Does impeachment (of Attorney General) require a simple majority?

[AlinPA]

[rurallib]

1. We'll have to check with the Attorney General

hmmm ... looks like it must be unanimous.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. 2/3

[Kagemusha]

3. You recall there's a Senate trial, right?

Impeachment is just the reference to the senate. Removal takes more.

[AlinPA]

Yes. House can draw up articles, Senate has trial. My Q was about the trial.

[Kagemusha]

9. Then it takes 2/3rds

Carry on.

[tridim]

4. It wont be necessary, he'll resign on Monday

He lied to Congress.

I hear Federal prison is quaint.

[AlinPA]

5. Was he under oath? Not that it matters now.

[napi21]

6. Not to worry. It won't be necessary to spend any time on

impeaching Gonzo. He's not goining to be around very long.

When's he supposed to testify before Congress? Early April, right? Betcha he's not around to do that!

[godai]

7. John Dean indicated a majority in the House, for Cabinet members

I recall a thread on DU a while ago suggesting that this was the way to go, that impeachment of * is nearly impossible but a separate process, for Cabinet members, is much easier.

[seafan]

8. From John Dean:

link

Focusing On Bush Administration Officials

Lowering the aim of an impeachment effort to focus on those who have aided and abetted, or directly engaged in, the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, would have all the positives, and none of the negatives, of going after Bush and Cheney. It would not be an effort to overturn the 2004 election, but rather to rid the government of those who have participated, along with Bush and Cheney, in abuses and misuses of power; indeed, many among them have actually encouraged Bush and Cheney to undertake the offensive activities.

Many of these men (and a few women) are young enough that it is very likely that they will return to other posts in future Republican Administrations, and based on their experience in the Bush/Cheney Administration, they can be expected to make the offensive conduct of this presidency the baseline for the next president they serve. Impeachment, however, would prevent that from happening.

It will be recalled that Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states: "Judgment 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." (Emphasis added.) After any civil officer has been impeached, under the rules of the Senate, it requires only a simple majority vote to add the disqualification from holding future office.

In addition, it is likely that the impeachment process of any official in a position below that of the president or vice president, would be treated the same as the impeachment of federal judges. The work is done in both the House and Senate by special subcommittees, so it does not consume the attention of the full bodies until the final votes.

[robinlynne]

10. sounds like a plan...

[LiberalFighter]

13. House requires a majority to impeach

Senate requires 2/3 to convict.

Judgment I believe is another matter.

Article I
Last 2 paragraphs of Section 3
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.

Judgment 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, judgment and punishment, according to law.


Article II
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


In the Constitution at GPO:
<NOTE: Sec. 41 Judgment in cases of impeachment.>
There has been discussion as to whether or not the Constitution requires both removal and disqualification on conviction (III, 2397); but in the case of Pickering, the Senate decreed only removal (III, 2341). In the case of Humphreys, judgment of both removal and disqualification was pronounced (III, 2397). The question on removal and disqualification has been held divisible for the vote (III, 2397; VI, 512).

The question of judgment requires only a majority vote (VI, 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606).

In the Ritter case, it was first held that upon conviction of the respondent, judgment of removal required no vote, following automatically from conviction under article II, section 4 (Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5607). In the 99th Congress, having tried to conviction the first impeachment case against a federal district judge since 1936, the Senate ordered his removal from office (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29870). In the 101st Congress, two other federal district judges were removed from office following their convictions in the Senate (Oct. 20, 1989, p. 25335; Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27101).

[Bucky]

11. Just to clarify the terms & numbers. To "impeach" means to "indict". The trial is separate thing

You need only a majority of the House to impeach any federal officer, president or judge or department secretary. But once impeached, they remain in office until a trial in the Senate votes by a 2:1 ratio to remove from office.

[AlinPA]

12. Not enough votes to indict Gonzales, so he stays. Hmmm.