Should impeachment be removed from the constitution?

[mmonk]

To be against impeachment of the bush administration it would seem is to be against the precepts the founders had for putting it in our constitution. Since there seems to those who think impeachment should not be on the agenda, I think this question should be asked.

[rucky]

1. Hey, what the hell! It's just a goddamned piece of paper. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

5. And after all, it's only mentioned 3 times!

[SeattleGirl]

25. I thought it was 6. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

28. Hey, SeattleGirl! You're right!

You know, I heard Randi Rhodes reference it as, "6", but my eyes initially only counted 3...

So, I re-read my Constitution. Sure enough, I had missed the first 3... If you read Article I, section 2, the first mention of this is...

"The House of Representatives shall chuse (that's how it's spelled in my citizen book) their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"

The 2nd and 3rd mention is section 3- "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments... Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shal not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor...

The remaining 3 mentions are under Article II section 4, which, BTW, I'm waiting to see in "real time" :*

[Richardo]

2. No.

What's the next question?

[meegbear]

3. Well they could take the amendment about quartering troops out ...

that's a tad dated.

[atreides1]

14. Not so much

With this current administration and what it might be capable of, I don't think it's dated at all.

[meegbear]

16. OK, then the prohibition / prohibition repeals then ...

mutually exclusive.

[Thothmes]

30. Outdated

So is the Congressional authority to grant letters of Marque and Reprisal

[spanone]

4. If bu$hco is not an exemplary use of impeachment, what is????

once it is taken 'off the table' it is moot.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. I disagree

The problem is not the Constitution. The problem is the reluctance some have to follow through defending it.

As of the past weekend, impeachment is on the table, with or without Speaker Pelosi's leave.

[yourout]

7. I think it should be a crime to NOT pursue Impeachment when evidence says they should.

Aiding and abbetting or something like that.

[Ghost in the Machine]

8. didn't you just ask this same question last weeK

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1338180

[mmonk]

19. Yes.

It's a recycle for those that missed an opportunity to express themselves. I didn't want to kick my own thread.

[Mme. Defarge]

9. No, because

what are they gonna do if the President gets a BJ from an intern?

[MNDemNY]

10. We don't need on stinkin' constitution.

[kenny blankenship]

11. No no no that would not be fair. Republicans still USE that clause

even if it's worthless to you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Yes and we should all whip out our checkbooks and send money to help

re-elect every Democrat in Congress. They are doing such a bang up job!!!

:sarcasm:

[rodeodance]

13. Pelosi already removed it!

[SoonerPride]

15. The Constitution should be removed from the National Archives.

It is no longer relevant.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. no

you asked the same exact question last week - my answer is the same.

[mmonk]

20. I wasn't expecting a change.

This is primarily an opportunity for those that missed it though I appreciate your participation.

[madinmaryland]

18. Only to be used for consensual affairs. Now move along.

:grr:

[shadowknows69]

21. How about making it easier

I want a simple, "You're Fired" amendment.

[Perky]

22. I am not opposed to impeachment but there are problems

There is obviously not a lot of impeachment precedent out there...

I think however that the bar for impeachment needs to set high and Has to be more than a partisan exercise. I think you need a 60% threshold in the House or a majority of the state legislature calling for impeachment.

But I also think that while a president should be able to appoint who he want to cabinet, sub-cabinet ambassador at 50%.; I think you should have to get 2/3rds majority in the Senate to appoint Judges to the federal bench. The reason is two fol. a simple majority vote disproportionately favors small rural states and and the bar need to be higher because judges survive the presidency and you really want them above all partisanship.

I mention that because I think the same principal applies to impeachment. The GOP had made impeachment corrosive to the Constitution itself. It has become an ineffective and partisan device. You can now impeach the president for almost anything.....it should not be that way.....but it is.

The sad truth is however much we might want to drive the President from office, it is probably more important that we raise the standard again from impeachment and only exercise it where it has some level of bi-partisan support.


I've long favored censure for abuse of authority by both Bush and Cheney. I think a Special Prosecutor ought to be appointed and if with that a special master to review classified document. If Bush refuses to cooperate...then by all means he needs to be impeached.

I wish there was more that could be done I truly do.....I am consoled by the fact that however awful the last 6 years have been. There is nothin....that hes has done that can not be undone. We can stop illegal activity. we can reverse the Patriot Act, we can write executive Orders that put the evil genie back in the box.


What we can't do is make partisan impeachment and show trials that will not convict the guilty something that happens every 6 years or so... it is not worth it... if the american populace simply begins to roll their eyes every time the process starts.

[mmonk]

23. Impeachment only requires a simple majority of the House.

If this president is unimpeachable then none in the future will be either.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Impeachment was more common than you think

but if the Pubbies succeed, better throw the Constutitution and declare this a Monarchy.

[bobbolink]

31. Absolutely, it's just not worth it.

That whole Iran/Contra thing went so well.

Why bother with prosecuting thiefs and murderers?

Oh hell, child abusers are so cute, we shouldn't make their lives difficult.

Life would be so much simpler if we just took all the crimes off all the books.

[Perky]

39. I understand the visceral reaction

And I am not saying he should be given a break.... I am all for a special prosecutor. I jst think that the impeachment bar has to be high enough that it reuires some level of bipartiainship

Now some might argue that the partisan well may be so polluted that bipartisan impeachment is impossible, but I think that if partisan ship drives the effort it is doomed to failure. And failure would hurt us in the long run at the polls and help them by rallying their base.

If I did not believe the damage to the constition could not be undone I would agree. But I am not conviced that is the case.

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. It does seem like we don't need it any more.

:shrug:

[Cleita]

27. Maybe the Constitution should be removed from the Constitution then.

I just heard the argument that Congress doesn't want to impeach because Clinton was impeached and that would set a precedent to impeach the next President as well. Eh....?!!!

I say, "So what!"

Impeachment only investigates for breeches of public office, brings up the charges so to speak. If each President falls under scrutiny because there is a question about his suitability for office, the investigation should reveal if it's so or otherwise.

I personally think that this procedure will not be used facitiously in the long run. Sure, there will be the Clinton type impeachments but most likely they will become fewer because the taxpayers will become more disgruntled when they are frivolous.

IMPEACH NOW FOR EGREGIOUS ACTIONS AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTION OR WE MIGHT AS WELL TEAR IT UP AND START OVER AGAIN!

[shadowknows69]

29. Keep impeaching until we find an honest one says I

But it's clear that it's too easy for someone to stack the deck. Corporate overlords and lobbyists more than likely. Having the Supreme Court in your corner doesn't hurt either.

[Cleita]

32. Amen bro. Keep impeaching until we find an honest one.

We should not be afraid of airing our dirty linen and it needs to be aired.

[ComerPerro]

33. To those who have the audacity to accuse anyone not 100% in lockstep behind impeachment

of not caring about the Constitution, I remind you that the founding fathers had a very specific suggested course of action for times when abuses were being committed and peaceful resolution could not be reached.

Check the Bill of Rights, Amendment 2. You'll know what to do. I don't think I need to say anything further, except that if you don't follow through, then you obviously don't value the Constitution.

[porphyrian]

34. No need. They'll just remove the Constitution. Problem solved. - n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

35. I am absolutely appalled at some of the things I am seeing here.

The amount of dualistic, "black and white" thinking I have seen in the past few weeks here as been jarring! Because some feel that impeachment is not the most pressing matter, suddenly people are "anti-impeachment," and therefore, must consider that the concept of impeachment be removed as an option all together. It seems, for some, rationality has flown out the fucking window!

[orleans]

36. it really would make it a lot easier for the congressional dems

if impeachment were removed. then they wouldn't have to fight and argue and arrest their base for demanding they use it.

[radfringe]

37. why bother?

with congress turning themselves into gelded jellyfish (no balls-no spine) and allowing bush/cheney unfettered powers - the constitution is just a piece of paper, a quaint historical artifact that may one day be displayed next to pottery shards.

according to the polls - the republics prefer "none of the above", the dems are showing themselves to be weenies when it comes to checking the bush/cheney imperial presidency, which hurts support for a dem nominee. if it continues we will see a very strong 3rd party candidate emerge and would have a very real possibility of winning (of course this assumes votes are really counted)

my concern is we've been divided for so long, and thirsting for real leadership for so long that we'll drink the sand because we don't know any better

Kool-aid comes in many flavors

[Hippo_Tron]

38. We need a much clearer definition of high crimes and misdemeanors

Abuses of power don't carry specific criminal penalties under the law and that's why there is no case for impeachment yet. Remember that Nixon faced certain impeachment for participating in a conspiracy to cover up a petty crime. Not his abuses of power in his investigations of civil rights and anti-war groups.