troops to Libya without Congressional approval" and "ordered the assassination of ... American citizens in secret without due process," while "refus[ing] to reveal even the legal reasoning he used."
"People may be starting to use the I-word before too long," Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said last week in relation to the Benghazi scandal. But impeachment talk is relegated to the fringes of the Republican Party, and it's usually invoked for the wrong reasons. The real Benghazi scandal is how we got there in the first place. The president launched an illegal war in a country that his own secretary of defense admitted wasn't "a vital interest" for the United States.
One thing is clear, however: Given the massive abuses of power and public trust that modern presidents have committed, we've had far too few presidential impeachments. We should stop treating the "I-word" like it's a curse.
This article originally appeared in The Washington Examiner.
IMpeachment is one thing. Conviction and removal from office was almost guaranteed not to happen thanks to the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913.
The Founders had it right when they deemed that the 2 state Senators would be appointed by the state House Members.
impeached, removed from office, tried, and imprisoned.
Obama should be found guilty of treason and sentenced appropriately.
This “Guy”I don’t wish to use his Official tital should be impeached but will he?I doubt it.Between the Cowardice of the Republicans and the Obama can Never be wrong democrats He’ll be staying right where his is.Slapping us in the face everyday he remains in office.
If he ever gets thrown out,The damage to this nation will take decades to repair.
Why would the Senate elected by the same electoral group that elected the House that impeached him be less likely to convict and remove than a Senate elected by the States?
I’ve lived in several states, and in none of them have I seen any reason to believe the legislature would be more likely to elect a good Senate than the general populace. To be fair, part of this is no doubt due to the loss of relevance for the states the 17th Amendment contributed to.
Why shouldn’t Obama be impeached? Because he’s to busy? He keeps saying he doesn’t know anything. Maybe we should impeach him so he’ll actually do some work for that salary he’s drawing.
When Andrew Johnson was impeached, there were 37 states...but only 27 of them were represented in Congress. Of the 11 Confederate states, only 1 (Tennessee) had Representatives and Senators in Congress.
Impeachment would be a blessing for him. Criminally prosecute him under the Constitution for ‘abuse of power’ because the scandals he engaged in to win re-election are nothing short of that. These are CRIMES, not mere wrongdoings.
The American people treated clinton’s impeachment as a joke and will surely do so were obama to be impeached. The problem is and remains the American people. I don’t trust them.
The current state of affairs would indicate that he is either under attack from his enemies or he is throwing up smoke screens to deflect his guilt. There’s no in between.
No. Unless you want to hand both houses of congress and the White House to the Democrats and Hillary Clinton. Why in the world would you impeach when there’s zero chance of getting a conviction in the Senate. To make yourselves feel good? It really hurt Bill Clinton, right? No, it made him a hero. Wait till after the ‘14 mid-terms.
The point was not a "good" senate, whatever that means, but an avenue of federalism whereby the States had a strong voice in Washington to temper an ambitious and abusive central government. Popular vote removed federalism from the national legislature, to the enduring detriment of the States. And ultimately the Nation as a whole.
The change was of course a part of the Progressive Era agenda in the early twentieth century, the most catastrophic 20 years in the nation's history.
I think Clinton proved impeachment is now useless. I wonder if repealing the 17th could restore it.
I used to think drawing and quartering was a cruel and unusual punishment under our Constitution but for Barry and his minions It is the only thing which is appropriate.
Imagine what the trial would be like if the Senators knew that their reaffirmation to another 6 years depended upon those in the House that impeached the President.
There are several I-words we need to use much more often with this administration.
Impeach.
Illegal.
Incompetent.
Ignorant.
Inarticulate.
Ignoramus.
Insipid.
Icky.
Impeachment
Impeachment File on Benghazi Coward B. Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, a legal citizen of the sovereign Nation of Indonesia.
I can see how the Democrat Senators would be for Obama because of the great job he’s doing with the economy and employment and foreign affairs and..........
Obama is destroying the Democrat party. What are all those professors and soccer moms and government employees going to do when the impeachment proceedings bring out the truth about Libya. Why the hell do we keep focusing on how an impeachment would affect the Republicans? How would it affect the Democrats? It will fire them up? Then why didn’t Gore win in 2000? Geez, some people must not have ever been in a fight. Quit worrying about what an impeachment might do to the Republicans. You think the Democrats want to suffer through an impeachment proceeding? No way! It scares them to death. Once an impeachment proceeding kicks off, who knows what will come up. The Democrats would like us to fold before the cards are even dealt. Let’s raise the stakes and see if they’re willing to bet the loss of the entire Democrat party.
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.