Amending the Constitution to Permit Impeachment to Originate with States

[CorpGovActivist]

Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a constitutional convention on the application of two-thirds of the state legislatures: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlev.html

Even though the prospects for this unusual step are dim, the symbolism of even one-third of the legislatures applying for a convention - the purpose of which would be to amend the impeachment process to allow the first step to originate with either the House of Representatives OR the states - could help light a fire under the House leadership to reconsider whether impeachment really should be "off the table" or not.

It's a long shot, but it might just put enough of a scare in the impeachment-shy leadership...

- Dave

[originalpckelly]

1. Um, don't we have 2/3 of the state legislatures?

[CorpGovActivist]

2. *Innocent Shrug*

; )

- Dave

[originalpckelly]

5. No, I was wrong, we do control more than the Republicons, but...

nowhere near 2/3.

[originalpckelly]

4. Actually, I just looked it up:

We have 23 outright and 11 are split. That's not 2/3 even with the 11.

[RB TexLa]

3. And as the 08 campaign shapes up perhaps you get some new friends

in trying to do this.

Perhaps a President who wins more big states is tossed out by the smaller states. Wyoming and Idaho could lead the way.

[evlbstrd]

6. It's already there.

No need to amend.
There's more detail here:
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/statebasis.html

[BlooInBloo]

7. People should read the Constitution before trying to amend it.

[conscious evolution]

8. I thought Jeffersons

Manuel on Impeachment,adopted into US Code,Already gave the States write to file for impeachment.
Isn't that why the New Mexico legislature is doing so right now?

[dysfunctional press]

9. that would be great- so every time there's a democratic president-

the nutjobs in the red states will have something to do besides trying to ban the teaching of evolution.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Why not a direct recall?

How about we the people get to unelect the president any time we choose?

[MonkeyFunk]

11. well

first off, let's not wish or a constitutional convention - the results could be disastrous.

As for impeachment starting with the states, it's hard to imagine a scenario where so many of the states demanded impeachment, but not a single Representative in the House would introduce it.

And if the states DID propose it, so what? The House still has to vote on it. In fact, didn't McKinney introduce Articles of Impeachment? They went nowhere.

I still don't understand the gung-ho desire to introduce impeachment that is certain to fail to result in conviction and removal in the Senate.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. It only takes one state to start impeachment, but the congress needs to act on it.

The reason to impeach is just the basic rule of law.

Prosecutors bring cases and juries vote. In this case, the jury is stacked, but does a prosecutor not act because the jury may vote to acquit?

[frogcycle]

13. quite frequently

prosecutors generally don't waste their time and taxpayer money bringing charges they cannot get a conviction on, unless they have political motive

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Usually, a conviction depends on presenting solid evidence to a jury. If the

prosecutor doesn't have the evidence, then yes, they may not choose to try a case.

In the case for impeachment, there is plenty of solid evidence.

So not trying the case for impeachment may be in fact politically motivated instead of visa-versa.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. Yes

so congress gets a petition from a state. They send it to a committee where it dies.

Congress has "acted" on the petition. It doesn't require a full House vote, anymore than McKinney's bill did.

And no decent prosecutor would bring a case knowing he has no chance of conviction. He wouldn't do it knowing he had a 5% chance of conviction.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. A conviction is usually predicated on the evidence. Not on the political

winds at the time of trial.

I believe that once the case for impeaching bush is presented, that there may be more than a few Repos who decide to vote based on the evidence presented.

Prosecutors often don't bring charges when they lack sufficient evidence. This isn't a concern, though, in the case against bush.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. But impeachment is purely political

that's why the power resides in the congress, not the courts.

There is not enough evidence TODAY that would sway 17 republican Senators to vote for conviction and removal.

So let's have hearings, let's investigate, let's GET that evidence. THEN impeach.

You don't impeach, and then find the evidence - that's backwards.

[pat_k]

15. a state's "proposition to impeach at once supersedes business otherwise in order."

Under House Rules, "charges transmitted by a State legislature" is one way to
set impeachment in motion, and further, that "a proposition to impeach. . . at once supersedes business otherwise in order."

House Rules For Impeachment

JEFFERSON’S MANUAL

§ 602. Parliamentary law as to accusation in impeachment.
Accusation. The Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation, becomes suitors for penal justice. 2 Wood., 597; 6 Grey, 356. The general course is to pass a resolution containing a criminal charge against the supposed delinquent, and then to direct some member to impeach him by oral accusation, at the bar of the House of Lords, in the name of the Commons. The person signifies that the articles will be exhibited, and desires that the delinquent may be sequestered from his seat, or be committed, or that the peers will take order for his appearance. Sachev. Trial, 325; 2Wood., 602, 605; Lords’ Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1Wms., 616; 6 Grey, 324


§ 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House.

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 (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536);
by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543);
by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873);
by a message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498);
by charges transmitted from: the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444).

604. A proposition to impeach a question of privilege

A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business (III, 2045–2048, 2051, 2398; VI, 468, 469; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, p. 8814; Sept. 23, 1998, pp. 21560–62; see Deschler, ch. 14, § 8). It may not even be superseded by an election case, which is also a matter of high privilege (III, 2581). It does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been made at a previous time during the same session of Congress (III, 2408), previous action of the House not affecting it (III, 2053). As such, a report of the Committee on the Judiciary accompanying an impeachment resolution is filed from the floor as privileged (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27819), and is called up as privileged (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27828). The addition of new articles of impeachment offered by the managers but not reported by committee are also privileged (III, 2401), as is a proposition to refer to committee the papers and testimony in an impeachment of the preceding Congress (V, 7261). To a privileged resolution of impeachment, an amendment proposing instead censure, which is not privileged, was held not germane (Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28107).

[radfringe]

16. be the IMPEACHMENT parade

whether it's impeachment or some other issue - it will have to start with WE THE PEOPLE

how many times have you heard some corporate mouthpiece state their first obligation is to stockholders?

well - think of the United States of America as a corporation with WE THE PEOPLE as stockholders. The first obligation to of goverment is to the people.

We've pretty much let Congress (board of directors) and the President (CEO) lead the parade - but now it's time for us stockholders to be the parade.