60 minutes: is that directly impeachable?

[jollyreaper2112]

Bush saying he won't listen to Congress, can he be impeached for that or would he have to act on that statement, be given a bill ordering him to STFU and vetoing it?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. a veto is not a high crime or misdemeanor

On the other hand, impeachment is entirely a political process: an office holder is impeached by a vote to impeach. While the constitution says 'high crimes and misdemeanors' that is not a precise term, there is no list of what exactly constitutes high crime and misdemeanors. So Bush could be impeached for farting in public, provided sufficient votes can be obtained.

[jollyreaper2112]

2. let me rephrase

It's his right to veto, that's in the system. But when he says he would refuse to listen to Congress, I'm assuming that means he would ignore a veto-proof majority or just sign the bill into law and amend it with a signing statement. So Congress asks him to, he uses his one constitutional "don't wanna", they come back with an "uh-huh!", and he says "fuck you." That sounds impeachable but what about the statement of saying he'd do it? Would it be like the rich kid's son in the small town, he can yell and make death threats but the sherriff won't do anything about it whereas if you or I did so we'd be spending the night in jail?

[Selatius]

3. Put it this way: Saying you will shoot somebody is not the same as doing it.

You can be impeached for the second one but not the first.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. I don't quite understand

Congress has no constitutional role in telling him how to run a war. The only thing they can do is not fund it.

If Congress passed a law, say, ordering Bush NOT to send extra troops, it would be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court before the ink was dry on it.

So no, he doesn't have to "listen" to Congress on issues over which they have no authority.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

7. Subpoenas, investigations, contempt of Congress anyone?

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. If a majority...

...of the House of Representatives thinks act X is impeachable, it is.

We found that out in 1998.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. Actually

we found that out in 1868.

[RoyGBiv]

8. No n/t