What if Watergate were today?

[Whaleboy]

GePap: If we're thinking the same thing, it involves a lot of pretzels, and copius quantities of laxative.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What if Watergate were today?

Originally posted by skywalker
In case you forgot, ANYTHING is an impeachable offense. Wearing the wrong tie is an impeachable offense. Congress is not required to justify an impeachment.

You have a bizarre view of the Constitution and civics, considering the Constitution sez:

"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."

Now, where does wearing the wrong tie count as treason, bribery, or a high crime and misdemeanor?

All charges are not created equal, and implying that it somehow wasn't partisan lunacy for DeLay and Barr to call for Clinton's impeachment back in 1993 is absurd.

[Kuciwalker]

again:

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.


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.

They have the sole power to impeach. If Congress decides to impeach someone, they're out.

In addition to this, I asked my dad, who's a lawyer, and he said yes also.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by skywalker

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.


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.

Congress can impeach someone for anything they damn well please.

Note the above says NOTHING about what the should be impeaching over, just procedure. The section I quoted, however, explicitely shows you are dead wrong. They cannot impeach over anything they damn well please, the can only impeach for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors, period. Attempting to impeach a President for anything other than those things is unconstitutional.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by skywalker

They have the sole power to impeach. If Congress decides to impeach someone, they're out.

In addition to this, I asked my dad, who's a lawyer, and he said yes also.

First, you're mistaken on a basic level. The Senate does NOT have the power to impeach at all, just to try the President for removal. It's the House of Reps that impeaches!

And again, you're wrong. While your Appeal to Authority (daddy) fallacy might impress some, it's irrelevant.

Kindly point your dad to the Section wherein it details what congress may consider as suitable for impeachment and ask him to explain himself.

Now, if he admits a Congress that impeaches a President in the absence of those factors is acting unconstitutionally, then he's on the right track.

[Whaleboy]

Do you ever get the feelin the US intelligence services read these threads?

[Kuciwalker]

From FindLaw:

Treason is defined in the Constitution; 764 bribery is not, but it had a clear common-law meaning and is now well covered by statute. 765 High crimes and misdemeanors, however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses. 766 In an unrelated action, the Convention had seemed to understand the term ''high misdemeanor'' to be quite limited in meaning, 767 but debate prior to adoption of the phrase 768 and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions 769 were to the effect that the President at least, and all the debate was in terms of the President, should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable. And in the First Congress' ''removal'' debate, Madison maintained that the wanton removal from office of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment. 770 Other comments, especially in the ratifying conventions, tend toward a limitation of the term to criminal, perhaps gross criminal, behavior. 771 While conclusions may be drawn from the conflicting statement, it must always be recognized that a respectable case may be made for either view

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Nearly impossible to say, since much of the current U.S. political environment has been poisoned by Watergate and its aftermath. It would likely be a quite different political landscape today had Watergate not occured, so it's difficult to predict.

An excellent statement. The political power of scandal was developed to an art form with Watergate.

Now, where does wearing the wrong tie count as treason, bribery, or a high crime and misdemeanor?

I don't know...I've seen some pretty bad ties in D.C,

[GePap]

We should all know that the House brings impeaches and acts as prosecutor while the Senate sits as the court and judges the case.

Oh, and of course Boris is correct: and if anyone here thinks about it, if impeachement could happen over anything, there would have been more than 2 in our history (didn't the house actually pass the bill to impeach Nixon days before he quit?)

[Kuciwalker]

*points to above post*

[GePap]

Hey Sky, why not try to use evidence that backs your claim, not acts against it?

Note that the general consensus, and precendent (which matters a hell of a lot) defines high misdemeanors as at east a criminal offense. Madison's opinion remained just that. American law is built on precendent, and the precedent calls for at least a criminal act.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
didn't the house actually pass the bill to impeach Nixon days before he quit?

GePap, IIRC the bill was out of commitee and was going to the floor when he quit. Its passage was considered a sure thing. Of course I was only 10 at the time so I could be wrong. It was really interesting seeing how upset all the adults were over what was happening.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Hey Sky, why not try to use evidence that backs your claim, not acts against it?

Note that the general consensus, and precendent (which matters a hell of a lot) defines high misdemeanors as at east a criminal offense. Madison's opinion remained just that. American law is built on precendent, and the precedent calls for at least a criminal act.

it must always be recognized that a respectable case may be made for either view

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by skywalker
*points to above post*

Which, of course, doesn't bolster your claim, since it's conclusion was:

"a respectable case may be made for either view"

However, even within that debate, while the scope of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was vague, it clearly didn't stand for "anything." So your tie analogy is still patently ludicrous. After all, if the Founders meant for it to mean "anything," why not just say a President can be impeached for anything? Sorry, but claiming a President can be impeached for anything is just ludicrous. As GePap points out, there's been only two impeachments in history. Of course, both were insanely partisan affairs driven by Republicans...

Nixon's resignation saved him being impeached by a bipartisan effort, however.

[GePap]

A "respectable case" can be built for the twinkie defense as well.;it does not make it "true". Plus, of course your actual claim is wrong anyway's. I mentioned incompetence, you said anything at all. Those are not the same things. Even Madison said that you needed special circumstances to act.