Can a President be impeached and removed from office... (1 Viewer)

[Paperview]

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

What you said didn't make sense, so I asked you to clarify.

The powers congress holds is defined in the Constitution. No, they can't change via legislation the methods and requirements as prescribed in the Constitution for impeachment, or who they impeach. That has been defined. "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers."

A Constitutional amendment would be required to change it.

 

[radcen]

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

^^^ Textbook example of a blind partisan.

 

[Riveroaks]

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.

Was boinking Monica a misdemeanor ??

 

[Jetboogieman]

Was boinking Monica a misdemeanor ??

He was actually impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

You can argue that the charges were politically motivated by the events between him and Monica but ultimately... the line between his perjury charge and acquittal was a single word:

"is".

 

[haymarket]

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

That would depend on the quality of the service and the result of that same endeavor.

 

[Riveroaks]

He was actually impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

You can argue that the charges were politically motivated by the events between him and Monica but ultimately... the line between his perjury charge and acquittal was a single word:

"is".

I don't recall Clinton ever being put under oath to testify if he boinked Monica or not.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I don't recall Clinton ever being put under oath to testify if he boinked Monica or not.

Text of Clinton's grand jury testimony

The fact is he said that there was nothing going on between him and Lewisky and THAT Is why he was impeached, because he allegedly lied before the grand jury.

The key there was he said and I quote:

CLINTON: And so I said to them things that were true about this relationship. That I used -- in the language I used, I said there is nothing going on between us. That was true. I said I have not had sex with her, as I define it. That was true.

That was the crux of the matter, technically, and I Mean technically he didn't lie because at that point, it was present tense, there IS nothing going on between us and that was the key.

Now if he'd of come out and said straight away "Yes we did have sexual relations" the most that may have happened is he would have left office censured by Congress, but I doubt he'd have been impeached for it.

Republicans took advantage of the situation and deposition sure, but that doesn't mean he did not walk on a knifes edge on that perjury charge.

 

[Riveroaks]

Text of Clinton's grand jury testimony

The fact is he said that there was nothing going on between him and Lewisky and THAT Is why he was impeached, because he allegedly lied before the grand jury.

The key there was he said and I quote:



That was the crux of the matter, technically, and I Mean technically he didn't lie because at that point, it was present tense, there IS nothing going on between us and that was the key.

Now if he'd of come out and said straight away "Yes we did have sexual relations" the most that may have happened is he would have left office censured by Congress, but I doubt he'd have been impeached for it.

Republicans took advantage of the situation and deposition sure, but that doesn't mean he did not walk on a knifes edge on that perjury charge.

Ok yes I remember that part -- "is" versus "was". I guess the House and Senate did not buy it.

This essentially demonstrates that there must be a pretense at least for impeachment.

And a pretense is fairly easy to devise.

 

[ludin]

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?

I do believe that the president can only be removed in the case of crimes against the office.
IE he has to break the law.

The process is divided into 2 sections.

1. The house votes on the articles of impeachment. These are the charges that they are issuing against the president. it takes 2/3rd a majority
in the house to pass this.

2. The senate then votes to actually impeach the president based on the charges. again I think it takes 2/3rd a majority to remove him from office.

so the house can pass the charges and impeach the president but the senate doesn't have to remove him from office case in point bill Clinton.
impeached but not removed from office.

 

[jet57]

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?

No. If that were true, then the office of the presidency would have dried up a long time ago.

 

[Paperview]

I do believe that the president can only be removed in the case of crimes against the office.
IE he has to break the law.

The process is divided into 2 sections.

1. The house votes on the articles of impeachment. These are the charges that they are issuing against the president. it takes 2/3rd a majority
in the house to pass this.

2. The senate then votes to actually impeach the president based on the charges. again I think it takes 2/3rd a majority to remove him from office.

so the house can pass the charges and impeach the president but the senate doesn't have to remove him from office case in point bill Clinton.
impeached but not removed from office.

As stated earlier, an impeachment is merely the political equivalent of an indictment.

The HofR is the one who impeaches / indicts.

The trial is in the Senate. Political equivalent of a court hearing.

 

[upsideguy]

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?

Usually, the only grounds for impeachment is one party thinks he sucks.

 

[radcen]

No. If that were true, then the office of the presidency would have dried up a long time ago.

Not necessarily. As much as the parties are different, they also know they depend on each other. They know that what they do now could very well come back to bite them in the butt just a few years down the road. As much as we love to hate them and call them stupid, they're not.

 

[Paperview]

Usually, the only grounds for impeachment is one party thinks he sucks.

In the case of Nixon, who would have been impeached and most likely removed from office for criminal charges - it was his own party that would be his doing in.

 

[upsideguy]

In the case of Nixon, who would have been impeached and most likely removed from office for criminal charges - it was his own party that would be his doing in.

Yes, but he was not impeached. In the case of Clinton and Johnson, however, the impeachment was substantially political on largely "trumped" up charges.

 

[Paperview]

Nixon was forced to resign. He had no choice. He did this on August 9th, 1974.

But one little snippet of history I doubt many people were aware of --

One week earlier, Nixon was adamant he wouldn't resign, even if impeached.

The Deseret News - Google News Archive Search

And one more repuby historical tidbit often lost in the memory banks, or lost altogether: Just ten months before Nixon resigned, his vice president Spiro Agnew (R-MD), resigned in disgrace, October 1973.

Bribery charges. Agnew, the crook even took bribes in the White House.

So Agnew steps down, (crook got off easy) but his resignation triggered the first use of Section 2 of the 25th Amendment.

 

[Paperview]

Yes, but he was not impeached. In the case of Clinton and Johnson, however, the impeachment was substantially political on largely "trumped" up charges.

Agree with that about Clinton and Johnson...just remarking Nixon would have been, and in that case it was his own party that did him in.

 

[jet57]

Not necessarily. As much as the parties are different, they also know they depend on each other. They know that what they do now could very well come back to bite them in the butt just a few years down the road. As much as we love to hate them and call them stupid, they're not.

I don't now if they depend on each other. They don't show it, and f that were true, then Clinton would have been left alone to a problem that was clearly a private matter.

The GOP is dependent upon the mistakes of the Dems and the Dems are dependent upon the narcissism of the GOP. But any productive dependence? No.

 

[radcen]

I don't now if they depend on each other. They don't show it, and f that were true, then Clinton would have been left alone to a problem that was clearly a private matter.

The GOP is dependent upon the mistakes of the Dems and the Dems are dependent upon the narcissism of the GOP. But any productive dependence? No.

Gerrymandering is the most visible example of their co-dependency. The party in power, to ensure a smooth process, gives the minority party enough seats to keep roughly the same influence, without gaining too much. The minority party willingly goes along so they don't lose too much influence.

 

[matchlight]

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?

Of course he can. And nothing in the Constitution specifies how the House of Representatives must define a high crime or misdemeanor. The People, speaking through these elected representatives, have the final say about what violations of the public trust by the President, Vice-President, or any civil officer of the United States are impeachable. If any of those persons is impeached by the House, and two-thirds or more of the Senators present concur on his conviction, his service in office ends the moment of their vote.

I think of impeachment as being more like a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system than an ordinary criminal trial. If most of the American people want someone out, then out he goes, no matter how much of the term he was to serve may remain. Read about the impeachment of Andrew Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act, and the motivation for it. Johnson only had several months left in his term, but powerful Northerners in Congress had their political reasons for wanting his scalp. They never liked or trusted Johnson anyway, because they considered him too sympathetic to the South. For quite some time after Lincoln's assassination, many people even suspected Johnson--wrongly--of being behind it. In the end, he came within a single vote in the Senate of being convicted.

 

[Visbek]

In the case of Nixon, who would have been impeached and most likely removed from office for criminal charges - it was his own party that would be his doing in.

Yes, but he was not impeached. In the case of Clinton and Johnson, however, the impeachment was substantially political on largely "trumped" up charges.

Nixon was impeached. He was not convicted.

"Impeachment" is essentially the same as "indicted." It's the start, not conclusion, of the process of removing a sitting President from office.

 

[Paperview]

Nixon was impeached. He was not convicted.

"Impeachment" is essentially the same as "indicted." It's the start, not conclusion, of the process of removing a sitting President from office.

No. He. wasn't.

He resigned.

Man alive. I can't believe you said that/

 

[Paperview]

Of course he can. And nothing in the Constitution specifies how the House of Representatives must define a high crime or misdemeanor. The People, speaking through these elected representatives, have the final say about what violations of the public trust by the President, Vice-President, or any civil officer of the United States are impeachable. If any of those persons is impeached by the House, and two-thirds or more of the Senators present concur on his conviction, his service in office ends the moment of their vote.

I think of impeachment as being more like a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system than an ordinary criminal trial. If most of the American people want someone out, then out he goes, no matter how much of the term he was to serve may remain. Read about the impeachment of Andrew Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act, and the motivation for it. Johnson only had several months left in his term ...

er, Johnson was impeached on February 24, 1868. The Senate trial followed two weeks later.

His term expired March of 1869.

If, by "several months" you meant a year, yeah, OK.

 

[jet57]

No. He. wasn't.

He resigned.

Man alive. I can't believe you said that/

Youth

 

[ludin]

Nixon was impeached. He was not convicted.

"Impeachment" is essentially the same as "indicted." It's the start, not conclusion, of the process of removing a sitting President from office.

no Nixon was not impeached. he stepped down from office before they impeached him.
however the second part is correct.