What if Watergate were today?

[Kuciwalker]

However, look at it this way - if Congress wants to impeach someone, who will stop them? The courts? If Congress is really in the mood to get this guy out of office, all they have to do is threaten to impeach the Justices if they interfere.

[PLATO]

July 27, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes the first of three articles of impeachment, charging obstruction of justice.

August 8, 1974: Richard Nixon becomes the first U.S. president to resign. Vice President Gerald R. Ford assumes the country's highest office. He will later pardon Nixon of all charges related to the Watergate case.

Ahh! Thought I was right.

http://www.watergate.info/chronology/brief.shtml

[GePap]

Originally posted by skywalker
However, look at it this way - if Congress wants to impeach someone, who will stop them? The courts? If Congress is really in the mood to get this guy out of office, all they have to do is threaten to impeach the Justices if they interfere.

Imagine the fantasy land of a congress where you could get 2/3 of the senators to rule against a president, without fearing electoral probems later in thier careers.....

[PLATO]

Originally posted by skywalker
However, look at it this way - if Congress wants to impeach someone, who will stop them? The courts? If Congress is really in the mood to get this guy out of office, all they have to do is threaten to impeach the Justices if they interfere.

Well as long as you are talking about usurpation of Constitutional mandate...The President could issue an executive order eliminating Congress and The Court and then call in the Army to enforce it.

[GePap]

Yeah, if any branch of gov. had the uper hand when it comes to unconstitutionally getting rid of others, its the executive.

Poor, poor court..lets give them an army just to be fair.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, I'd say sky is correct. Congress can impeach over anything it damn well pleases. If it can get the votes, it can do it... just call it a 'high crime' which is vague as Hell.

[Sharpe]

Don't forget the Andrew Johnson case - he was nearly impeached for basically trying to fire one of his cabinet without Congressional approval. (Though I suspect that there were "legal" issues added into the impeachment charge).

[PLATO]

Hmm...Congress has the power of impeachment...The Executive Branch has the power of executive order...the judicial branch has legislative review. Is there a balance of power here or does one branch have more power than another? In practical terms it seems that the judiciary exercises its power more often.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by PLATO


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.

Three of five articles of impeachment were voted out of the House Judiciary Committee, two with strong bipartisan support, and one on a near party line vote. After Alexander Butterfield's testimony about the tape system, Nixon was in trouble, but he would only have gotten a 5-3 adverse ruling from SCOTUS, until he had some of his hatchet men suggest that the Executive Branch wasn't obligated to comply with the judiciary's rulings on Executive Privilege.

That pissed off SCOTUS and the challenge to judicial authority guaranteed Nixon a unanimous ruling against. Coupled with the Saturday Night Massacre, and then the contents of the tapes themselves, Nixon made it virtually impossible for his supporters to stick with him.

When he resigned, if was after some of his advisors told him that a quiet, informal caucus of the Republican membership in the House showed only about 15% could be counted on to support him against the two most damning articles of impeachment. At that point, Nixon realized he was doomed.

BTW, for the Boris-skywalker tiff, the question of whether a President could be impeached for utter incompetence was researched in the time of Millard Fillmore, and the conclusion reached was that some degree of criminal malfeasance was needed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sharpe
Don't forget the Andrew Johnson case - he was nearly impeached for basically trying to fire one of his cabinet without Congressional approval. (Though I suspect that there were "legal" issues added into the impeachment charge).

Technically, Johnson was impeached for a "crime" not for removing the officer in question. The Congress wanted to tie Johnson's hands, and passed a (flagrantly unconstitutional) act that required consent of Congress, to remove any Executive officer whose appointment had been approved by Congress.

Thus Johnson was impeached for violation of that law.

[Goingonit]

Congress impeached Andrew Johnson for, essentially, using his veto too damn often. They failed to convict him in the Senate by one vote.

In theory, yes, you need to have committed a crime, but in practice, if 1/2 of Congress and 2/3 of Senate really, really, doesn't like you, you're toast.

EDIT: Oops, someone said this already!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Technically, Johnson was impeached for a "crime" not for removing the officer in question. The Congress wanted to tie Johnson's hands, and passed a (flagrantly unconstitutional) act that required consent of Congress, to remove any Executive officer whose appointment had been approved by Congress.

Thus Johnson was impeached for violation of that law.

Mtg, If that law had been later overturned and Johnson had been dismissed as President, what would the Constitution guide us to do?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
BTW, for the Boris-skywalker tiff, the question of whether a President could be impeached for utter incompetence was researched in the time of Millard Fillmore, and the conclusion reached was that some degree of criminal malfeasance was needed.

Ah, good ol' Millard. Not many chaps named Millard about these days!

And MtG rests my case.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually, I'd say sky is correct. Congress can impeach over anything it damn well pleases. If it can get the votes, it can do it... just call it a 'high crime' which is vague as Hell.

Vague, but still controlled by the term "crime" The real issue is that the House does not have any standards of conduct or law placed upon it similar to standards which apply to a grand jury or prosecutor in a grand jury proceeding - that is, there's no minumum standard of evidence, no special ethical rules, nothing at all - so a hostile House can stretch as far as it wants regarding what is evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, but they must at least allege some act that can be described as a high crime or misdemeanor. It should be pretty clear that by associating the vague statement with treason and bribery, in the same listing of offenses, that the Framers intended that some gravity of offense was necessary, and not, for example, double parking your horse and buggy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

so a hostile House can stretch as far as it wants regarding what is evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, but they must at least allege some act that can be described as a high crime or misdemeanor

Exactly... but as the Johnson affair showed us, Congress can make just about anything into a 'high crime'. Those Senators voting to kick Johnson out didn't care that he dismissed Stanton, but instead because they hated his adminstration.