Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ganja Ninja]

If Bush is censured for spying on American citizens and ignores it and continues spying the Senate would have only one option but to impeach him. Is that right?

[bryant69]

1. Well. One presumes they would also have the option of

quietly looking the other way.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Ganja Ninja]

4. Sort of like saying "We approve of your spying on us Mr. Bush."

I'm trying to understand this because it's only been done once before to a sitting President. If it were another member of the senate or congress that was censured and ignored the censure and continued the behavior that got them censured, they would have to act to remove the offender wouldn't they?
Why wouldn't the Dems want to push the R's into to that corner?

[Sammy Pepys]

5. And the guy who was censured....

....Andrew Johnson, didn't care one whit about it and kept on doing what got him the censure in the first place. A later Dem Congress removed the censure from his record altogether. Johnson was later impeached, but for unrelated reasons.

[Sammy Pepys]

2. Well, not in a technical sense...

Censure isn't binding...it's basically a formal statement for the record. He wouldn't be required to do anything differently just because he was censured.

Of course, that it doesn't mean it wouldn't look bad, and might positively influence the pursuit of impeachment later.

[RazzleDazzle]

3. I don't think they're connected in any way

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Uh, the House would impeach

the Senate can only try an impeached President. That's why Feingold is trying the censure-he can't start impeachment procedings.