Can a President be impeached and removed from office...

[radcen]

Can a President be impeached and removed from office simply because they suck and both parties agree? Or, does a crime have to be committed?

 

[joG]

Can a President be impeached and removed from office simply because they suck and both parties agree? Or, does a crime have to be committed?

One would hope there were a procedure.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Can a President be impeached and removed from office simply because they suck and both parties agree? Or, does a crime have to be committed?

Section II Article 4 of the US Constitution 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.

Legally speaking, "We, the representatives of the United States of America declare with a bipartisan effort that we will begin impeachment proceedings against President Jackoff, for he sucketh" isn't going to pass constitutional muster.

 

[dimensionallava]

doesn't the constitution say the president can only be impeached if he gets a blowjob while in office?

 

[radcen]

Section II Article 4 of the US Constitution States:



Legally speaking, "We, the representatives of the United States of America declare with a bipartisan effort that we will begin impeachment proceedings against President Jackoff, for he sucketh" isn't going to pass constitutional muster.

That's what I suspected. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, impeachment requires a criminal charge. The better question is why only 34 Senate votes are needed to ignore (excuse?) that crime. There was no doubt that Clinton lied, only doubt that was whether at least 34 were in "safe seats" and thus willing to ignore (excuse?) that kind of lying from a popular president (or any politician?) in their party.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Can a President be impeached and removed from office simply because they suck and both parties agree? Or, does a crime have to be committed?

By the Constitution it is Article 2, Section 4: "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."

... and Article 1, Section 3: "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."

By process (best I can tell) the House has to have a formal process of Impeachment against the President, then it moves to the Senate where the President is defended by his counsel against House counsel acting as the prosecution. The Chief Justice presides the case, the Senate is turned into a jury. As a jury, they must debate and reach a verdict and 2/3 vote is required for conviction. Then a second vote is determined for removal from office as a result of conviction.

Now this is gray area on the determination on what qualifies as a "crime." Also, valid impeachment proceedings have been started in the past that did not result in a President being removed.

 

[ttwtt78640]

doesn't the constitution say the president can only be impeached if he gets a blowjob while in office?

Getting a blow job, consensual sex, is not a crime - lying under oath is. Whatever "is" means.

 

[CMPancake]

doesn't the constitution say the president can only be impeached if he gets a blowjob while in office?

No, but a president would be held accountable if the President lied about it in a sworn statement.

 

[joG]

No, impeachment requires a criminal charge. The better question is why only 34 Senate votes are needed to ignore (excuse?) that crime. There was no doubt that Clinton lied, only doubt that was whether at least 34 were in "safe seats" and thus willing to ignore (excuse?) that kind of lying from a popular president (or any politician?) in their party.

That would be a check on the power of a majority to remove a President for political reasons.

 

[azgreg]

doesn't the constitution say the president can only be impeached if he gets a blowjob while in office?

It's not that he got a blow job, it's who he got it from that was the offense.

 

[radcen]

Now this is gray area on the determination on what qualifies as a "crime."

The question was prompted by envisioning a "President Trump". I could see both parties wanting to get rid of the asshole, but I get they can't do it for that reason alone. That being said, I could envision him eventually doing something that might qualify as a crime.

 

[jonny5]

By the Constitution it is Article 2, Section 4: "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."

... and Article 1, Section 3: "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."

By process (best I can tell) the House has to have a formal process of Impeachment against the President, then it moves to the Senate where the President is defended by his counsel against House counsel acting as the prosecution. The Chief Justice presides the case, the Senate is turned into a jury. As a jury, they must debate and reach a verdict and 2/3 vote is required for conviction. Then a second vote is determined for removal from office as a result of conviction.

Now this is gray area on the determination on what qualifies as a "crime." Also, valid impeachment proceedings have been started in the past that did not result in a President being removed.

However, the power of impeachment isnt defined. Which leaves it open to definition. 2-4 only says that the President SHALL be removed. It does not say shall ONLY be removed. Thus 1-8 applies

Congress shall have the power...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That would be a check on the power of a majority to remove a President for political reasons.

Or the ability of a minority to protect a guilty president for political reasons.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The question was prompted by envisioning a "President Trump". I could see both parties wanting to get rid of the asshole, but I get they can't do it for that reason alone. That being said, I could envision him eventually doing something that might qualify as a crime.

It would have to be something along the lines of conviction of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the Presidency, perhaps behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office, or using the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. Now this was not really talked about on this level until the 1970s, after the Nixon fiasco.

Ironically, Nixon was not impeached anyway. The funny part is Ford issued him an "absolute" pardon, which more or less implied Nixon's guilt for crimes he was never tried or convicted of and in most regards left his Presidential reputation more damaged than all other Presidents who faced impeachment. Like Clinton, who had a House impeachment but was acquitted by the Senate in trial (by 17 votes post a very awkward debate.)

The standard is still "crime" or intention of "crime" as others have put it. Clinton's matter came down to lying under oath, sort of. But, also understand that some of this thinking has never been tested even though we have enough Constitutional reason to exclude some of the thinking. You follow? Trump might be the President to push those limits depending on the political make up of the entire Congress and whatever it is that he did to get the House started on a process.

 

[OrphanSlug]

However, the power of impeachment isnt defined. Which leaves it open to definition. 2-4 only says that the President SHALL be removed. It does not say shall ONLY be removed. Thus 1-8 applies

Congress shall have the power...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.

Now that thinking would be stretching, and it would result in an interesting case for the Senate to hear.

 

[Gaius46]

Can a President be impeached and removed from office simply because they suck and both parties agree? Or, does a crime have to be committed?

Nope. High crimes and misdemeanors as the Constitution says. Under parliamentarian systems the head of government can be removed by a no confidence vote. We have to suffer fools until the next election cycle.

I read an interesting article, the first of a set discussing this question, a couple of days ago. If a President is clearly bonkers and not acting in the best interests of the country is it worth the Constitutional crisis to remove him before he does widespread permanent damage. That author took the position that it was and he partially based that on the idea that our Constitution itself is essentially an illegal document. The framers had no authority to draft a new Constitution they were to just amend the Articles of Confederation and the ratification mechanism they chose was illegal under the Articles. I think Madison said in one of the Federalist Papers something about not wanting the entire country held hostage to Rhode Island.

I'll see if I can dig up a pointer. I think it's still up on my PC at home.

 

[Paperview]

It would have to be something along the lines of conviction of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the Presidency, perhaps behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office, or using the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. Now this was not really talked about on this level until the 1970s, after the Nixon fiasco.

It sure as heck was talked about when the HofR impeached Andrew Johnson for dismissing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. (the vote was all along party lines)

Remember - impeachment is merely the political equivalent of an indictment. Johnson of course was not removed from office, as the Senate acquitted him. That trial set the precedent high for using threat of impeachment as a political / party tool.

It also set the bar for future impeachment trials that the defendant had to have committed criminal acts in order to be convicted.

Ironically, Nixon was not impeached anyway. The funny part is Ford issued him an "absolute" pardon, which more or less implied Nixon's guilt for crimes he was never tried or convicted of and in most regards left his Presidential reputation more damaged than all other Presidents who faced impeachment.

What do you mean all other presidents who faced impeachment? Prior to the articles being drawn up for Nixon, there had only been one. Johnson.

The few random attempts (Tyler Buchanan, Grant, Truman, etc.) didn't really go very far. "Facing impeachment" would be close enough to having articles drawn up. When something doesn't even make it out of the Judiciary committee, and/or a random congressman introduces a resolution, it doesn't carry the weight of facing it.

The standard is still "crime" or intention of "crime" as others have put it. Clinton's matter came down to lying under oath, sort of. But, also understand that some of this thinking has never been tested even though we have enough Constitutional reason to exclude some of the thinking. You follow?

No.

 

[Paperview]

However, the power of impeachment isnt defined.

Huh?

The constitution gives the sole power to the HoR.

Which leaves it open to definition. 2-4 only says that the President SHALL be removed. It does not say shall ONLY be removed. Thus 1-8 applies

?? More huh?

Congress shall have the power...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.

What's your point?

 

[Visbek]

No, impeachment requires a criminal charge. The better question is why only 34 Senate votes are needed to ignore (excuse?) that crime.

It requires a majority to impeach, supermajority to convict.

The process was not designed to thwart the choice of the voters. It was designed to get rid of a President who has committed a serious crime. With a lower threshold it would be tempting to constantly impeach and try to convict Presidents.

 

[Grim17]

Section II Article 4 of the US Constitution States:



Legally speaking, "We, the representatives of the United States of America declare with a bipartisan effort that we will begin impeachment proceedings against President Jackoff, for he sucketh" isn't going to pass constitutional muster.

I believe you are correct sir.

 

[Grim17]

doesn't the constitution say the president can only be impeached if he gets a blowjob while in office?

It would be ridiculous to impeach a president over something like that.

If they however, lied under oath to a grand jury during testimony, that would justify such action.


.

 

[jonny5]

Huh?

The constitution gives the sole power to the HoR. ?? More huh?
What's your point?

Exactly what I said. Congress has the power to make laws regarding their powers. Like impeachment. Like who they impeach and for what.

 

[jonny5]

It requires a majority to impeach, supermajority to convict.

The process was not designed to thwart the choice of the voters. It was designed to get rid of a President who has committed a serious crime. With a lower threshold it would be tempting to constantly impeach and try to convict Presidents.

And if that were objectionable to the citizens, they would choose different legislators.

 

[Jetboogieman]

It would be ridiculous to impeach a president over something like that.

If they however, lied under oath to a grand jury during testimony, that would justify such action.


.

Yeah alot of people get that one wrong.