Should impeachment be removed from the Constitution?

[mmonk]

If one is against impeaching bush administration officials, then one is against the precepts of impeachment that the founders intended. These abuses are clear cut examples of the very reason impeachment is in the constitution.

So, is it now declared quaint like the Geneva Convention?

[Madspirit]

1. k&r...n/t

[TahitiNut]

2. If the Constitution is invalidated ...

... then there's NOTHING to keep the blood from flowing in the streets. The sooner the better, imho.

[wiggs]

3. Good strong point. nt

[Rick Myers]

4. What we need is the REAL 'no confidence' vote...

We need a Constitutional Amendment to give us the ablilty to 'throw off' a corrupt, criminal or mentally ill executive.

[madokie]

30. Yes we do

our elected officials can't be trusted to do it for us as evidenced by this cabal's being allowed to run roughshod over us all.

[bdamomma]

71. how about mentally unfit or inability to hold office

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Fovea]

5. apperently it can only be used against Dems.

So yes, let's take it out, and have a civil war instead.
(no sarcasm intended)

[Kagemusha]

7. I think that argument's nuts.

No sarcasm intended.

I realize no one cares what I think here. I just felt like saying it anyway. No one should want blood in the streets. Take it from Iraqis. It's not fun.

[seriousstan]

10. Don;t worry about bloodshed. He is safe in his mommies basement

sitting in cheeto stained underwear. He will shed no blood in his "civil war". He is a keyboard General.

[Fovea]

20. So very clever...

You don't know me. Perhaps you might reconsider your jejune sarcasm.

My late older brother, after he was section 8'd out of the navy was a martial arts instructor and I grew up as his kicking dummy/ punching bag.

I am a knight in the SCA. Read the book 'Bottle, Knife, Stick' if you don't understand what that means. Back in the 70s, I used to train the University of Kansas Med Center police in night stick take down and immobilization technique. I have forgotten more about small unit tactics than you are ever likely to know.

Half of my body is numb and spastic from a stroke, and I take it as an item of faith that you would not last thirty seconds against me in the fight I could still give you. You could then tell your buddies how a guy with a cane beat the crap out of you.

I can still put a palm sized group in a pistol target with a .44 1849 colt dragoon model 3 repro at 25 yards with my left hand. I did so a couple of weeks ago at the local firing range, called the bullet hole. Having done unsuccessful CPR over a hundred times, I have a passing familiarity with dying. It doesn't bother me much anymore.

I don't like cheetos, and my mother has been dead since 1993.

Piss off, wanker.

[bigtree]

70. .

:thumbsup:

[Fovea]

13. I have been listening to the right fight

a real live class war against liberals for three decades now. Class wars often become hot wars.

My feeling is that one of two things will happen. We will get a civil war, or a fascist theocratic dictatorship. I would prefer to die fighting than in Gitmo.

I am not wishing for war, but I am less fond of the other possibility. Impeachment (on a fairly wide scale) is the only other alternative, and invalidating it invalidates correction under law.

I see no fourth option. If Bush/Cheney can do what they have done to the nation without due process, then we are no longer under the rule of law.

I don't want war, I want the constitution back. But if we can't have the constitution, including impeachment, then I say let's start fighting now.

[creeksneakers2]

14. Notice the wingholes all have guns

They started out with that National Rifle Association stuff and made sure all their people were armed and mad and morally illiterate. They'll pour out of suburbia into the streets going through lists FreeRepublic.com stole from left wing petition sites and kill all who they deem subversive.

The fascists who are running things now thought about a revolution before they even started this out. You'll have to come up with a different approach.

[Toots]

31. You sound like a scared little American

"Home of the brave" .....really??? Most of those freepers are like Bush* and Cheney..all hat and no cattle.. They may have guns but when someone shoots back they will run and hide quicker than a freeper can say Clinton's fault..Chickenhawks they are and they live in fear of people living in caves on the other side of the world..

[creeksneakers2]

34. The difference between bravery and stupidity

is settled when the outcome arrives.

[Toots]

37. One can if they listen also hear it in the rhetoric..

One can project fear and loathing, and one can project courage and optimism. Words tell a tale..

[Richard Steele]

69. They aren't the only ones, you know.

Just sayin.

[mmonk]

28. I understand but my feeling is this.

The constiution has fallen or made weak without a shot. It can be restored without a shot. I don't want the thread turned into advocacy for violent revolution. You never know who will hitch a ride on this thread or view it.

[Fovea]

41. I understand your concern as well, certainly

my minor was poli sci. I do not ask these questions lightly, nor is my opinion hasty.

I have been watching the constitution be circumvented in order to increase social control since Nixon
and in the study of social control, there is a phenominon where in many cases enforcement
*increases* resistance (called deviance by so called non-normative scientists). I remember the sixties (which means obviously I didn't do as much dope as Dubya) and I was in Chicago for the Dem Nat Conv.

I have come to the following conclusion-- non-violent protest is effective and moral if your oppressor is moral. Ghandi would have led the Indian people to a mass slaughter if, for example, his oppressors had been the Bushido period Imperial Japanese. I am thinking of Nanking, Manchuco, etc. While the neocons wear XPtian morality like a cheap suit, they are ruthless in the way that amoral cowards often are. The cowards who maintain the occupation of Iraq, who let New Orleans drown, who impoverish and kill the working and middling classes to create a new gilded age (whose Islamofascist boogieman was called anarchists) are doing so with the foreknowledge that they may experience a backlash, indeed, they have been preparing for it.

I believe that if/when it comes, they will be shocked at its ferocity. This is a complex, energy and commodity dependent society, and no one is more dependent, hence more vulnerable than the hyper rich. No modern society is more than 3 hungry days away from insurrection. When the Speaker of the House voluntarily suspends the last legal safeguard of the American people, she invalidates the constitution as clearly as Dubya, who first subverted with signing statements, and now simply ignores it.
If impeachment can only be used against folks who get a blow job, but not against criminals in high office, it is worse than not having it at all.

I am saying there is a breaking point or there is a point of capitulation.
From where I am watching, I am near that crux. My Dem congressman is far, far from it. So is Nancy Pelosi.
And when things fall apart, as they could do the day after the whole Islamic world, China, and Russia decides that the Euro is a better commodity for petro commerce, she will be shocked, shocked I say at the violence, and will certainly agree to rounding up the usual suspects. What I am trying to get across is that no one should allow themselves to be rounded up by a government that has abandoned the governing contract.

It is the sort of governance up with which our founding fathers said we should not put.

[mmonk]

48. I agree if the currency collapses, they

will be taken back from it's results on the streets.

[LanternWaste]

73. I believe that there is also an additional option...

"I am saying there is a breaking point or there is a point of capitulation."

I believe that there is also an additional option-- that of the pendulum hitting its apex on the upswing and slowly coming down and then going the other way.

My opinion is we hit the apex in 2003. The congressional elections were the first big sign (to me) that the pendulum is on the downswing and the entire cycle will begin to replay itself again.

[Fovea]

78. Disagreeing, but hopefully not disagreeably

Much of the discussion here is predicated on the idea that the Bush administration has systematically and criminally thwarted the will of the people, actively working against their interests.

The pendulum can swing, but if it is not attached to the clockworks, nothing moves forward. This debate is about restoring government that is legal and responsive to its mandate from the american people.

[LanternWaste]

79. I believe it's attached...

I believe it's attached. It's part of our psyche. One can more more remove the gears from the machine as one can remove our collective memories from who we are.

This has happened before and will happen again. A catalyst is reached, a safety valve is opened, the pressure is released in a way our culture accepts and life will go on.

[galloglas]

15. No one *does* want blood in the streets!

You say "I realize no one cares what I think here. I just felt like saying it anyway. No one should want blood in the streets. Take it from Iraqis. It's not fun."

No. It's not fun. But, sometimes it becomes necessary. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

In 1916 Padraig Pearse, IRA Commandant, who led Ireland from 750 years of English shackles, said: "Blood is a cleansing and sanctifying thing, and the nation that regards it as the final horror has lost its manhood... there are many things more horrible than bloodshed, and slavery is one of them!

And so we come to today.

Now as always, if there is ever to be blood in the streets, then it shall be the dictate of those in power, not by our choice.

I suspect that the bulk of the Iraqi fighters shed blood for that exact reason. To escape the slavery that they feel is imposed by an occupying force (just as Ireland felt about the occupiers from England).

So when we think of America we are compelled to ask ourselves, "What degree of deprivation from our Constitutional freedoms constitutes slavery?"

The question stands in front of us now. Not at our choosing, but by the choices made by the current Executive Branch.

Anyone who would consider the stripping away of all our Constitutional rights and guarantees not to be enslavement is (IMHO) either a fool or a coward. If so, then the only thing that needs be answered is "At what point does the situation become intolerable? At what point do I risk death to oppose those who would enslave me?"

So, Kagemusha, I put the question to you. Is there no point in which you would say "No more!" and instead submit to enslavement (in any of its various and odious forms).

Consider carefully your answer (I would counsel all to do so) for this question might, one day soon, no longer be a hypothetical.

[Kagemusha]

16. So no one wants blood in the streets, but it's a great and wonderful thing.

Sure. I believe you. Right...

Note that in saying this, I refer to the argument, not the person: that is an argument that I am accustomed to hearing from Freepers, NRA enthusiasts, and right-wingers in general. I gave the argument no credit when they said it, and I'll give the argument no credit when you say it (or the other respondents to this thread). I'll speak for principle, for what's right, for what's just, but not all that is odious, is enslavement, and I have a high threshold for patience when it comes to slaughtering others. I do not think I am wrong in that.

[Fovea]

17. I don't think patience is wrong

I was patient when they took away most of the 4th amendment for the 'war on (some) drugs'.

I was patient when they said they would only wiretap terrorists.

I was patient when they put protesters in 'first amendment zones'.

I was patient when they started beating children at protests.

I was patient when they said the medical necessity defense, a right under common law since before the magna charta was declared null for medical marijuana users.

I was patient when they stole the 2000 election.

I was patient when they stole the 2004 election.

I was patient when the nullified the writ of habeas corpus.

I am, however, rapidly losing patience, when I see that the thing I was waiting for, i.e. impeachment has been taken away by the craven Democrats in congress. Impeachment is the failsafe against insurrection. After the soap box comes the ballot box. After the ballot box comes the jury box. After the jury box comes the ammo box.

If we are to skip the jury box, that leaves only the ammo box, or the box that the executioner kicks out from under you.

So please, I am very interested in knowing if you do in fact have a trip wire. A line in the sand the neocons cannot cross.

Or will you go patiently to the showers and patiently inhale the zyklon b.

[Kagemusha]

19. I've got nothing to prove by wagging a bunch of electrons around.

If push comes to shove, I am no coward, but I have nothing to gain by getting holier than thou when blood is not flowing in the streets as if from a slaughterhouse. No, I am going to hold out for justice. Not posture.

[LanternWaste]

74. And that's about all one can really say...

And that's about all one can really say without looking like we're trying to advertise our testosterone.

My late grandad (WWII vet) told me over and over again that the guys he met in boot camp who'd brag to him what they would do the first time they met a German or a Jap, were usually the ones who never came out of the foxholes when it got serious.




There will not be bloodshed in our streets. There will not be a civil war. There will be no revolution. We are too tied up in convenience, air conditioning, reality shows and happy meals to allow that to ever happen.

There will be an election in 2008, people will cheer and jeer, and then we go back to our video games, dvd's, Big Macs and Birkenstock's with little to no change in either substance or rhetoric. The End (until the next election).

[galloglas]

21. One last question

I'll speak for principle, for what's right, for what's just,

And if that above is denied you?

And, if you choose to suffer in silence, with no ability to speak out, will you still maintain that "high threshold of patience" if

1) you must both shut up forever and comply with whatever odious burden is laid upon you.

2) put into servitude,

3) false imprisonment,

4) induction into Armed (or otherwise mandatory) Service

Do you persevere until death?

Just askin'. (from the wide, far left, BTW)

[Kagemusha]

23. You're posturing. That's all you're doing.

That's like comparing if I'm ready to shoot someone who draws a gun on me to if I'm ready to shoot someone who is looking at me oddly, but who might draw a gun on me. I don't want any part of that.

[galloglas]

39. Not posturing. Refining a question.

But refined to whatever level, it is apparent you either do not wish to, or will not, say "this is my line line the sand."

That's fine.

Perhaps you simply won't say publicly what you know privately. But, if you truly do not know when you, or your adversary, is belly deep in the Rubicon, then you must contend with the consequences of that.

[Kagemusha]

44. Yeah yeah whatever, we're not there yet.

America can wait on the cleansing river of blood, okay? Politics is still in play. Until it's not. Capiche?

[galloglas]

45. And YOU propose to speak for everyone????

Capiche? Si! Et tu?

Go dti sin, Pog mahone! Aithin?

Your a fine fit for the Long Kesh!

[Kagemusha]

47. I propose to speak for me.

You apparently have a very large problem with that. That is unfortunate.

I'm moving on. Goodbye.

[Fovea]

54. Until it's not.

And that's the point, isn't it?
How did Von Clausewitz put it?
Ah yes, politics by other means.

Francis Xavier Zappa, a man before his time, once said something about democracy sustaining so long as it was convenient, and when it became inconvenient, they will raise the curtain and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.

It's always politics. The final solution was a party platform. The SS decided to take power away from the SA. Ernst Rohm was out, way, way out. You suggest business as usual. In the face of a frank constitutional crisis, and ongoing international crime, you suggest that the normal channels might yet work, even though there is zero evidence that yet another appeasement and request for collegiality might yet prevail. We are in Hannah Arendt's territory now.

It was politics that funded the Wahabbists. It was politics that trained the Mujahideen. It takes a Robspierre, a Pol Pot or a Stalin to destroy politics and move to a pure reign of terror. It was even politics when the taliban blew up an ancient Buddhist temple in Afghanistan.

Neither Bush or Cheney combine such profound sociopathy with such animal cunning, so it will be politics when Bush invades Iran, and it will be politics when one third of the world declares America personae non grata in response.

Anyone who thinks this cannot happen was not here in 1972. What would another 4 months without an end to that embargo done to our economy? Answer: bread lines.

Nixon did one one hundredth of the damage that Cheney has done to the nation and he was gone. I am trying to imagine Carl Albert telling Nixon that impeachment was off the table. For the life of me, I can't do that to his memory. Vikun Quizling, yes, I can.

This administration has placed itself massively beyond the rule of law. We are so far off the map that we can't see the glove compartment from here.
But remain calm, if that is how you deal with dystopia. I applaud your sang froid. In return, however, I request you tone down your contempt, and try embracing the horror, if only as a gedankenexperiment. You might discover a light under the tinfoil.

[bdamomma]

72. it's no fun having our country taken away either.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. No

just because things aren't happening at YOUR pace, doesn't mean impeachment should be removed from the constitution. How childish.

[BlooInBloo]

8. It really is.

[mmonk]

25. Yes mommy.

One question though. What if they are telling the truth? Are you ok with that? That is what I'm asking. And I don't think it's a childish question given what this country has gone through, all the people that have died over the lies or have been abused.

[kurth]

9. Just because a murderer gets off doesn't mean we should remove murder from the books

[Fovea]

43. Here's my problem

Murder was both illegal and institutionalized under Stalin.

Had the Soviet people in say 1946 stood up and asked why
the state could murder but the citizens could not, and, for example
posed that question violently against Beria's show trials, how much sooner would
the horror have ended, and would there have been a cold war?

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

If you can identify the owner of that quote, you might see as I do how far the neocons have taken us down the road to serfdom.

[defendandprotect]

11. Impeaching a penis should be taken out of the Constitution -- !!!!

[mmonk]

27. I agree but only one problem.

It isn't in the constitution. What about a penis head like in the OVP?

[LanternWaste]

75. I was wondering when that inconvenient point was going be made...

I was wondering when that inconvenient point was going be made...

:popcorn:

[ananda]

12. It doesn't matter.

Since the Constitution is largely ignored by everyone in power,
and Congress has taken the role of ineffective bystanders.. it
simply doesn't matter what the articles say or what the founders
intended.

What's happened is that a sinister coup has taken place, so that
the country is now an unconstitutional, renegade dictatorship
controlled by big money, huge corporations, and the power of
greed.

Sue

[BringEmOn]

18. Would the Democratic leadership notice?

[Vidar]

22. No, but citizen-based recall should be added for every governmental

office.

[rucky]

38. nevermind.

edited after fact-checking.

[orleans]

24. well, apparently government doesn't believe in using it anymore

so.....

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

36. Highly recommended! eom

[Vinca]

26. It might as well be removed if it isn't considered Bush-worthy. nt

[spanone]

29. There must be a foonote in the Constitution that impeachment only applies to democrats.

....now it makes sense.

[porphyrian]

32. We should just remove the Constitution. Politicians only put effort into ignoring it...

...and most Americans seem happy to have it disregarded.

[madokie]

33. either remove it or use it

use it or lose it

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Yes...if it's replaced by no confidence vote which would spur new elections.

[mmonk]

40. Sorry.

Impeachment is all we have.

[mmonk]

42. Good idea though.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. And The Extremism Continues. Jesus Christ.

I'm saddened by how off the deep end so many threads in GD have gone lately. Such absurd and irrational premises.

[mmonk]

49. If my position is extreme,

then so was the position of the writers of the constitution. In fact, I say agreeing to giving up one's rights is the extreme position.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

51. You cannot argue rationally

that my position is not of those that created the impeachment tool. They've really gotten to your head IMO but so be it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. Your Position Just Quite Simply Isn't. This Is For Certain.

It is known for certain that our founders were not misguided narrow-minded extremists, so it's pretty safe to say that your position is not theirs.

This black and white egregiously warped and misguided premise in the OP is enough to make most turn their heads from side to side and ponder 'what the fuck is wrong with some people here'.

[Fovea]

53. To quote John Cleese

What you are doing is not arguing-- what you are doing is simple contradiction.

Actually, there is a fair amount of ad hominum thrown in, but this is DU, and one gets used to it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. Some Things Need Not Be Proven As Absurd And Ignorant, As They Show That All On Their Own.

But if you require reasoning as to what makes the OP so monumentally blind and narrow in logic, I'll give you a short and sweet logical conclusion ok?

The OP states:

"If one is against impeaching bush administration officials, then one is against the precepts of impeachment that the founders intended."

Now I believe that to be absurd and illogical on its face. But if you require a reason why, it's fairly easy. If the writers of the constitution intended impeachment to be used in such black and white narrow minded terms without things like discretion and alternative strategies being factors, then they would've made impeachment MANDATORY under such circumstances.

Hey, guess what pal; they didn't.

End of argument. I win. :hi:

[Fovea]

56. Thanks.

I too, believe it is good to go out on a joke.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. Joke's On You Pal.

You asked for the reasoning and you got it. Not only couldn't you refute it, but you like other posters tonight elsewhere you were only left with some weak dismissal of the context as your mode of response.

See, the premise of reasoning I put forth as justification for the OP being absurd, was quite fundamental in logic and I'd wager you recognized quickly that you were bested. It doesn't surprise me that your response above was all you were able to come back with.

Goodnight! :hi:

[Fovea]

59. Ok

The framers argued that it should be a common matter for high crimes and misdemeanors, meaning political crimes, corruption, bad faith. Like, for example stealing elections and fraud.

Read, as an example, the decision regarding Bill Clinton, paying close attention to the last paragraph.

http://www.commonlaw.com/Impeachment.html

"Impeachment is a political process designed to remove officers who breach the public trust in matters of state. "

This language says nothing about discretion. It describes a political form of due process, and is as inevitable to a non corrupt government as the prosecution of <strikethrough>treason </strikethrough> voter fraud is to the DoJ.

It is the decision that cleared Bill Clinton not for perjury, but for high crimes or misdemeanors. The Republicans went after Clinton for everything but the Lindbergh kidnapping. But they did not have a case that he subverted the government, or irreparably breached his oath of office.

When this government declines to impeach the patently guilty, the self admitted violator of FISA, the Geneva convention, and other legal foundations of governance, the government has breached its contract with the governed.


There ya go, pal.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. Constitutional Scholars Are Undoubtedly Laughing Their Asses Off Right Now.

Actually, so would anyone that actually understands the constitution.

Please show me where this breach of contract exists will ya? Ohhhhhh, it DOESN'T exist anywhere? How novel.

And I especially liked how you attempted to distort constitutional reality by trying to put forth a ridiculously illogical premise that discretion would have to be something explicitly stated.

I mean, hellooooooooooooooo, discretion is INHERENT within the constitution itself if there is an ABSENCE of any term that MANDATES the action be taken. If there is nothing MANDATING action, then discretion and personal judgments are inherent within the partaking of such action. Is that really so difficult a concept to grasp?

Impeachment is and always has been an optional process, but of which certain benchmarks need to be met IF and when such action is taken. Those benchmarks are the misdemeanors, crimes, etc that you mention. But that only means that when the action IS taken, other members must use THEIR discretion in determining if those benchmarks have been met. But there is nothing, NOTHING, in the constitution that mandates such action to be taken if there is potential for those guidelines to be met.

Your argument holds no water. None.

[Fovea]

68. Consider this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1338180&mesg_id=1345950

So far your argument has consisted primarily of bluster, ex cathedra self referential statements of 'fact', and snide contumily.

Here is commentary from the constitutional convention in the hand of James Madison, convention delagate and future president. I, old fashioned creature that I am, take it for a superior authority on intent than the utterings of whatever allegedly laughing auctor you claim to be referencing.

pal.

[Puglover]

67. He never argues or presents a congent

point for that matter. All he knows how to do is tell assert that you are wrong and he is right and add a few ad hominums for good measure.

As one brilliant poster put it. His posts are like turds in punchbowl.

[Fovea]

76. Six hours so far of crickets since my reply

I believe I'll go fishin now that I have some live bait.
Amazin wut a little book larnin will do for ya.

[Zensea]

58. False premise

One can be against impeaching Bush administration officials at this stage of the game without being against the precepts of impeachment.

It would also be helpful and actually lead to a decent discussion if all Bush administration officials weren't being lumped in together in your thesis.
Overgeneralizations lead away from decent discussion.

[Fovea]

60. I disagree with this

The Clinton decision does not admit to discretion in the creation and hearing of articles of impeachment in the face of corrupt officials.

"Impeachment is a political process designed to remove officers who breach the public trust in matters of state. "

I see no room for equivocation. Just as prosecutor who fails to prosecute a known criminal is not acting in good faith. That is where we stand vis a vis the People v. Bush/Cheney.

If my interpretation of the Clinton verdict is correct, the refusal to pursue impeachment is at best perverse and at worst, corrupt.

[Zensea]

62. OperationMindCrime is correct about the mandate issue

So the Clinton decision says
"Impeachment is a political process designed to remove officers who breach the public trust in matters of state. "
(accepting in this case that the Clinton decision is the determinant)
That is not the same as saying officers who breach the public trust in matters of state can only be or must be removed by impeachment.
A political process not the political process.
That shouldn't be too hard to understand whatever your wishes on the matter.

[Fovea]

64. all the indefinate article indicates to me

is that there might exist other mechanisms.

Missing are the verbs 'may' or 'shall' which would indicate
IIRC, discretion or the lack thereof. In light of their abscence, it seems to me
that my premise is arguable.

Here is James Madison on the issue--

"Mr. MADISON thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the Executive Magistracy was very distinguishable, from that of the Legislature or of any other public body, holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed that all or even a majority of the members of an Assembly would either lose their capacity for discharging, or be bribed to betray, their trust. Besides the restraints of their personal integrity & honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of corruption was a security to the public. And if one or a few members only should be seduced, the soundness of the remaining members, would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body. In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."

Note the phrases "indespensable ... for defending the community" "And if one or a few members only should be seduced, the soundness of the remaining members, would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body."

Madison says 'would', not 'might'. THis is a reason why executives seek (until Dubya) plausible deniability.
And, if his phrase 'defending the community' is accepted as a raison d'etre, then a failure to defend is not a matter of discretion, but an act of malfeasance.

"Ben Franklin--
Doctr. FRANKLIN mentioned the case of the Prince of Orange during the late war. An agreement was made between France & Holland; by which their two fleets were to unite at a certain time & place. The Dutch fleet did not appear... Had he been impeachable, a regular & peaceable enquiry WOULD have taken place and he WOULD if guilty have been duly punished, if innocent restored to the confidence of the public."

(emphasis mine)
Not should, not might, not could... But our old friend the A.S. verb 'willian' dressed in 18th century clothes.

[MrMickeysMom]

80. speaking of over-generalizations...

...re-read your post.

Impeachable offenses SHALL be the grounds for impeachment. This is not only, "my feeling", it's clearly the intent of article II section 4 of the Constitution.

It does not say "should", nor say "might be a good idea", It says "SHALL"

[leftofthedial]

63. might as well

it can no longer be used (apparently) unless one party controls 67% of both houses of congress and the judiciary.

[Hubert Flottz]

65. We need to remove it to give Bush the flexability he needs to...

become King of The Neoninted Snakes Of Amerikkka!

[Zensea]

66. Only if you want the terrorists to win.

:evilgrin:

[Help me help Earth]

77. No, the evil one should be removed from office! Next question! NT