Why is Impeachment such a forbidden topic?

Impeachment is the one totally Constitutional Option that The Congress has to reign in a President or a member of the Federal Judiciary when he or she oversteps their.authority.

Why then is it such a forbidden topic?.

Since Congress is not likely to act on this, I think the President should impeach himself.

Impeachment is the one totally Constitutional Option that The Congress has to reign in a President or a member of the Federal Judiciary when he or she oversteps their.authority.

Why then is it such a forbidden topic?. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I think your "legal" premise is incorrect.

"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."

Although you may not have meant your standard "oversteps their authority" to be a "legal threshold" for an impeachment, I think such a standard is problematic in that one's "authority" may not be sufficient concise to put one on notice that one has crossed over the threshold or more importantly may cross over it, if certain action is taken.

As offensive as a person's conduct may be, it may not be "criminal," and the phrase "Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors" has the "smell" of criminal activity.

A parallel discussion can be found in the Texas Supreme Court opinion dismissing the criminal charges against Tom Delay, which also follows the philosophy of the Old English standards from which the phrase in the U.S. Constitution was crafted.

IMO it is bad precedent to seek impeachment every time a President engages in activities found objectionable by a majority of those in Congress or even the voting public. Not only is it unnecessarily costly, but it effective paralyzes Government and at a minimum casts a cloud over every action LEGALLY taken by the President against whom the proceeding is brought.

I disagreed with the Clinton impeachment action, and also Nixon's, although I believe Nixon would not have resigned had it not been for the action taken, and I think he should have resigned.

Since Congress is not likely to act on this, I think the President should impeach himself. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Michelle won't let him.

You want Biden?

I think your "legal" premise is incorrect.

"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."

Although you may not have meant your standard "oversteps their authority" to be a "legal threshold" for an impeachment, I think such a standard is problematic in that one's "authority" may not be sufficient concise to put one on notice that one has crossed over the threshold or more importantly may cross over it, if certain action is taken.

As offensive as a person's conduct may be, it may not be "criminal," and the phrase "Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors" has the "smell" of criminal activity.

A parallel discussion can be found in the Texas Supreme Court opinion dismissing the criminal charges against Tom Delay, which also follows the philosophy of the Old English standards from which the phrase in the U.S. Constitution was crafted.

IMO it is bad precedent to seek impeachment every time a President engages in activities found objectionable by a majority of those in Congress or even the voting public. Not only is it unnecessarily costly, but it effective paralyzes Government and at a minimum casts a cloud over every action LEGALLY taken by the President against whom the proceeding is brought.

I disagreed with the Clinton impeachment action, and also Nixon's, although I believe Nixon would not have resigned had it not been for the action taken, and I think he should have resigned. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Impeachment, and conviction, is based on two criteria.
1. Does the House of Representatives have enough votes to bring forth the Articles of Impeachment.
2. Does the Senate have the 2/3 majority required to convict.

Impeachment, and conviction, is based on two criteria.
1. Does the House of Representatives have enough votes to bring forth the Articles of Impeachment.
2. Does the Senate have the 2/3 majority required to convict. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Those are political "criteria" ... not legal ones.

And that is the DANGER I was addressing. What ever our Government does in the way of taking action ought to be guided by the standards of "Due Process," which require "notice" to be given that action will violate some standard that is announced PRIOR to the taking of the action so that the actor has an opportunity to consciously decide whether to act or not act and know the consequences of acting or not acting. It's fundamental to our processes .... and the basic reason for the passage of WRITTEN LAWS by the Congress you desire to exercise "due process" based on "politics"!

It is also the basic reason why people loaded on boats and made the dangerous journey to this country to etch a new life out of a hostile territory.

To get away from the whims of politics deciding their fate.

If you want to "go down that road" back to where "they" came, then take off, but don't forget ..... "the shoe is on the other foot soon enough."

Aren't you fucksticks happy that being designated Dipshit of the Year requires far less consideration?

I think your "legal" premise is incorrect.

"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."

Although you may not have meant your standard "oversteps their authority" to be a "legal threshold" for an impeachment, I think such a standard is problematic in that one's "authority" may not be sufficient concise to put one on notice that one has crossed over the threshold or more importantly may cross over it, if certain action is taken.

As offensive as a person's conduct may be, it may not be "criminal," and the phrase "Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors" has the "smell" of criminal activity.

A parallel discussion can be found in the Texas Supreme Court opinion dismissing the criminal charges against Tom Delay, which also follows the philosophy of the Old English standards from which the phrase in the U.S. Constitution was crafted.

IMO it is bad precedent to seek impeachment every time a President engages in activities found objectionable by a majority of those in Congress or even the voting public. Not only is it unnecessarily costly, but it effective paralyzes Government and at a minimum casts a cloud over every action LEGALLY taken by the President against whom the proceeding is brought.

I disagreed with the Clinton impeachment action, and also Nixon's, although I believe Nixon would not have resigned had it not been for the action taken, and I think he should have resigned. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Constitution is not vague what so ever. "High Crimes and Misdomeanors" are what a majority of the House says they are. The House is a totally independent body in this regard.

Also, the Senate has absolute authority in it's verdict. There is no appeal upon conviction by 2/3 of the Senate.

Of course, the recourse of the voters is to vote those members out in the next election if they believe that the impeachment and conviction was unjust.

That is the way the system works. Period.

The Constitution is not vague what so ever. "High Crimes and Misdomeanors" are what a majority of the House says they are. The House is a totally independent body in this regard.

Also, the Senate has absolute authority in it's verdict. There is no appeal upon conviction by 2/3 of the Senate.

Of course, the recourse of the voters is to vote those members out in the next election if they believe that the impeachment and conviction was unjust.

That is the way the system works. Period. Originally Posted by Jackie S

What you said is "vague" ....

"High Crimes and Misdomeanors" is defined by precedent and history, which is why scholars (not pundits) evaluate the "source" of the phrase and the discussions of the framers to determine the "meaning." It was never intended for each separate House of Representatives to determine what each separate House of Representatives "believes" the phrase to mean.

You can "disagree" all you want, but you are swimming against the current of over 300 years of jurisprudence, natural law, constitutional law, and statutory law..... not to mention the discussions of the framers who crafted the phrase.

That is the difference between "strict constructionists" and "liberals"!

Don't think for one minute the U.S. Supreme Court will refrain from acting if the Congress acts in an "unConstitutional" manner to avoid a national crisis.

Not to be contrary, but all of those "precedents", noble as they may be, are not in the Constitution.

The Constitution gives the sole authority on determining what is an impeachable offense to the a House of Representatives.

Whether these charges will hold up is up to the Senate.

The determining factor on whether they did the correct thing rests with the Voters.

An impeachment, historically, is a political act, not a legal act.

Those are political "criteria" ... not legal ones.

And that is the DANGER I was addressing. What ever our Government does in the way of taking action ought to be guided by the standards of "Due Process," which require "notice" to be given that action will violate some standard that is announced PRIOR to the taking of the action so that the actor has an opportunity to consciously decide whether to act or not act and know the consequences of acting or not acting. It's fundamental to our processes .... and the basic reason for the passage of WRITTEN LAWS by the Congress you desire to exercise "due process" based on "politics"!

It is also the basic reason why people loaded on boats and made the dangerous journey to this country to etch a new life out of a hostile territory.

To get away from the whims of politics deciding their fate.

If you want to "go down that road" back to where "they" came, then take off, but don't forget ..... "the shoe is on the other foot soon enough." Originally Posted by LexusLover

Jackie's interpretation is correct. You need only consult President Johnson's impeachment to see it was entirely politically motivated because Democrat President Johnson removed Radical Republican Stanton as Secretary of War.

Nevertheless, the caution and full reflection you suggest before acting to impeach is great advice, but advice -- even great advice -- often goes unheeded.

IMO if Odumbo were white, I'd urge my Congressman to impeach. But Odumbo isn't white, and the political fall-out -- violence in the streets -- would off-set any imaginable political reward.

The legal question is moot; it is easy to line up a few "constitutional scholars" to support any spin of the constitution. Look at who/how Obama justified his own action this week...after years of claiming he didn't have the constitutional right.

To impeach or not is a political decision that requires political will. IMO the GOP should proceed with impeachment. But they won't . They are more interested in preserving their election hopes than protecting the constitution and Congressional powers.

Sadly, the power of the presidency is careening out of control.

Jackie's interpretation is correct. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If his "interpretation is correct," then Congress would with impunity decide that it is a "high crime and misdemeanor" for a Black man to be President ...

.. and impeach him (kicking him out of office ... not just "indict" him.)

And the U.S. Supreme Court could no NOTHING ABOUT IT ....BECAUSE ..


"The Constitution gives the sole authority on determining what is an impeachable offense to the a House of Representatives."

President Johnson, like Clinton, was acquitted, so no "precedent" exists. President Johnson was primarily accused of violating a statute by taking action that was considered contrary to the statute.

That is a far cry from ... "overstepping one's authority"!

To be the "devil's advocate" ...

....... where is the "authority" for the President to issue "executive orders"?

Sorry guys.

If his "interpretation is correct," then Congress would with impunity decide that it is a "high crime and misdemeanor" for a Black man to be President ...

.. and impeach him (kicking him out of office ... not just "indict" him.)

And the U.S. Supreme Court could no NOTHING ABOUT IT ....BECAUSE ..


"The Constitution gives the sole authority on determining what is an impeachable offense to the a House of Representatives."

President Johnson, like Clinton, was acquitted, so no "precedent" exists. President Johnson was primarily accused of violating a statute by taking action that was considered contrary to the statute.

That is a far cry from ... "overstepping one's authority"!

To be the "devil's advocate" ...

....... where is the "authority" for the President to issue "executive orders"?

Sorry guys. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Authority for EO's derived from: Article II, Section 3, Clause 5.

You are correct. Providing they have the numbers, Congress could impeach, with impunity, any president.

Johnson fired Stanton; thus, violating a statute written to protect Stanton. Hence, Johnson's impeachment was very much politically motivated.