Impeachment
(Not so) lately I have been hearing the cry of the frustrated, exhausted masses for certain public officials to be impeached. Every time I heard that, I started thinking, “What does it take to impeach a president?” So I started asking people and the interesting thing about all the answers is that they started with, “I think…” Now, thinking is terrific. Thinking is essential! Free, independent thought is not only what started this country, but also what maintains any level of virtue that is left within these borders (of which there remains a great deal). When discussing something as serious as impeachment, it seems to me that calling for something blindly is a bad idea and that some very quick fact-finding can go a very long way.
I am a political retard — I am only catching up on my Constitutional awareness this late in life, but it’s better now than never. For this reason, it did not occur to me to actually look in the Constitution for the answers I was looking for. I quickly found other people say RTFM and so I checked out www.usconstitution.net. There I found Article 2 (Executive Branch), Section 4 (Disqualification) 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.
Ok, that looked like a good place to start! Unfortunately, that site didn’t contain all that I was looking for, so hunting a little harder I came across www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html. Paydirt. So it turns out that:
-
Impeachment is a formal accusation of wrong-doing with an intent of removing the official from ever serving in “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” (god I love that language!). An impeachment trial follows the accusation.
-
The trial can result in either an acquittal or a conviction — the conviction requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate.
-
Our country has witnessed the impeachment of two U.S. presidents: Andrew Johnson (numero 17) for violating the Tenure of Office Act and Bill Clinton (numero 43) for grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice. The Johnson conviction failed by a single vote, resulting in his acquittal. The Clinton acquittal was not so tense with a vote of 45-55. It is noteworthy that 10 Republicans sided with the full body of Democrats for Clinton’s acquittal.
-
Richard Nixon (numero 37) was not impeached, but saw his doom looming on the horizon and resigned before it became an issue.
Thanks for your research, son. You make me proud. Another question which comes up is this:
Does it serve the American people in the long run to spend more taxpayer $ on an impeachment process and make certain government officials accountable for criminal activity, or does it serve the American people to “let it go…’cause it is too expensive? I think the former, esp. in this case, due to the magnitude of effect on democratic ideals (if not capitalistic ideals), and due to the long term effects of various illegal activities. I’m not sure how much more evidence is necessary to convince skeptics that criminal activity has been perpetuated on the American people( by this administration), but it is apparent that there are folks who still believe this administration has acted in good conscience. Corporate power may have co-opted constitutional process some time ago, but does that mean shut up and go along with it? Do we still want a government for the people and by the people? Why should we and our children, grandchildren, etc. bear the consequences of ill advised or short sighted, not to mention blatantly criminal federal action?
Thanks to Kucinich, the movement to call this administration to account remains alive.
This article is great, and as usual, you raise the important subject of RTFM about everything that is unclear. Conjecture is great, but it doesn’t actually serve anybody until process is known.
The question that I would like to research at this point is whether there is a subjective nature to the definition of Treason, as cause for impeachment. If a President is deemed to steer the nation in a direction that is against the greater good of the general populous, or defies long-standing regulations about how the people of the United States are “forced” to conduct themselves, would that necessarily be counted as undermining the structure of the States? I’m using no examples, but I feel I could elaborate if pressed.
Also, I think you’ll find Clinton was our 42nd prez, and the definition of sexual congress was as much on trial as Billy was. The current state of douche-baggery is the result of the 43rd president – who’s election techniques must be questioned for the duration of the existence of this previously great nation.
Jon, thanks for the correction on Billy-boy being #42. That was a typo.
“Treason” is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as: “the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family”. So, while there may be some nuance involved in defining treason, I do not believe Dubb-ya has overtly attempted to overthrow the U.S. government. The problem with Bush is that he truly believes he’s working for the betterment of not only our nation but of all the nations of the world! I believe than many of our former presidents could be accused of steering the United States in a direction that is against the greater good, but that is completely subjective.
I agree with Peter that, instead of cutting our losses and chalking it up to a temporary, bad period of history for us all, we should hold acting parties responsible for their conduct while in office. I was listening to former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown on Kojo Nnamdi (public radio WAMU 88.5 in DC) and he was giving an anecdote about betrayal in his own political experiences (look around for “Gang of Five” and Willie Brown). In the face of betrayal by close political allies, he had the choice to either tell them that they didn’t have the power to oust him from his position as Democratic Assembly Speaker, or to let them know that underhandedness and betrayal are not to be tolerated. He chose the latter to make an example out of them; he says it was to have a little fun after being hurt — I think it serves to show that such behavior — getting close enough through guile to stab someone in the heart — should not be tolerated in public politics.