Article II Section Four

[nadinbrzezinski]

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.

Yes folks it is THAT SIMPLE

[liberalmuse]

1. It would be, if there were more men and women of honor in Congress.

But there aren't, and impeachment is "off the table". Pelosi is a phony who cares more about securing her position by playing it safe than about America, We The People and The Constitution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. She's playing the same stupid game

played in 1988

Alas we lost the WH in 1988

And after today's strong hints from the Coward in chief, all of this may as well kabuki theater

[Laurier]

139. It is that simple. But it's the "and" that is difficult.

The "and" meaning that they have to be convicted of any of a number of specific enumerated crimes.

It's not an either/or situation, it's a A and B situation.

None of them have been indicted for any of the enumerated crimes as far as I can tell, let alone been convicted of them.

It's time they were.

[H2O Man]

2. Right.

You either believe in the Constitution, or you don't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Exactly, but there are people who simply do

not believe in the constitution

It is all a game to them

The US will be destroyed from within

How prescient from whoever said it

[H2O Man]

6. Yes.

I have a friend who said, "Tou can tell a tree by its fruit." Those who honor the Constitution know it means exactly what it says. Those who attempt to say that it doesn't mean what it says insult the Constitution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Well we have these fools every generation

but lately (due to a poor educational system) it has gotten worst

[cali]

3. No, it's never that simple.

Those are merely guidelines for a complex process involving hundreds of people.

Recent history is instructional as to WHY it's not simple.

[Usrename]

114. The articles of the Constition are merely guidelines.

Who told you that? Really, I'd love to know where someone could learn more about ideas such as this.

Did you come up with it yourself, or did you read it somewhere?

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Getting 67 votes for conviction is hardly simple

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. So we seat down and do nothing

and wait for people to respond to warrants they have ignored

And we don't even use inherent contempt.

Ok

[Usrename]

116. It doesn't seem very compicated to me.

What makes it less than very simple? Is there an argument that can be made that they are not guilty?

I've never heard of one.

[Mojambo]

10. You forgot Nancy's addendum...

...Unless it's politically inconvenient.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Well Nancy is making the same STOOPID mistake

that the dems made in 1988

And both of us know what happened back then

[snappyturtle]

12. I think that's exactly the problem....everyone is complicating the

issue when in fact the Constitution is elegantly simple. Impeachment on the table will tell us who is for and who is against the Constitution.

[cuke]

13. We already know who's against the Constitution

The republicans

[snappyturtle]

15. And what about the DEMS who won't "hear" of it or won't put it on the table?

I want to see their votes in black and white, recorded for eternity!

[cuke]

16. They know impeachment would fail

because the repukes will not vote for impeachment

And impeachment isn't about satisfying your desires

[robinlynne]

18. You have your own thread for that.

[cuke]

20. If you're asking me to leave

the answer is no

[robinlynne]

22. We ALL disagree with you on this particular issue. Will you let us have a conversation?

[cuke]

24. I'm not stopping you

stop playing the victim

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrMickeysMom]

23. Non of this is known, because we are not carrying forth the threat of impeachment

Listen, we may get a majority to vote with impeachment, due to the number of congressional district people bombarding their members. In the Senate, it would depend on the rule. The constitution doesn't say how many votes you need in the Senate, There were only 13 states when it was written. The Senate sets their own rules of operation. We have the ability to influence with impeachment. That's one desirable outcome.

What I'm trying to say here is WE DO NOT KNOW the outcome of impeachment, so we cannot say who will or will not vote for it. Without impeachment, the congress, for all its efforts, should not approve one Goddamn thing. Not one thing. Once impeachment hearings begin, you just watch how many citizens will shove cam corders in front of their members faces.

And our Senate... Jesus... they are gonna approve this new dude for AG who allowed the Padilla trial to go on. That criminal will get a pass from the Senate. Meanwhile, we have a short memory, because this dude said Padilla could stand trial when he knew full well that he was tortured to the point of being FUCKING GA-GA. This is what it's come to- We give a pass to the next attorney general. Then, we give up on keeping the White House in check for high crimes and misdemeanors.

This government is just an illusion, and if anything thinks that impeachment doesn't do any good may want to just hang it up.

I still say we HAVE to impeach, and so does the Goddamn Constitution of the United States of America.

[cuke]

25. It is known

It takes 67 senate votes to remove them from office. The votes are not there.

[MrMickeysMom]

31. The benefits of impeachment are not limited to removal from office-

...therefore, this is not about removal from office, as much as it is to hold on to as much of our civil liberties, and avoid the exacerbation of destruction as these people have been capable of shoveling.

[cuke]

45. And failed impeachment will not protect your civil liberties

It will undermine it by exonorating them for everything they've done.

[immoderate]

60. It will expose the corruption.

After the convincing evidence is presented and the case is overwhelming, senators will still have to face their constituents.

--IMM

[cuke]

64. The corruption has been exposed

Even my 90 year old MIL knows about Halliburton and all she ever watches on TV are religious shows on Sunday mornings.

All of this stuff has been reported. Impeachment will not make it any more widely known. The media, as it always does, will distort the truth

[immoderate]

89. That explains it.

I don't know your MIL. :)

--IMM

[MrMickeysMom]

93. Well, my Mother (God rest her soul) knew all about Haliburton, too...

"Public branding" a la the mainstream media is what you describe. This type of information and the public citizen's reaction to it are mutually exclusive.

My mother, before she died this May, was fully aware of what was going on, yet, felt helpless to do more than be aware of it. Many Americans still are.

It is TRUE that we must be more than aware of the misdeeds and criminal activities a la the Bush Administration. I wish I had your crystal ball, because you apparently know what the outcome of impeachment proceedings will mean. But, do you?

I've no idea if you are old enough to have remembered (based on you MIL's age, probably so) what impeachment hearings did to stymie Mr. Nixon's agenda. The over-arching benefits of impeachment are achievable. The fact that you've conceeded nothing will come of it makes me wonder where you are coming from.

Impeachment of Mr. Cheney, and Mr. Bush will make a difference. Leave yourself open to that possibility, or state specifically how "all this stuff has been reported" resulting in more than public branding. If you need someone else's more informed opinion, please go to Bill Moyers Journal and view his July 13th conversation with 2 well informed individuals from different sides of the isle- Bruce Fein and John Nichols.

[cuke]

104. No, I have no crystal ball

My opinions on the public's reaction are just that, my opinions. However, I have supported my opinion with facts. In other posts, I've mentioned all the other things the media has distorted, or not reported on adequately

And I do leave myself "open to the possibility" that I'm wrong. It's the probability that I'm wrong that holds me back from supporting impeachment. If I were to be convinced that there was a fair chance of it working the way you say it might, my opinion would change. However, I have yet to see anyone making such an argument. What I see is people saying we should do it anyway, regardless of the consequences. I see people who are convinced that once the info is out, public opinion will change, even though the info is already out. I see people who are convinced that even a failed impeachment would somehow hold * to account, strengthen the rule of law, etc without supporting such opinions with anything other than their hopes and dreams.

Also, I'm 48yo. I remember the Nixon impeachment and resignation. And I have also seen BM's Journal and the impeachment special he did. However, I can't overlook the consequences I believe would result from an impeachment effort that I think will fail.

But I do appreciate the civil tone, and you have my sympathies for your recent loss. I know how hard it is to lose a loved one

[MrMickeysMom]

106. Cuke, point me to those previous posts, in the effort to make you not have to-

repeat the facts to support your opinion.

When I look at this impeachment issue, it more than from probability. We could talk statistics, but I'm afraid I'd fall on my face. Let's just say-

Process of impeachment = House begins, as you know. Judiciary Committee often becomes involved at an early stage because House can vote to authorize its Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment inquiry. We have a majority vote for the House to begin that phase, I hope you'll agree. This all happens before the House takes a final vote, and we both know that vote can fail.

Outcome of House early impeachment inquiry = failure or passage.

If failure, then it's done.

If passage, the Judiciary Committee may at this stage conduct hearings and draw up the articles of impeachment. (Nixon resigned before they got past this phase, I believe).

The House must vote on articles of impeachment. A simple majority vote can impeach the president-"impeachment".

If impeachment vote fails, then it's done.

If impeachment vote passes, this is more of an indictment than a conviction and send the case to the Senate for trial.

The Senate, at this phase conducts the trial. A prosecution team assembled by the House presents the evidence for conviction. which requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate. A legal defense team represents the president. The chief justice presides over the trial Normally the vice president presides over the Senate, but he must step aside under the Constitution because he would replace the president if senators vote for conviction. At the end of the trial, the Senate probably would allow senators to debate each article of impeachment before taking a vote.

Meanwhile, I've not even mentioned, what the media CAN do, and what the American people SHOULD do.

That's all I got, but Jesus, that's a hell of a lot more than what WE got now.

:thumbsdown:
:thumbsup:
:hi:

[cuke]

120. Read through the thread

there scattered throughout. I'm not going to go through all of them.

As far as the House goes, I see a good chance of it getting through there, but it's not assured. Though we have enough Dems there, I'm not certain they would all vote for it. Some are conservatives from areas where such a vote would imperil their jobs. Others, like me, may feel that impeachment will not get past the Senate, and so vote against it to avoid the embarrassment.

And if it doesn't pass in the House, then I don't think "it's done". I think the repukes will use it against dems and I think it will work.

I think you've outlined the process accurately, but I'm not sure what the point was.

And as far as what we got now, we got investigations. If they can't sway public opinion, I don't see how a party-line impeachment effort will help

[MrMickeysMom]

135. I thought my point was clear... impeachment is rightfully Constitutional

I'm not sure what the point you make is when you summarize that "the repukes will use it against dems and I think it will work". It is pretty clear where the articles of impeachment would come from. There is evidence of it, and perhaps you think that evidence would only be revealed in the Senate.

You didn't want to link me to wherever you had the facts to back that up, and I can't imagine how something that is clearly in line with the constitution could be used against democratic members of the house, where impeachment starts. Maybe you think we have no leaders in the hizzy house?

So, as far as you know, "we got investigations" and don't see how a party-line impeachment effort will help. That sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy.

I think it boils down to sometimes having to do the right thing, regardless of the self-implied associated risks. It takes real leadership to do that, so maybe you think there are not enough leaders in the House, in which case, we're all fucked, but I think you're wrong.

But, I'll defend your right to free speech. Let's hope we still have some of it left by those in charge of a Republic, if they can keep it.

[cuke]

136. I do think an impeachment is a legitimate goal

but I also think the republicans will lie about it and claim that it's just political payback for Clinton (who's wife may very well be the nominee). I don't see the media doing anything to refute the republicans lies. The facts that back this up are the many times the repubs have lies, and the many times the media has failed to point that out.

And it's not a self fulfilling prophecy. My opinions have little effect on how the repubs vote. Just today 157 repubs voted to not overturn *'s veto of SCHIP. 80% of all americans want SCHIP and they still supported *. Almost all of those 157 are going to have to campaign against a Dem who is going to make sure voters know that they voted against children, and they don't care. They would rather piss off voters than piss off mr. 24%

If they won't go against * on SCHIP, what makes you think they will go against *?

Public opinion won't do it. the repukes don't care.

[Sneaky Sailor]

92. Clinton's Impeachment

Was not sucessful and they knew that going in, but htey did it anyway, why? because they wanted to make a point.

[MrMickeysMom]

94. That sure got a lot of mileage, didn't it? n/t

[robinlynne]

53. and to save the very offices they are destroying, both executive and legislative.

[robinlynne]

51. right on!

[AuntPatsy]

47. Are you willing to risk the lives of thousands of more innocent iraq civilians and our soldiers

and not push for impeaching simply because you "think" there might not be enough votes? did it ever occur to you that they to are being threatened into submission and perhaps if they believed impeaching would work they would go for it so they could be free?

I find it a bit telling that none of the candidates use this current administration as talking points for why they should win.

[snappyturtle]

91. Impeachment isn't about filling personal desire it is rather doing what the

Constitution instructs us to do.

I think we're missing an opportunity to bring the republicans to the impeachment side by leaving it off the table.

[Usrename]

117. They know that impeachment would fail on what grounds?

Is it because they really believe that Bush/Cheney are not guilty of any crimes?

Is it because they believe that they are guilty of crimes, but they don't rise to the level of impeacheable offences?

Is it because they believe that even if Treason and Bribery were proven beyond all doubt that they couldn't muster enough votes to remove them?

And lastly, please, if you could, explain exactly HOW these folks KNOW this stuff. Do they have a time-machine or a crystal ball?

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. I suspect one reason they don't is that we will be in for

a shock

I, for one, don't thik it will be strictly a partisan vote, not any more

[robinlynne]

17. elegantly simple. I like the way you said that. It IS elegantly simple.

[H2O Man]

19. I agree. n/t

[robinlynne]

21. now how the hell do we make it happen? I feel like camping in the dem leadership's

offices.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. You too?

There are days I wonder, should I just take puter and go to my congress critters office and park?

[cuke]

27. Maybe you should

Seriously

If you're going to ask congress members to risk their careers over impeachment, you might want to consider putting yourself out there too.

[robinlynne]

29. That's it, you're going on ignore. bye.

[Yukari Yakumo]

37. What an ass-clown

If that's how you'll act when people tell you things you don't want to hear, you might as well just leave.

The only ones who thinks it's simple are the ones who can only see things in black and white. Impeachment is hardly simple, not even close.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. The rule of law is never simple

but it the duty of these representatives to carry out their oath to the constitution

I will contend the major difference between 1973 and today is that in 1973 they didn't find it inconvenient

And they had a war going on

They could chew gum and walk at the same time

In my mind they are not doing what their oaths ask them, demand from them to be specific

[Joe Fields]

52. The process of impeachment may not be so simple, but the

decision to introduce articles of impeachment should be automatic. If you don't want impeachment, then I hope I never hear you complain about the loss of anymore of your rights.

[cali]

58. Automatic? What does that even mean?

[Joe Fields]

73. If you have to ask.....

[cali]

87. LOL! The last refuge of the..... n/t

[Joe Fields]

118. If I need to spell it out for you, then you haven't been paying attention.

And if you haven't been paying attention, then it is a waste of my time to even try and explain. Much like trying to have an intelligent conversation with my kool-aid drinking freeper brother-in-law.

Last refuge, my ass. Do you enjoy arguing for argument's sake, or are you just naturally obtuse?

[cali]

35. You know what's funny?

The people who are most likely to use ignore, are the people who just can't stand being challenged. Their ideas are evidently so fragile that they find it unbearable to have anyone question them.

[cuke]

48. It's the Authoritarian Left

Just like the Authoritarian Right, they can't stand dissent

[Joe Fields]

46. Evidently you weren't around for the Watergate hearings.

They wouldn't have had the votes to impeach in the beginning, either. But by the time the process had run it's course, enough republicans were convinced that Nixon would have been impeached, had he not resigned.

You're not going to get the fucking votes right off the bat, moron. You have to hold hearings and conduct investigations. You have to collect enough evidence to show, beyond a doubt to hardcore republican stonewallers that Bush committed proven impeachable offenses. It can be done. It should be done, and this business of using lame-ass "they don't have the votes" is sophomoric, at best, and demonstrates a true lack of understanding about the reasons our government was set up the way it is.

[cuke]

50. Wrong

The repukes in 1973 were mostly moderates, and the media was governed by the Fairness Doctrine and was not owned and controlled by a few large multi national corporations.

No matter what evidence you dig up, the repukes will still not vote for impeachment. We already know that * tortures people, imprisons them without charge, denies them due process and habeus corpus, spies on americans without warrants, and on and on, and that hasnt shamed the repukes into supporting impeachment.

[onenote]

54. i was around for them. Here's some numbers for you. You might reconsider calling someone a moron.

410-4: That was the vote in the House on Feb 6, 1974 to authorize the Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry and report back on whether to recommend the adoption of articles of impeachment.

77-0: That was the vote a year earlier in the Senate to establish the Select Committee on Watergate.

You might be careful about who you call a moron.

[Joe Fields]

57. Yes, well over a year into the hearings, fool. By that time, the

evidence being collected was overwhelming in nature. It would have been political suicide to vote against impeachment, moron.

[cali]

59. Here's a little suggestion for you:

Try not caling people who diagree with you, morons. Just a tip.

[Joe Fields]

75. I usually do my best to show respect, but on impeachment I will

not give an inch. Anyone who thinks we shouldn't impeach, for WHATEVER reason is a goddamned fool.

[H2O Man]

90. What about McCarthyites?

You favor that, don't you?

[cali]

101. How amusing to see you

off your high horse, slinging misleading and fallacious comments.

[H2O Man]

102. I don't have

a horse, cali. Do you?

[onenote]

62. I;ll ignore the fool comment and try to explain,

I'll take it one step at a time.

The Watergate Break-in occurred June 1972.
The principal investigation of the break-in and related campaign abuses began with the authorization by the Senate, on February 7, 1973, to set up the Select Committee. The vote was 77-0.

Those hearings took place from May 1973 through February 1974.

Following the completion of the hearings the House, in Feb. 1974, voted 410-4 to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry.

The fact is that there was overwhelming bi-partisan support both for investigating the Watergate break-in in 1973 and for starting the impeachment process in 1974. The 1973 action, however, was not an impeachment inquiry. I have no problem with calling for investigations outside the impeachment process and think that one or more special investigatory committees should be established. But what is being discussed here is skipping ahead to starting the impeachment process now. And in the Nixon situation that step took place AFTER non-impeachment investigations and only with the overwhelming bi-partisan support of the Congress. Those who advocate for the immediate commencement of an impeachment process against chimpy ignore that and pretend that it didn't happen that way. But facts are stubborn things.

[Joe Fields]

70. You have just corroborated my argument, or don't you read all of

the replies on a thread?

[onenote]

74. I did respond to your other comment. And before you posted in response to me

So chill.

[cali]

55. there are critical differences

With Nixon, republicans were critical in instigating impeachment hearings. That's not the case today, at all. Your remarks indicate that you're somewhat confused about how the Nixon hearing went down. And of course, the dems held great majorities in both the House and the Senate.

[Joe Fields]

61. It is you who are confused. I lived through those hearings, followed them

every day. They were NOT impeachment hearings. They were hearings conducted by the Senate select committee to investigate the Watergate cover-up. When enough evidence became known as to Nixon's involvement, then there was a vote to move on impeachment.

Also, it took the Watergate hearings to bring much of Nixon's transgressions to light. Whereas, we already know that Bush has violated the constitution on several grounds. We just don't know how widespread his abuses are. So, there is absolutely no reason to not impeach. Other than cowardice, or a lack of concern for performing their sworn duty to uphold the constitution. Or unless they are all bought and paid for by a corporation or corporations.

But to simply say "we don't have the votes, so we're not even going to try," is a slap in the face to every man, woman and child in this country, and should be viewed with contempt.

[cali]

65. I'm not talking about the Senate investigations that led

to the impeachment investigation in the House. I'm talking about the impeachment investigation in the House that led to articles of impeachment being voted out of commitee. And again, republicans were instrumental in the House.

And for the record I'm pro-impeachment, even though I'm well enough informed to know that the odds against a conviction are slim to none.

[onenote]

66. despite our calling each other names, it appears that to a degree we agree

As you point out (and as I point out in a separate response) the investigation of Watergate began not as an impeachment process, but as an investigatory process. And that is what should be going on now. Talking about impeachment now is the problem. The focus should be on starting investigations that can build bi-partisan support for impeachment, not skipping ahead and trying to move an impeachment process through a purely partisan vote.

[cuke]

69. Do you think you're the only one?

"They were NOT impeachment hearings. "

Right, it wasn't the impeachment that brought these things out and made the public and the republican senators support impeachment. It was the investigations.

So why start the impeachment before the investigations are done?

"But to simply say "we don't have the votes, so we're not even going to try," is a slap in the face to every man, woman and child in this country, and should be viewed with contempt."

Only ideologues view the facts with contempt

[robinlynne]

28. Believe it or not, citizens have been meeting with Waxman, and he really

was unaware of much that congress can do. (specifically inherent contempt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. I know perhaps go seat at her office

wiht the house manual highlighted?

[robinlynne]

36. Nadin, I'm out of here. talk to you tomorrow. I find the static annoying.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Don't feed the trolls and the static goes away!

:-)

Nite

[cali]

56. Isn't it time

for you to run off and gossip? Don't you have a "watch" to conduct?

[cali]

32. No. I don't believe it. Not even for a nano second. nt

[kath]

131. That's right - it will make every member of the House and Senate go on record as to which is most

important to them -- the friggin' CONSTITUTION or their political party. It's that simple -- and when they are faced with that bald choice, presumably even some of the Repugs will vote FOR the Constitution instead of against it.

[RB TexLa]

33. And if you remove both at the same time. You get Acting President Rice

Article II Section 1

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Article I Section 6
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.


Members of Congress can not be officers (cabinet members) of the United States and are barred from acting as President by the constitution. The law putting them in the line of secession will be ruled unconstitutional if there is ever someone who has standing to challenge it.

And the correct terminology is Acting President as only a Vice-President can assume the office of President anyone else acts with the power of the office without actually holding the office.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. The line of succession currently marks The Speaker of the house

anyhow... in impeachment all the executive goes away, including all officers appointed by the chief executive

It is nasty

but what is your alternative?

[robinlynne]

41. yep. Ms Pelosi would be president. But when you look at it that way, you're ignoring

the important part, which is to restore the rule of law, and the balance of power, and expose the crimes. It's not about Bush or Cheney, it's about what they have done to the offices they hold and the country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Correct

the reaosn why I am an impeachment hawk, is becuase of that pesky little thing called

to defend and protect the constutiton of the united states...

[RB TexLa]

44. The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 has never been challenged in court

and if it were to be it would be ruled unconstitutional.


The law puts members of Congress in line. The Constitution clearly prohibits them.

[Hosnon]

76. Which clause?

I would assume Article I, Section 6, Clause 2:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

However, the operative word here is "appointed". And the term, as used elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g., Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) may not include simple succession.

In any event, I'm not sure the Constitution clearly prohibits them.

[RB TexLa]

77. They can not be appointed a civil officer and Art II Section 1 says that congress

declares what "officer" shall be acting president.


It doesn't say what officer or member of congress or whoever congress puts in line through legislation.

[Hosnon]

79. Right, they cannot be appointed. And appointment, according to the use of the term

elsewhere in the Constitution, probably refers to the process of Presidential nomination and confirmation (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). The succession law does not use that process.

Furthermore, even if the verb does apply in this situation, the Speaker may simply be able to resign immediately before becoming President.

[RB TexLa]

80. The constitution says only an "officer" can act as President. And it says officers

can't be members of congress and members of congress can't be officers.



So you are saying the speaker resigns and then holds no office and becomes acting president? That would be the same as just grabbing someone off the street.


"Officers" are cabinet secretaries. Or as referred to in the constitution "principal Officer in each of the executive Departments" The constitution says congress can make a law to choose what officer acts as president, they can not just insert anyone they want.

Article 1
Clause 6: Vacancy and Disability

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Article 2
Section 6: Compensation, privilege, restriction on holding civil office
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.


Article 1
Section 2: Presidential Powers
Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.



added on edit:

The officer declared by law would still be the principle officer of his or her department and would act as president. In the current situation, Condi Rice would still be Secretary of State while acting as president. She would still be refereed to as Madame Secretary. Only the Vice-President can assume the office of President. There would also be no oath of office taken as her power to act as president derives from her position as Secretary of State. Her oath taking that office covers the this as one of the duties of a cabinet secretary.

Of course she would have to challenge the 1947 act, as she would be the first person to have standing to do so.

[Hosnon]

83. Ok, I see now.

Only an officer can act as the President; officers are appointed by nomination (Presidential) and confirmation (Senatorial); Congresspersons cannot and do not go through that process. Therefore, Congresspersons cannot act as the President.

Got it.

There is certainly good reason for this: the conflict of interest.

[onenote]

99. the Presidential Succession Act would not be held unconstitutional

The legal analysis posited above is flawed.

First, let's get Article 2, Section 6 out of the way. All it says, on its face, is that a member of Congress (house or senate) cannot, during the term for which he/she was elected, accept an appointment to a newly-created office or to an office that has had its compensation increased during the member's term of office. So, for example, if Tom Ridge had still been a member of Congress when the Dept of Homeland Security was created, he couldn't have resigned his seat in the House and taken the job. But because he was governor of PA, there was no bar. But members of Congress can and regularly do resign their positions and accept appointment to existing cabinet posts or other offices within the executive or judicial branch.

Second, the two positions outside the executive branch that are in the line of succession are the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore. And both of these positions are, in constitutional terms, "offices". How do we know this? Take a look at Article I, Section 2, which states "The HOuse of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers..." Similarly, Article II, SEction 3 states that the "Senate shall choose their other officers, and also president pro tempore..."

Finally, to the extent that there is any ambiguity (and I don't really think that there is), there is little doubt that the SCOTUS, in interpreting the succession clause, would look for evidence of what the founders thought. And they would hone in on the Succession Act of 1792 -- the first presidential succession act, enacted just five years after the Constitution was drafted and four years after it was ratified. That law, which expressly provided for the president pro tempore and the speaker to follow the VP in the line of succession, will with certainty be considered by the SCOTUS as convincing evidence that the term "officer" as used in the succession clause includes the office of the speaker and the office of the president pro tempore.

[Hosnon]

72. I'm not so sure about that.

It has never happened, so there is no on point precedent. And "the executive" is only the President and Vice-President; the cabinet is a legislative/executive hybrid.

I would bet that if you impeach and remove the President, only the President goes.

[EstimatedProphet]

100. But according to you, Pelosi is horrible

Why would you want Pelosi as President if she's as terrible as you say?

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. She has not led the way she could lead

why? It is up to her and history to judge

But compared to our current chief executive and his VEEP... she will be light years better

As we joke in this house, even my parrot would be better... just remember to scratch his head.

[EstimatedProphet]

144. Yeah, now it's "She has not led the way she could lead"

Yet, according to you, she is as responsible for the war - which you think Bush/Cheney should be impeached and jailed for - as Bush/Cheney.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1964163

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Naomi Wolf on video

watch this folks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=63102&mesg_id=63102

[Swamp Rat]

63. Thanks!

:kick:

[onenote]

49. if its so simple, why has it happened so infrequently

There have been a lot of "civil officers" in the US in 230 years of history. Seventeen impeachments.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Because it is a powerful tool

they gave it to us for a reason and it goes back to BRITISH common practice, going back to the black death

It is not commonly done, but it is a tool in the quiver

Being afraid of using a tool is what is so damn puzzling to me

Why the fear?

Read the Power of Impeachment for a historical analysis of the process... going back to its british roots

[MonkeyFunk]

67. Yes

If impeached and convicted, they shall be removed.

But they won't be impeached OR convicted.

Give it up.

[Kurovski]

68. "Shall be" not "may be".

I've seen derision expressed for stating that it is a duty.

It is a duty spelled out. It is a requirement.

K&R.

[cuke]

71. "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment"

not "shall be impeached"

[Kurovski]

81. I stand corrected.

And thank you.

[Richardo]

96. .

:blush:

[cali]

78. You're just flat wrong.

That shall refers to what happens after impeachment and conviction, that's why it says shall be removed. It has zip zero nada to do with bringing impeachment charges. That's totally at the discretion of the House, and isn't even a subject of debate among Constitutional scholars.

[Kurovski]

82. Yes, yes, thank you

Madam Pylon. :-)

[cali]

84. Sorry.

I just see that so much, and quite often, people won't admit that they're misreading it.

[Kurovski]

85. That's ok. I had a careless, emotional reaction to the original post.

I was pretty jumpy earlier tonight, maybe it's a full moon? :-)

Take care, Cali. :hi:

[defendandprotect]

86. Am I wrong, or is it hinted that BLACKWATER $ circled back to the GOP . . .. ??? ????

[democrank]

88. Defend the Constitution.

Impeach.

[EstimatedProphet]

95. Oh, well that solves everything.

[Richardo]

97. Read it again - it IS simple.

The imperative verb is 'remove' not 'impeach'.

This Article only prescribes the penalty 'on Impeachment' and conviction.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

98. Phew - I'm glad that's over

:eyes:

[garybeck]

103. Yep, the wording is "SHALL," not "CAN"

and SHALL = MUST. look it up in the dictionary :)

[cali]

107. impeachment is completely at the discretion of the House. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

108. But what does "Shall" refer to?

it refers to removal upon conviction, not impeachment itself.

The House has no affirmative obligation to impeach under any circumstances.

[mmonk]

105. Yes, it is unless the system is broken.

Well, guess what.

[CrispyQ]

109. I think the groundswell for impeachment would change even some

GOP senator's minds. Many of them are looking to distance themselves from this administration. Just pointing out to those who so strongly profess 'we don't have the votes,' that maybe we do. At any rate, if the last 16 months of the Bush/Cheney term was spent tied up in impeachment hearings, they could do less damage. Also, it would send a message to the rest of the world that Americans are not one & the same as the administration -- a distinction that seems to be diminishing.

VISUALIZE IMPEACHMENT

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Like '73... reason why Nixon stepped down was... this was pointed

out to him... he was facing conviction...

The ironic part this message was carried to him by none other than George Bush Sr as chairman of the GOP

[MonkeyFunk]

115. After

Senate hearings that exposed his blatant criminality. And those hearings weren't impeachment hearings.

[Usrename]

119. What is your point? Impeachment had begun!

Articles of impeachment were being drawn up against Nixon.

Here's a link to the articles (three of them) that were adopted by the committee on the judiciary:

http://www.watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

He ran like hell when it became inevitable that he was being impeached.

What is your point? Is it to bolster your argument that impeachment doesn't work? Would you please just stop with this?

[MonkeyFunk]

121. My point

is that the Senate Watergate Committee uncovered Nixon's crimes, and it was only after that that the House Judiciary Committee began to consider articles of impeachment. Also, the Washington Post had uncovered clear, convincing evidence of crimes.

In other words, the evidence was brought out via investigations, THEN impeachment was considered.

What do you want me to stop? Disagreeing with you? Sorry, that's not gonna happen.

[Usrename]

132. Ok - so we all know about the crimes and we want to consider impeachment.

Just stop with your willful ignorance and your disinformation campaign.

The Washington Post has uncovered clear, convincing evidence of crimes for Bush/Cheney! So has the Senate!

Get a clue, and just stop with the intentional obtuseness. I know you have a lot of practice at it, and it's second nature for you, but just stop it already!

We have clear and convincing evidence that these guys have engaged in treason, bribery, war crimes, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, all manner of civil rights violations.... can you name a single felony that you believe these criminals are absolutely innocent of committing?

I don't think you can!

So, just stop already with the feigned ignorance. We all know that you know better, and pisses people off!

:grr:

[cuke]

123. The point - It wasn't the impeachment process itself that forced Nixon out of office

It was the evidence found through an investigation that led to Nixons RESIGNATION

[Usrename]

130. That's crazy talk.

Do you really believe Nixon would have resigned if he knew that impeachment was off the table?

:wtf:

[onenote]

140. impeachment won't stay off the table if there is bi-partisan support for it

but until then its off the table because it can't get anywhere, even in the house. The Watergate non-impeachment inquiry started with a vote of 77-0 to authorize the Senate select commmittee. The actual impeachment inquiry began with a vote of 404-10 to direct the House Judiciary Committee to investigate and report back on articles of impeachment. There is nowhere near that kind of consensus here. Even the Clinton impeachment had a modicum of bi-partisan support from the outset -- 31 Democrats supported the initiation of the process. A purely partisan impeachment effort will not garner enough support to move forward. We can dislike that reality all we want, but our dislike of reality doesn't change reality. If there arent' enough votes to pass a restrictive FISA bill, where do you think the votes are to start an impeachment proceeding?

[Usrename]

141. Is there a reason to believe that congress would side with Bush?

I don't know that there is that much support among Republicans for criminal conduct in the White House.

One thing I'm sure of though, absolutely, without any doubt whatsoever, the Republicans sure are a whole lot more comfortable with impeachment off the table and getting a free-pass about having to vote in favor of or against criminal conduct by Bush/Cheney.

I honestly don't see how they benefit by being forced to a vote, but that is the argument, isn't it?

[onenote]

142. I have no doubt at all that if there was a vote tomorrow

on whether to authorize the Judiciary Committee to start an impeachment inquiry, every repub would vote against it. The repubs don't think what chimpy has done is illegal. They buy into the unitary executive concept. They don't care about warrantless wiretaps. They've made that very clear in their votes on any number of subjects.

[conscious evolution]

113. Article III Section 3

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

[baldguy]

122. "...shall be..."

Congress does not have the option of ignoring Bush's crimes.

[MonkeyFunk]

124. Wrong

The "shall" doesn't compel the congress to impeach. The "shall" compels the subject of impeachment to be removed from office upon conviction.

Can't people read anymore?

[baldguy]

126. Is Congress subject to common law?

Does a prosecutor, or the police, or the justice system have the option of investigating & adjudicating a capital crime?

If your spouse is murdered on your doorstep, can the police say "We can't investigate this crime because it would be politically inconvenient for us, and we'd probably lose the case anyway"?

The idea is absurd. The Constitution is the law. If the law isn't adhered to, then its meaningless.

[MonkeyFunk]

127. There is no affirmative obligation

on the House to impeach. None whatsoever.

People who use that stupid "shall" quote are simply illiterate.

[baldguy]

128. So, don't answer my question.

Is Congress subject to common law? Are the legal institutions set up to investigate & prosecute capital crimes obligated by law to carry out that duty?

[MonkeyFunk]

129. No

unless the "common law" is codified, then no, Congress is not legally subject to it.

That's obvious.

[baldguy]

133. You don't know what common law is, do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

[cali]

125. actually, it does.

At least as far as impeachment is concerned. impeachment is wholly at the discretion of the house of representatives. that 'shall' refers to removal after impeachment and conviction.

[onenote]

138. how many times do we have to go through this. No, there is no constitutional duty to impeach

The Consititution doesn't anywhere mandate that the impeachment power be used. It is extraordinarily poor legal analysis and reasoning to suggest otherwise. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between a grant of authority to act and a mandate to act. Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution declares that the President shall have "the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States" but no one would ever suggest that this somehow imposes an obligation on the executive to grant a reprieve or pardon in any particular instance, whether or not "justified" in some sense.

Put another way, the supposed constitutional obligation imposed on the House to impeach is absurd and unenforceable. WOuld you suggest that if the House voted on articles of impeachment that the members who voted against were somehow guilty of a constitutional violation? What if a majority voted against. Would those who supported impeachment be guilty of violating a constitutional duty? It is a nonsensical construction of the plain words of the COnstitution to suggest that it imposes any obligation on the House. What it does it confer authority, which the House can choose to exercise or not exercise as it sees fit.

And as for the oath of office, if it creates anything it creates an obligation to uphold the constitution. It doesn't specify any particular way of doing that.

Finally, if impeachment was required every time a constitutional violation occurred, how come there have been only 17 impeachments in over 200 years, yet any number of legislative and executive acts have been held unconsitutional by the courts. For example, the SCOTUS found that Truman acted unlawfully during the 1952 steel strike. Was Congress immediately obligaged to impeach him? Don't think so and no one else who has ever given it serious thought has ever thought so either.

[baldguy]

143. I'll ask you what I asked MonkeyFunk.

Is Congress subject to common law? Does a prosecutor, or the police, or the justice system have the option of investigating & adjudicating a capital crime?

[onenote]

145. i don't see the relevance of the question, but I'll answer anyway

The United States is a "common law" country, meaning that there are elements of our jurisprudence that are established by the courts and not necessarily codified into specific statutes. Thus, for example, much of the law of contracts and torts is grounded in "common law".

However, there is, and never has been, a common law of impeachment. Impeachment is not the subject of any body of judicial precedent because impeachments are not judicial proceedings. Impeachment is governed by the provisions of the Constitution expressly addressing the issue and the precedents of the House and Senate. Impeachment issues are not justiciable in a court of law.

To illustrate: by arguing that there is a legal duty to impeach, one is arguing also that there must be a means of enforcing this legal duty. But the notion that the courts could compel Congress to vote on impeachment --- and indeed could compel individual members of Congress to vote for rather than against impeachment -- not only is absurd on its face, but is directly contrary to Constitution which expressly states that the House shall have "the sole power of impeachment" and the Senate shall have the "sole power to try all impeachments". One cannot go to a court and make the case for impeachment. It is not justiciable by the courts as a matter of clear Constitutional mandate.

Finally, turning back to your question, prosecutors, police and the judicial system generally have considerable discretion in all criminal matters. Whether to arrest, seek indictment, what specific charges to bring, if any, and what penalties to impose are all generally matters of discretion unless, as increasingly is the case with sentencing, the legislature has limited that discretion through mandatory sentencing laws. Criminal law in the US is statutory, with a underlying common law base. But, there is no enforceable common law duty to bring charges or try someone. This discretion is not limitless.. it can be abused, as through selective enforcement, denial of equal protection, etc.

But again, none of this is relevant to impeachment, for which there is no common law.

[baldguy]

147. BZZZZT.. Wrong answer.

Impeachment has been a part of English common law since at least the 1300s. And it is most definitely a judicial procedure. The House acts in the role of Grand Jury & Prosecutor, bringing charges against the accused. The trial is held before the Senate as the jury, with the Chief Justice presiding. Impeachment is a trial, just like any other.

And like other judicial proceedings, impeachment is not the only course open to Congress has when confronted with offenses which are impeachable. First & foremost they should investigate the accusations. If they agree with the defendant's actions or don't wish to pursue impeachment, they can clarify or revise the law. Or if they don't agree, they can enact a new law to prohibit that action. Or they can censure the defendant. The defendant also can take action - by resigning, or acknowledging his error and reiterating his respect for the law & his understanding of it. There should be a constant dialog from one side to the other & back again.

The one thing they cannot do when confronted with flagrant violations of the Constitution is ignore them. They MUST act.

[onenote]

149. sorry, but I'm not the one who is wrong

Impeachment may have had its origins in English common law, but in the United States, it is governed exclusively by the Constitution and the precedents of the House and Senate.

And while it is a quasi-judicial procedure, it is not conducted by the Judiciary. The only role played by the judicial branch is that, pursuant to express constitutional directive, the Chief Justice "presides" over the Senate trial of an impeachment. But the judicial branch has no jurisdiction to mandate, forbid, or otherwise review or intervene in an impeachment proceeding. Indeed, even the role of the Chief Justice in presiding over an impeachment trial is limited in tha the CJ can issue rulings on questions of evidentiary relevance and the like, but any ruling by the CJ can be challenged by a single Senator with the final determination based on a vote of the entire Senate. Thus, if tomorrow, the House decides to impeach an officer of the governmennt for the "high crime and misdemeanor" of wearing black shoes and brown socks, there is nothing that can be done to stop them. The Senate, of course, could acquit. But if for some reason they did not, then it would be game, set, and match. There is no appeal from an impeachment verdict. (Indeed, it would be particularly bizarre for there to be an appeal process given the Chief Justice's prior involvement in the process). The checks and balances in the process are that if COngress fails to impeach (or impeaches when it shouldn't) the voters can render judgment on COngress at the ballot box.

Even within the English system, I challenge you to show that the House of Commons is under any enforceable legal mandate to commence an impeachment. The fact that there have been no impeachments in England in over 200 years would suggest either a level of perfection in governance by all manner of civil officers or maybe the exercise of some discretion on the part of the House of Commons.

Finally, I come back to my question to you (having taken the time to answer yours): how would this supposed legal obligation to impeach be enforced? Can someone ask a court to compel members of the House to vote for impeachment or to commence an impeachment process? Upon what showing would the courts act, given the express COnstitutional declaration that the "sole power" of impeachment rests with the House.

I look forward to your answers.

[baldguy]

150. Maybe you want to go back & re-read your previous post?

You're contradicting yourself.

[onenote]

151. maybe you should point out those contradictions if you see them

My previous post, while not explicit on the point, indicated that in the US there is no "common law" of impeachment. WHile impeachment began in English common law, the provisions dealing with impeachment in the US constitution supersede them. Put another way, when you are dealing with an issue of contract law or property law or torts, you can argue that common law precedents are binding. But precedents from English parliamentary proceedings are in no way "binding" on the US House and Senate when it comes to impeachment. They have the "sole power" and can and do set whatever rules they want.

In fact, even if English common law somehow was relevant, the fact is that under English impeachment law, Parliament basically set its own rules and followed its own precedents. As one scholar has noted, "Since Parliament arrogated to itself the right to impeach, it needed no systematic justification for its exercise. There was some effort in impeachment trials to research precedents in prior impeachments, but precedents consisted of no more than the sum total of Parliamentary impeachment proceedings. In the end, “every ruling on impeachment was legal because the root of public law was the pronouncement of Parliament” (Hoffer and Hull 1984, 9)."


I can understand why you are avoiding answering my question, but I will pose it again: how is this supposed "legal obligation" to be enforced? For example, assuming that Congress was obligated to follow ENglish common law and further assuming that there was some English common law supporting the notion that the parliament (and thus Congress) has no discretion in deciding whether to pursue impeachment, who has the power to compel COngress (which has been accorded the "sole power" of impeachment) to reverse itself and undertake impeachment?

[baldguy]

153. Contradictions…

-Impeachment is a part of common law – but then it somehow ISN'T part of common law (no explanation given)

-Impeachment isn't a judicial proceeding, but it is a quasi-judicial proceeding (which is a distinction without a difference. There's nothing quasi about it.)

-Police, prosecutors & judges have discretion in their positions as officers of the court in how they investigate crimes & adjudicate the law. So do members of Congress have discretion in their positions as officers of the Constitution in how they investigate accusations & adjudicate Articles of Impeachment. Again – what they cannot do is ignore them.


Common law comes into this whole process because first: in common law oaths matter. When they swear to protect & defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign & domestic in their capacity as Senators, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, or as the President – that bears the weight of law. They MUST act in their capacity as officers of the Constitution to uphold their oath - they do not have a choice.

Second: Powers & responsibilities are granted to institutions and officers for a reason. Article 1, Section 3 grants the responsibility of impeachment to the Congress. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE THERE FOR, at least in part.

Third: common law stands on precedent. Congress could not impeach someone for wearing black shoes with brown socks as a high crime and misdemeanor because "high crimes and misdemeanors" is understood to have a certain meaning, even if the meaning can be debated. (And the Clinton Impeachment doesn't count. That was done because he was a Democrat, not for any supposed "crimes" he may have committed.)

Finally, there are several ways to force the House to go forward with impeachment proceedings:

In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House.

more:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_house_rules_manual&docid=hruletx-57.pdf

So if we get a state legislature to instist...

[tammywammy]

134. Pretty simple indeed

Once they're convicted of impeachment, then they'll be removed from office. Unfortunately there's nothing in the Constitution that forces Congress to start impeachment proceedings.

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. Nancy told us that she needs to know if high crimes have been commited

the fact she's even asking this, and not letinng the hearings go forth is telling to me

Cui Bono

[onenote]

146. "letting the hearings go forth" requires more than Pelosi. It requires a majority in Congress

The first step in the impeachment process is for the full House to vote on a resolution authorizing and directing the Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry and report back on articles of impeachment. The problem that we face is that such a resolution almost certainly would not pass right now. Every repub would vote against it and will be joined in that opposition by more than 16 moderate/conservative/blue dog/swing district Democrats who won't support a purely party line vote on starting impeachment (given that even the Clinton impeachment process started with a modicum of bi-partisanship in the form of 31 Democratic votes to authorize the inquiry). Until the initial hurdle can be overcome, calling for a vote relating to impeachment will simply hand chimpy a victory.

[nadinbrzezinski]

148. PZZZ the first step is actually a willingness from the leadership

which does not exist

We have a simple majority...

We have a leadership that does not want to go there

cui bono?

[onenote]

152. we have a leadership that can count votes. So they don't go where they can't get to.