Impeach a president poll

The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: "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."

FACT:
Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, but acquitted by the Senate. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

www.infoplease.com...

So if you had the chance, given any time in history, who would you impeach? Or would you? If you would list two reasons to support your decision.

I’ll start this off in my next post.

BTW this could get ugly so please keep the gloves on and limit posts to your choice and the two reasons to support it.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 16/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Bush Jr.

1. 911. How do you sit in that classroom on 911, after claiming you would act quickly and with great force, and do nothing but look around like the village idiot.

2. Does the fact the he didn’t win in the first place count as ground for impeachment, cause if it doesn’t, it should.

Well I know there are some historical figures that I think should have im-
peached, but I can't think of them at the time.

However, I definately thinnk GWB should be impeached.

1. He has commited crimes against humanity (in my opinion) and
basically disregarded civil rights.
2. He has single handedly thrown our country into debt, war and
general negativity.


There are more, but you said only two.

Oh, and the only being voted by the electoral is a good point.

[edit on 3/16/2007 by iori_komei]

Iori_Komei,
thanks for getting the ball rolling!

There are more, but you said only two.

I don't really care for this restriction myself, I guess I just assumed some might give us a laundry list, feel free to post a few but try to keep it to the simple.

If you want to impeach Bush then you have to really impeach Cheney as well. Cheney is who has really been running the country. Bush is just his front man.

But that means .. you'd be stuck with Nancy Pelosi. Right?? If that's the case (and I'm not sure if it is), then you'd be better off with letting Bush/Cheney finish the year and a half that is left. She's a flake and WORSE than those two.

FDR

1. Internment of the Japanese.

2. The New Deal turned the U.S. into a welfare state.

3. Possibly covering up knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, to enter the U.S. into WW2.

Franklin Roosevelt has my vote.

Originally posted by whoknew
Bush Jr.

Oh, what a surprise choice this was to read. Time to get over it and get a life. You're not going to be able to get even for Clinton's impeachment by also impeaching Bush.

But if really you want me to name some names ...

LBJ, for faking the Gulf of Tonkin incident that lead to 55,000 (not 3,000 as in Iraq) U.S. military deaths and perhaps millions more Vietnamese deaths. Understand? LBJ actually did the things you are always accusing Bush of doing.

Although I'm pretty bitter with Bush Jr. I'm in no way expecting this thread to follow that theme. I'm very young and with that I wonder, "do I hate Bush more than other presidents solely since I was old enough to give a damn?" I'm looking forward to hearing about other presidents, mostly since I don't think anyone could give me a new reason to dislike Bush Jr. Thanks for the post though, bitter or not.

Current standings: Who should’ve been impeached?

3 Bush Jr.
1 FDR
1 LBJ

Anyone else?

I think FDR is really the perfect example of why impeachment needs to be used so sparingly. Like any president, he made serious mistakes. Particularly I think it was a rather unenlightened act to seek a 3rd term; although it's not in our constitution, in some countries it would have been regarded as a "constitutional convention" (for those of you who aren't to into politics, some countries don't write down a constitution separate from their laws, they have traditions which are respected as law, and if someone violates the tradition, they put it down in the law. Some Brits will correctly tell you that they have an unwritten constitution of several thousand written parts). FDR should absolutely have respected the term limit tradition.

The internment of the Japanese was absolutely unforgivable. That's really it's the only thing that makes a very strong case for his impeachment at all, but one must wonder if he would have done the right thing and relented if the SCOTUS had done its job.

If it weren't for the internment issue, I don't even think it'd be a question that the things he did which were perhaps uncontroversial were ultimately pretty useful. Not EVERYTHING worked out but he did get the government off its butt and make some headway on the economy and the war.

Impeaching presidents for mistakes can be dangerous because it tells future presidents not to take bold actions when necessary. It's when a president operates on principles incompatible with the will of the people that impeachment makes sense. I'd rather let even the do-nothings and the nitwits have a little lattitude so that when the great men eventually come along they wont be intimidated by partisanship and kept from working for my interests.

People who just plain ignore the people on the other hand, and who do not abide by the laws and constitution- they have to go.

I believe that referenda on impeachment should be included in our constitution by amendment, allowing us to remove a president if 2/3s of the popular vote and a majority of at least half the states so desire. I think that's a pretty "unpopularity proof" margin- if you can't get 1/2 of the people to back you, you must have ticked America off on a matter of principle.

As for who should have been impeached, I actually believe that George Washington toed the line during the Whiskey Rebellion and in refusing to address congress. I'm not saying he should have been impeached, but I'd say that in the context of that time (as opposed to looking back on it now, knowing that it mostly worked out) I'd say that a less popular man could have been in trouble.

Wow, thats pretty deep The Vagabond. I don't know that I would agree on letting someone stay in office that isn't effective though. I understand your point with striking fear into the following presidents, but that sure hasn't stopped Bush Jr. from his actions.

I don't think my principles would put Bush off limits for impeachment. The man has definately exceeded the limits of his powers. I was slow to come around to this point; I gave Iraq a little more benefit of the doubt that most people, etc etc, but the more I've taken it upon myself to understand, the more I've come to believe that Bush needs to go not simply because he's a lousy leader, but because he is doing long term damage to the structure of American government.

Take Hoover for example- he was dead wrong about how to handle the depression. But if we had impeached him, we essentially would have been saying that you could impeach a president just for being Republican, and we never would have had Reagan, who despite his failings was effective in some very important ways.

GW/Cheney

1. 9/11

2. Iraq/Afghanistan

3. Backing out of the Kyoto Treaty

4. Crooked cabinet members

The list goes on, but those are the main things that erk me.

Originally posted by Don Wahn
GW/Cheney

1. 9/11

2. Iraq/Afghanistan

3. Backing out of the Kyoto Treaty

4. Crooked cabinet members

I'm not sure, I want to call this ignorant, but I'll explain, since I'm not sure about point 4.

Easy.

1. 9/11 conspiracy theories aren't proven by ANY means. If you believe in the Constitution, you believe people are innocent until proven guilty. Nothing reliably ties Bush to any sort of 9/11 conspiracy (note: I put reliably there, there are theories, but none are substantial enough).

2. He hasn't done anything illegal in Afghanistan, let alone Iraq. Even though WMDs weren't found in Iraq, Iraq did violate several UN sanctions and no-fly zones.

3. The Kyoto Protocol is moronic. It hurts the U.S. economy, and backing out of it was great for the American People. You should thank Bush, not condemn him. It forces the U.S. to take ineffective measures to combat the incomplete theory of Global Warming, while granting exceptions to "developing" nations. Meaning, other nations would benefit at our expense.

4. Not so sure. That's not his fault though.

Abraham Lincoln. He single-handedly destroyed the future of the US.

Originally posted by Landis
Abraham Lincoln. He single-handedly destroyed the future of the US.

How so?

Originally posted by Landis
Abraham Lincoln. He single-handedly destroyed the future of the US.

Um... yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Johnmike here and ask for some follow up. All I could really do was scratch my head after reading that..

Johnmike, It seems your calling others out without posting your own Pres.

Or maybe you don't think anyone should be. Care to humor me with your thoughts?

Lincoln was another great president who walked a fine line (and occasionally crossed it) on the constitution. I believe that some allowance has to be given for the fact that it has taken time for our understanding of our own constitution as it affects various contingencies, and Lincoln was in the rough position of having to correct the fatal flaw of America- that it endorsed an institution completely incompatible with its own founding principles.

I think it was ultimately a positive thing that Lincoln was not impeached, despite the places where he overstepped his bounds, because he was shepherding this country through a crisis for which we were not constitutionally prepared because of the founder's inability to effectively address the issue of slavery, he did not act in malice, and ultimately he was successful.

We do however have to assure that Lincoln's extraordinary circumstances are not used as a precedent that justifies a decision to let defects lie unaddressed with the intention of solving them in Lincoln's way if they ever become a problem. The constitution's generally nonrestrictive structure allows us to plan to address contingencies within the bounds of the constitution's general principles, providing that we plan ahead.

Take Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus and the other questions of the constitution's invoidability which were raised by the idea that America could face a hostile army entitled to constitutional protection.
The vesting of power in congress to create inferior courts to the SCOTUS provides the means by which to establish an emergency court system of appropriate size and rules that it can serve the constitutional rights of Americans who are alleged to have committed crimes under extraordinary circumstances to which our existing system is poorly suited. It was inappropriate for the executive branch to usurp the duty of congress in making provisions for the administration of justice in those circumstances.

The same problem lies in wait in the form of FEMA today, which I suspect ties in to what our friend dislikes Lincoln for. Martial law, under any circumstances, is unconstitutional in my opinion. Under no circumstances what so ever shall any system which does not conform to constitutional standards be justified. It is the duty of Congress to create a system which would provide order under extraordinary circumstances in a way that respects the constitutional rights of those who fall under said system. Until this is done, Lincoln's great legacy does pose a great danger if misinterpreted. A failure that works out well is still a failure to learn from, not a victory to rest upon.

I wouldn't have wanted Lincoln impeached, but his administration is one of those things where you hold your breath, you watch it work out, and you tell him, "thanks for pulling that off, now please don't ever do it again."

Should bush minor be impeached? Hmmmm... Well by now everyone should know my opinion on bush minor.

I have absolutely no interest in avenging Clinton's impeachment. History will do that. The whole deal will go down as the sorriest episode in a sorry period of American political history.

Should bush minor be impeached? Only if his entire administration could be impeached and removed because if we were just to remove him, that would still leave cheney and the rest of his crew in charge and nothing would change and very possibly get worse.

So...(gnawing on my lip) no. Not unless we can get them all.

[edit on 18-3-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by whoknew
Johnmike, It seems your calling others out without posting your own Pres.

Or maybe you don't think anyone should be. Care to humor me with your thoughts?

I'm not entirely sure. I haven't given my own opinion on anything because I'm not certain of what a president can and can't be impeached for. Personally, I'd like to have had many presidents impeached in the past, including possibly Lincoln, and certainly Woodrow Wilson. But I just don't know enough, at this point, about the legality of what they did (Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, etc. and Woodrow Wilson's Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918). While they were wrong in theory, legal maneuvering and exceptions in the Constitution may have made it possible. I plan to do some research in the future, that's why I asked for elaboration. If anyone cares to help it'd be great.

With Bush... I don't know. He hasn't don't anything terrible, as far as I know, that can be proven to be such. The Patriot Act is suspect in my opinion, but I still need to see exactly what principle it violates and how, and whether or not it's done in a lawful way.