e.g., Canada, occasionally the EU, where it might actually stain one's reputation. Here it's another notch on the bedpost, like indictment and conviction were for Oliver North's political aspirations to the Senate. Although in fairness to our system, censure is a parliamentary artifact with no bearing on an (indirectly) elected President, honor notwithstanding; censure has the legal force of a no-confidence vote or knighting Tony Blair in Senate chambers, even according to your law cite ("Legally, the resolution would have no effect"). The Constitution is pretty clear on impeachment by the House being the prescribed interim step to conviction and removal.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgement in Cases of Impreachment 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
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.
Article 3, Section 1
. . . The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour. . .
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_2_5.html