Attn: Consitutional scholars -- Is there a provision for impeachment

[Autonomy]

of a president of the US on purely political grounds, such as "no confidence"? What systems of government have such grounds for impeachment or removal from office? Would such a vote have to be cloaked under the rubric of a crime, such as what was done with Clinton?

Many have been calling for Bush's impeachment, but there's no crime he's likely to be charged with, other than sheer incompetence. Bush's presidency is a case for impeachment based solely on the charge of incompetence if there ever was one. It's an interesting question, and I have just started to do a little research, but have not come up with anything yet. Any help would be appreciated.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. The congress can remove the president for any reason eom.

[Yupster]

13. Correct Warren

The President can be impeached because of anything the congress has 51 % of the votes to impeach him for.

The term "high crimes and misedemeaners" is broad enough for a hostile congress to think it would cover any minor mistake, or broad enough for a friendly congress to think it doesn't cover even the most serious lawbreaking.

It's pretty much just a political decision.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. The term "high crimes and misedemeaners"

refers to the basis for a conviction on treason and is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution in relation to impeachment. Congress does not have a role in treason prosecution/convictions either.

On the other hand I believe that an honest judicial branch could easily find grounds for a treason charge against the entire administration.

[kbm8795]

2. What about dereliction of duty?

Seems to me that his insistance on withholding assistance because HE wanted to look like some cartoon hero caused a lot of suffering and death. That should be a pretty impeachable offense. . .

[carpetbagger]

6. If you're thinking USCMJ, doesn't apply to civilians.

Hence it was insufficient grounds to impeach Clinton.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. 25th Amendment

would seem to have other reasons than "high crimes and misdomeanors" to get rid of the president. Here are the relevant passages of the amendment:

. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. "high crimes and misdomeanors" refers to treason.

There are no set grounds for impeachment. The 25th provides a backdoor for removal without impeachment - it establishes grounds for declaring the president incapacitated through a procedural mechanism not a legislative one.

[electropop]

10. There are plenty of high crimes to hit with anyway,

but it's good to have a backup plan. Thanks for pointing this out, ayeshahaqqiqa.

One other point: This is a reminder that we need to impeach Bush AND Cheney simultaneously. Cheney is at least as much of a villain, and thus deserving of impeachment rather than getting the job of Prayznit.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I'll elaborate...

Impeachment is in its entirety a political act. Congress has the power to impeach. convict, and remove the president from office for any reason they find suitable. There is nothing in the constitution that requires any legal grounds at all for exercising this power.

Here, read up: http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/SPECIALREPORTS/impeachment.html

[punpirate]

5. Well, Clinton's impeachment was a case in point...

... on how political aims can be accomplished by Constitutional means.

The Constitutional language "high crimes and misdemeanors" is broad enough that most any president can be tripped up by them--it's the political process that has prevented many deserved impeachments from happening--Reagan is an excellent example. As President, he authorized a number of clearly illegal activities directly associated with his administration of the government, but the Democrats were fearful of impeaching a President that, if not wholly popular with the people, was certainly popular with the press.

Bush and his cohort have already committed any number of high crimes (several violations of international law, for example, which is a Constitution-based crime because of Art. 6), but you're not going to see his impeachment for that.

But, incompetence is not a crime, legally. And, I think you place too much emphasis on their "incompetence." That's an effect. The true cause is indifference to the people of the country borne out of cronyism. That's what cronyism in government is--the placing of the interest of the few over that of the many.

Cheers.

[carpetbagger]

8. Johnson's impeachment showed the answer was basically yes.

They had a flimsy excuse, and went for it.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. they don't need any excuse.

However the idea is that the political cost would be so high for the abuse of this power that it would not be used without good reason. Obviously, as in the recent case of President Clinton, that has not been entirely true, as he came very close to getting removed through a blatant use of the power as a tool of political vendetta.

[stellanoir]

11. criminal negligence resulting in mass murder

dereliction of duty resulting in same.

This list of other prior crimes was posted on the crisis papers a while ago:

Among these open and confirmable crimes:

* Lying to Congress is a crime.
 
* Disclosing the identity of a covert intelligence agent is a crime.
 
* Perjury is a crime.
 
* Influence peddling (“graft”) is a crime.
 
* Torture of prisoners and violation of the Geneva Conventions is a crime.
 
*Violation of civil liberties (denial of rights to counsel, trial, etc.) is a crime.
 
* Failure to obey a court order (i.e. of the Supreme Court) is a crime.
 
* Misprision (i.e., incitement) of a felony is a crime.
 
* Voting fraud is a crime.
 
* Obstruction of Justice is a crime.

I'm sure his buddy the "torture dude" is going after him very soon.

[banana republican]

12. so will someone from NO sue the sob for negligent homicide!!!!

and start this thing off in discovery...