Need A Little Help- Looking For Some Answers Regarding Possibility/Requirement of Impeachment

[Jcrowley]

Come Monday we are going to begin a local movement to pressure our Rep to introduce articles of impeachment. Like many other Dems he is willing to state, and has in strong terms, that Bush has committed impeachable offenses. Now if this is indeed the case does this not mean that Bush has violated the Constitution? And is it not the sworn duty of our Reps to uphold and protect the constitution?

So if the above is correct is it not then a violation by THE REP of his/her sworn duty?

What I'm hoping to find answers to is not so much a consideration of my opinion on this or others, though those are welcome, but I'm hoping to find some information in constitutional law that would either implicitly or explicitly require a Rep to begin hearings/proceedings if they believe the constitution has been violated by the Executive or other officers.

"I get one call after another saying, 'Impeach the president,' " Rep. John P. Murtha

"It's a simple process but a very divisive thing," Mr. Murtha said. "You've got to measure what it's going to do to the country, and at this point I don't see that happening. Instead we'll fight it out on the issues."


"The timing is all wrong," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat. "If this were the first two years of his administration I would advocate impeachment. A lot of people at home say impeachment, and I'm sure he committed a lot of impeachable offenses, but think about it practically."

Mr. Nadler said impeachment hearings would be pointless and would only distract the country from the presidential election next year.

[existentialist]

1. a recent discussion

I participated in a discussion recently where the consensus was that most Democratic politicians did not want impeachment because they wanted Bush, and the Bush record around to campaign against, and with which to paint all the Republicans who have supported Bush and Bush's policies.

These discussion participants were not primarily Democrats, but they were moderates who were thoroughly sick of Bush and of neocons, and who for at least one election were willing to support Democrats because of the Democrats' (slightly) better policies at present and in recent years.

They saw Democratic policies as slightly better in to general areas. (1) foreign policy and Iraq in particular, and (2) environmental policies including global warming in particular.

These guys were lawyers who agreed that there are certainly legal and constitutional grounds for impeaching Bush, but could support the Democratic strategy and Democrats generally in campaigning against the Bush and neocon record rather than in seeking to remove Bush through impeachment.

[Jcrowley]

2. What I'm looking for

is sort of along the lines of "Does the Rep HAVE to begin the process if he/she thinks impeachable offenses have been committed/constitution been violated" or can they just shirk it off for political purposes.

Is there some aspect of the constitution that requires them to begin hearings if this is the case (impeachable offenses have been committed) AND they acknowledge it?

[existentialist]

5. the logic necessary for impeachment

I don't think that the argument that it is mandatory for a congress critter who believes that (s)he perceives an impeachable offense is very strong. It could be made, but the authority for it must rest in the Constitution itself, and therefore on constitutional interpretation.

This is turn probably points to what the individual congressperson perceives to best preserve the Constitution, and it is certainly possible to perceive that the best chance to remove and discredit the threat posed by Bush/Cheney and the neoconservatives is to oppose them on specific issues rather than to directly remove them.

This is, for reasons discussed in my previous post, at least an arguable position. And if so it is arguably a sound argument against impeachment.

Please do not read this as a statement from me that I oppose impeachment. I might support it. But I do believe that for it to (1) happen or (2) to achieve worthwhile goals it must arise from a groundswell of opposition and resentment of what Bush and the neocons have foisted upon us, and not merely from logical, legal, and constitutional argus made directly to our congressional representatives.

[frogcycle]

3. well, if you're looking for something in constitutional law...

read the Constitution

Everything else is opinion.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

do "find on this page" and find the word "impeach"

You'll find:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
-snip-
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.
-snip-

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment 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, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
-snip-

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
-snip-

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.

-snip-

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

That's it.

The "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason" is pretty compelling. It does not say "could be, if the mood of the country is right"

It says "shall be". In legalese "shall" is different from "will" and vastly different from "can be." And since the house has the sole power to impeach, you make a pretty compelling case that they must - it says "shall" and nobody else can do it. However, it says "shall be removed upon conviction" - so one could argue that it does not say "shall be impeached if suspected of treason" and therefore they get to sit on their hands. They can fulfill their obligation to "uphold the constitution" by doing nothing. It is said that the framers of the Constitution were intentionally vague - they did not want to dictate, to force the issue. They left it up to their successors in leadership of the country. Little did they know that leadership would be usurped by George V's successors.

If there is a case for Treason, there is no quibble over what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors." the Plame outing would be one, the whole deceit to go to war would be another, funding terrorist groups would be another. Gotta pin them on bush personally though. He can try to pull a gonzo and just play dumb. Is it treason to be an absolute idiot while your appointees commit treason?

I suspect that investigations could actually uncover a case for bribery as well. Lord knows most of the congresscritters on both sides of the aisle, while not necessarily provable, are getting fat off the public and doing the will of special interests to do so. If that's not bribery in the pure sense of the word, it's damned close. Hastert's millions made off land deals in Illinois are a prime example. Sumbitch was a high school wrestling coach, got elected to Congress, now he's a multimillionaire. Do the math. But I digress. It is probable that there are deals that enrich bushco. Cheney? Little doubt in my mind. All those no-bid contracts enrich their cronies, and one has to suspect there's a quid pro quo there somewhere.

[Jcrowley]

6. Thanks for that

Great post. I've been going over some of what you put forth. I guess what I'm looking for and need to look into further is the very details, if there are any, within the obligations of the Reps regarding impeachment. I'm wondering if there is anything within the rules of their office(s) that would bind them just to begin hearings if they believe impeachable offenses have occurred.

[frogcycle]

7. good luck

this has been a delicate topic since the beginning. I sincerely doubt that ANYTHING has been written, whether in law or house rules, that goes beyond the Constitution.

I like the idea posted just below of just flat out finding the biggest smoking gun there is and laying it on the Capitol steps (metaphorically)

Get really, really focused. Don't use a laundry list of offenses (which would be huge, i agree).

Find that hand in the cookie jar, slap the cuffs on, and frogmarch the bastard out the door.

Ideally it would be something that both bush and cheney can be pinned with together. then the "twofer" is a given. "They conspired to commit treason as follows..."

damn, the country - the world - needs this trial. shoot, even if it failed by one vote, the case should be made, publicly, on the record, under oath. Then if he does not get removed, he will at least be further hamstrung. Scare the living shit out of his remaining supporters. Everyone else who participated in the treasonous act can expect an indictment any day from that time forward.

Preferably it is something that they just cannot come up with any rationalization for. They have tried to brush aside so many crimes as "post-9/11 necessities" we need something so egregious that nobody can excuse it. Appallingly, I can write that and feel confident that there are plenty of examples; it's just hard to ferret them out.

[peacetalksforall]

4. What is needed is a volunteer group of Constitutional lawyers

who will do the work of the Judiciary in Congress to pinpoint the treasonous act that is the most ironclad and lay it all out for them. Which offense? Which evidense? Which witnesses? and Which winner - Which one can the Republicans NOT turn away from? Then, how fast can it be done?

Many people have told us that it took a very long time to impeach Nixon.
The length of time ii took for Clinton cannot be used to measure - they wanted to drag it out as long as possible. And lucky for them the timing was on their side.

It also took a long time for the people to accept the idea that Nixon needed to be impeached. Republican never convinced most of the nation that Clinton needed to be impeached - the context was ridiculous.

In contrast -

Millions and millions of people are ready to see Bush and Cheney impeached, but the clock is running.

One of the worst revelations about Hussein not aiding al Queda just came out this past week (should th elie for war be one of the options for impeachment). They had it pretty well contained and controlled.

Now, it can't be done without volunteers to lay it out.

[Mnemosyne]

8. Something like this?

http://impeachpac.org/node/897

http://www.impeachpac.org/resolutions

http://www.impeachbush.tv/downloads/guide_to_impeachment.pdf

:hi:

[Jcrowley]

11. Very useful

Thanks

:hi:

[Mnemosyne]

12. I was hoping!

Very welcome.

:hi:

[porphyrian]

9. I'll kick that. - n/t

[H2O Man]

10. While I like Jerrold Nadler,

and usually agree with him, I think he errs on this one.

One of the common misconceptions about impeachement -- and one that is sadly repeated on DU -- is that impeachment is a "political" process, rather than a "legal" one. Actually, the Constitution of the United States is a legal document, and thus we have Constitutional law. The process of impeachment is found in that Constitution. It includes the Chief justice of the US Supreme Court; the Chief Justice's duties involve the legal process. Indeed, while impeachment is not part of a criminal trial per say, it is absolutely a civil trial.

It is proper for those bringing any legal case -- either criminal or civil -- to consider the most likely outcome. This can cause some frustrations, as we witnessed when Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuted I. Lewis Libby, but not on the charges many hoped for. Also, the fact that Rove nor Cheney have been prosecuted has disappointed many people. The reason appears to be because Mr. Fitzgerald did not feel that his chances of winning were certain enough, rather than his belief that the two had not violated any law.

Thus, when Nadler mentions the timing of the possible case for impeachment, he raises a valid point. However, when he takes it the next step, and says it would be a pointless distraction from the next presidential election, he is in error. It is improper to make impeachment a political process: no case could be clearer than that of President Clinton. The republicans contaminated the process by making it purely political. I believe that Rep. Nadler is doing the same here -- he has a political agenda that interferes with what should be a legal decision. It seems that his involvement in one presidential candidate's campaign has become an agenda that prevents him from doing his sworn duty -- to uphold that US Constitution.