Impeachment - will NOT remove Bush from office.

[gully]

Courtesy of WIKI:

In the constitutions of several countries, impeachment is the first of two stages in a specific process for a legislative body to remove a government official without that official's agreement.

Impeachment occurs so rarely that the term is often misunderstood . A typical misconception is to confuse it with involuntary removal from office; in fact it is only the legal statement of charges, parallelling an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a super-majority to convict.

....

The impeachment procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives). The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President him- or herself, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant wouldn't be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment, the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.

In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension.) If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

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

Even if the house impeaches Bush - it won't result in his removal of office given the Senate has to convict with a two-thirds majority. Lets move on. We're poised to win, don't take the bait.

[mmonk]

1. So don't try.

[TahitiNut]

2. Yep. Give up. It's hopeless. Accept assimilation.

Go along to get along. Abandon principle. Fuck justice. Might makes right.

Here... just take a little sip of the Kool Aid. You'll like it.



:puke:

[Bake]

9. Well, it IS hopeless unless we win 2/3 of the Senate.

Even the mildest of the Pukes will never vote to remove * from office. Impeachment didn't exactly hurt Clinton's popularity numbers - may have even helped.

Impeachment would be shooting ourselves in the foot. I'd rather see gridlock that prevents * from doing any further harm.

Bake

[mmonk]

11. No way to stop him from doing harm short of hearings to

expose what he is doing. He has more unchecked power than the executive branch is allowed by our constitution. Hearings without a threat of consequence most likely will be ignored and dismissed as partisanship on behalf of Conyers.

[Bake]

14. I'm all FOR hearings and oversight!

I want to see every one of those Puke bastards testifying under oath. Oversight, oversight, oversight!! And depending on what turns up, then let's see. But I'm not in favor of popping our corks prematurely on the impeachment issue.

If investigations and hearings turn up evidence of impeachable offenses that even the Pukes will support, I'd say go for it. And if Bush continues to thumb his nose at Congress via signing statements, that may be our only option.

Bake

[TahitiNut]

15. Total nonsense.

The only 'hopelessness' is in giving up. That's the self-fulfilling prophecy. That's for losers!

You should note that Nixon resigned because there was bipartisan agreement he committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' Nixon's behavior was petty compared to Bush/Cheney. Nixon had HIGHER approval ratings. The public sentiment was turned as a result of the FACTS.

I'm appalled when anyone thinks their crystal ball is superior to "doing the right thing."

[gully]

17. I think we will impeach Bush.

I just don't want people to think it's "the end all."

[TahitiNut]

20. Of course it's not the end. Far, far more work must be done.

At some point, 25 years of damage to this nation must be undone ... and some actual progress in respecting the rights and liberties of human beings achieved. Anyone who thinks a single election or a single prosecution or a single impeachment is sufficient is delusional. At the same time, such things are ESSENTIAL ... and unless and until they're accomplished, then we haven't even begun.

[Bake]

26. What I'm saying is "if it were today."

If it were today, no Puke would vote to remove him from office. Let's get the majority, conduct serious hearings, and then see about it. It would be pointless to do it today. Get the dirt first, and maybe enough Pukes get on board with it.

Bake

[yurbud]

21. then the Democrats should just say that. "He should be impeached but

not enough republicans want to hold him accountable to reach a 2/3 majority."

They ought to go as far as they can with it. Maybe they are holding back because if he survives the process, he will look vindicated as Clinton did.

The other possibility is they are keeping their mouths shut until they have hearings and when some of the new evidence is made public, it will force Republicans to vote for impeachment or risk letting the whole party sink with Bush.

[joe_sixpack]

28. Plus,

I might want to get back at the republicans a little for what they dragged Clinton and the Country through.

[gully]

6. Sure, go ahead - but don't get your undies in a bundle if Pelosi

isn't slamming her head on a podium yelling IMPEACH!

[philosophie_en_rose]

3. So?

:shrug:

When we have Congress, there'll be plenty of time for impeachment.

Regardless of whether it removes him from office, it sends a message to the world.

[gully]

5. I wish I thought so. I am not against impeachment, I just don't see it

as the end all.

[onenote]

10. actually, there won't be "plenty of time" for impeachment

In fact, there won't be time at all. I know that its not easy to face the reality, but here it is:

Impeachment is not a high priority for a substantial majority of the public (although a slim majority has not ruled it out completely). Indeed, according to the recent Newsweek poll, not even a majority of Democrats would make impeachment a "high" priority.

As a practical matter, this means that, if (hopefully) the party recaptures the House, the focus of their efforts will be first and foremost on those agenda items that are high priorities for a majority of the country and a majority of Democrats: minimum wage, lobbying reform, health care, stem cell research. There will be oversight hearings (call them investigations if you'd like) regarding the run-up to and conduct of the war, but they will not be the front burner items on the agenda.

Keep in mind that if the Democrats have captured the House (and I believe they will), a number of the newly elected Democrats will be from swing districts, or even districts that traditionally have gone repub (Foley and Delay districts, for example). These new members will be looking to consolidate their hold -- they need to begin running for reelection essentially the day after they are sworn in. Because these new members will have depended on the votes of independents and disaffected repubs for their victory, they will have every incentive to stay away from a highly partisan debate over impeachment and instead to focus on producing results on high priority items such as those listed above.

Meanwhile, if there are investigations, you can rest assured that the administration will do everything in its power to drag them out, including resisting document production based on executive privilege claims. You also can rest assured that if an executive privilege dispute goes to court, the current SCOTUS likely will side with the administration.

Thus, its hard to imagine how any activity that would directly relate to impeachment gets underway in 2007. And once you're into 2008, you are into the final year of chimpy's presidency and an election year for the House and 1/3 of the Senate. It, like this year, will be a very short year from a legislative standpoint, as members spend as much or more time back home on the campaign trail as they do in DC. In all likelihood, there will be little enthusiasm in the Congress or in the country for an impeachment proceeding that under the best of circumstances could lead to Chimpy being removed from office for only a couple of months, with a "caretaker" president (Cheney?) in charge during the end of the campaign. (This best case scenario is, of course, extremely unlikely, since the repubs will almost certainly have the votes to block a conviction in the Senate). Frankly, it is likely that the pursuit of impeachment during the 2008 election year will harm the Democrats (just as the repubs lost ground in Congress as a result of their impeachment campaign against Clinton). So long as impeachment remains a partisan effort -- and I can't imagine that it will be anything but -- Democrats will be forced to talk about impeachment (which will be considered "backwards looking") while the repub candidates can claim that they are the one's looking forward.

Its a tough reality, but its the reality nonetheless.

[gully]

19. Excellent, well thought out post.

I bookmarked my own thread, just to have this comment at my disposal.

Thanks!

[michreject]

27. I disagree

When we have Congress, there'll be plenty of time for impeachment.

Those elected won't take office until 01-07. By 11-07 the 08 Presidetial election/campaigning will dominate.

[wryter2000]

4. But, but, but

I really want to give them the only talking point they have left so that I can go tilting at windmills.

[originalpckelly]

7. This FACT just shows how fucking ridiculous the talk is...

you and I both know drone Republicans are not going to attack their king. It isn't going to happen, there isn't a hope in hell. I don't know why people brought it up, when there is absolutely no chance in hell of this man being convicted of his crimes.

[Temporary1]

12. An investigation would kill the GOP

Conyers handing out subpoenas revealing all the lies. It'd be the Pentagon Papers Part 2.

[gully]

16. I'm sure they'll be investigations - regardless.

nt

[Temporary1]

23. I think pelosi won't allow it

I hope Conyers takes the progressive caucus and screws her over with its voting strength if she threatens not to investigate.

[gully]

25. From what I read in Newsweek yesterday

she can't stop it if others pursue the notion.

[onenote]

24. the problem is that the admin will claim executive privilege

based on national security and I don't believe that this SCOTUS will rule against the administration on that point. Moreover, unlike in the Nixon v. US situation, where there was no 'national security' issue, I think the public outrage about chimpy's claim of executive privilege will be dampened if it is upheld by the SCOTUS

[mmonk]

30. Where is that in the constitution? I'm a little fuzzy on that.

[onenote]

32. According to the SCOTUS: inherent in separation of powers

From the unanimous opinion in United States v. Nixon: "A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution."

I'm assuming you weren't just being sarcastic and wanted to know.

[mmonk]

13. So let's all join the republicans and pretend he has committed

no impeachable offenses so the public will believe he hasn't either.

[mmonk]

8. Throw all that constitutional stuff out.

I'm sure it has no useful purpose.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[gully]

22. If you bother to read what was posted

you may note:

A typical misconception is to confuse it (impeachment) with involuntary removal from office; in fact it is only the legal statement of charges, parallelling an indictment in criminal law.

I'm clearing up "a typical misconception" about impeachment as I've seen that "misconception" commonly perpetuated here.

Do you have a point other than being a smart-ASS?

[The Brethren]

29. 'I'm clearing up

"a typical misconception" about impeachment as I've seen that "misconception" commonly perpetuated here."'

First off, the quote from Wikipedia that you posted, that I take that you are using to "clear" things up with, is from the top part of that page which is an over-view of "Most constitutions." When it comes to whether or not we can impeach and remove bush for ex., I am personally only interested in our country's Constitution, not most countries.

Secondly, while Wikipedia provides a lot of valuable, accurate infor. on things that can be verified, it is a user-edited online encyclopedia that includes infor. from users/readers some that contain citations, sources, references etc and those that do not. In fact, when I looked at the page you listed for your thread from the Wikipedia section that you took your quote from in the over-view, when I read it, it also included along with that paragraph, next to "misunderstood", a note: "(citation needed)"

Thirdly, I am going to verify what the Constitution says on this issue (or any issue), I will start with the Constitution itself, and I hope others would do the same, which includes:

Article 1, section 3 from the Constitution:

"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."


This is from The United States Senate website on the Constitution: (http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm). You can also find the same copy of the original Constitution at the bottom of my post from The National Archives..

On impeachment and the issue of removal of a President, it clearly states: "judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further then to removal from Office, and disqualification" ....it does not say "allows up to removal, but does not include removal" I find no confusion in what it is saying whatsoever...... The power to impeach can include removal of the President, as well as that "Party" being legally held accountable for whatever charges are brought against him/her in court.

Also from the Senate site on impeachment: ( specifically re: the Clinton's impeachment process)
(http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=178086&&)

"U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions' Statement Following The Conclusion Of The Court Of Impeachment "

Under "THE FACTS:"

'Contrary to the stunning argument by the President's attorneys, there is just one impeachment standard for presidents and judges. It is found in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution which states:

"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."

That sentence alone should end the inquiry. Advocates on both sides of this case agree that federal judges are civil officers of the United States. As civil officers, they "shall be removed" on impeachment and conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors. The President's attorneys in this case have argued that there is a different standard for federal judges.

So let any notion that judges may be impeached under a different standard be put to rest. That conclusion is inconsistent with the Constitution and not supported by history.'

Under "CONCLUSION:"

The chief law enforcement officer of the land, whose oath of office calls on him to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, crossed the line and failed to defend and protect the law, and, in fact, attacked the law and the rights of a fellow citizen. Under our Constitution, equal justice requires that he forfeit his office. For these reasons, I felt compelled to vote to convict and remove the President from office.

And under the Senate's note of "Explanation" for Article 2, Sec. 4:
(http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a2)

"Impeachment is the ultimate power of Congress to deter and to punish abuse of power by officers of the executive and judicial branches. Federal judges constitute the greater number of impeached and convicted officers. President Andrew Johnson won acquittal by a single vote, and President Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate."

[gully]

31. There is nothing contradictory in your post versus my OP.

nt