IMPEACHMENT BYPASS! There IS another legal way to remove the President

[berni_mccoy]

The entire administration can legally be replaced by Congress according to the U.S. Constitution. How can this be possible? NOTHING in the Constitution says the president hast to serve his full term and NOTHING says Impeachement is the ONLY way to be removed (excepting death or disability). And NOTHING in the Constitution says that Congress CAN'T hold a Presidential election at any time. Here is a step-by-step breakdown:

1. Article II Section 1 Clause 1: Presidents term is 4 years, but the Constitution does not say that the president has to serve all 4 years. In fact, the key words is "shall be 4 years". If it was meant to be 4 years and impeachment was the only means of removal, then it would say "will be" or "must be" because Impeachment is specially qualified later.
2. Article II, Section 1, Clause 4: Congress chooses the time and day of the election.
3. Article II, Section 4, Clase 1: The President and all civil officers of the U.S. "shall be" removed from office on Impeachment for and Conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. But it does not say this is the ONLY way Congress shall remove the president.

In summary, the Congress can CHOOSE the time and day of the Presidential Election. This is not limited to a 4 year restriction. The founding fathers realized that if a President was completely incompetent or negligent, but not necessarily impeachable, that the Congress could do what it needed to in order to remove the President and install a competent leader.

So, what's the problem with this? The same problem we have with Impeachment... we need the votes in Congress to get it passed... THE DIFFERENCE is that the CHIEF JUSTICE would PRESIDE over an IMPEACHMENT, so even if in 2006 we get the Congress back, we still may not succeed in impeachment because Roberts will likely be C.J of the Supreme Court. However, a recall election is NOT out of the question. The other advantage a RECALL has over impeachment is that politically, we've got 60-70% of the population who do not approve of Bush's performance, but I doubt very seriously that you'd get that kind of # saying he's impeachable (more likely 50/50 on that).

[yourout]

1. Kind of like a NO CONFIDENCE VOTE?

God......would that make my decade.

[mattclearing]

70. Exactly like a no confidence vote. n/t

[Podface]

71. Not so Fast.

The dead conservative presided over the Clinton Impeachment. Clinton was vindicated.

Additionally, the only way Bush will be forced out is if the Republican Congress, or enough of them, push him out. Nixon was forced to resign because of a republican congress. Not all of the republicans in office are neocon's. I have a problem with the tendency of many on this board to say all republicans are the same. My neighbor, a republican and good friend, is a moderate republican. He believes in fiscal responsibility, and social liberalism. He hated bushco long before this fiasco and believes they are reckless in every sense of the word. He, like many republicans believe essentially the same thing as moderate democrats.

In my opinion, we as liberals need to focus on this administration, not all republicans. We need moderate republicans on our side if bush is to be ousted. We spend too much time here complaining rather than being intelligent about our methods.

I for one am going to write moderate republican reps and senators. I'm not going to tell them how much I hate them. I'm going to tell them how much I think it is their responsibility as elected officials to impeach bush over this, the latest example in a string of many examples of pure incompetences that are so dangerous to our country.

I will notify them that if they continue to ignore this presidents recklessness and not hold him accountable, I will SWITCH PARTIES AND VOTE DEMOCRAT.

also see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4694950&mesg_id=4694950

[BrklynLiberal]

2. So now th e2006 elections are even more critical..which means BushCo, Rove

& the rest of them will come up with dirty tricks that will boggle the mind to ensure they win.

[Radio_Lady]

3. Forget it! ALL OF THE ABOVE folks are MOSTLY Republicans

and the rest of them don't have backbones.

We're stuck with this guy until January, 2009. God help us!

[Tace]

4. Wow -- You Are On The Case!

Come on folks -- Let's mull this one over!

[PatsFan2004]

5. Can this interpretation make it past the Supreme Court?

[berni_mccoy]

6. It's not even STRETCHING any part of the Constitution...

Congress HAS the power to do this.

[PatsFan2004]

8. Yeah, but I am remembering Dec 2000.

They sometimes make up their own rules.

[berni_mccoy]

12. The Supreme Court Ruled on a completely different issue

The issue was who has the right to manage the recount... the state or the fed... the S.C. ruled in favor of the state of FL who stopped the recount.

No challenge to a recall vote would make it to the S.C. because there is no violation of the S.C. It's all Fed law gov'd by the Constitution...

[librechik]

56. IMO, after that "opinion" we have no constitution

cuz when the legal body breaks the law like that, it invalidates their whole existence, and without the Supremes, the concept of our union has died.

[dweller]

13. that case doesn't set precedence

for any future case.

dp

[Qibing Zero]

11. Very doubtful.

Even if congress would support this (hah), there would immediately be a hearing in the supreme court to the effect of 'we don't interpret the constitution to mean that', and it will be end of story.

If you're hoping for congress to have an epiphany, start racking up all of the things you could charge the administration on in court.

Personally, I don't even have faith in the vast majority of congress to do something in any case.

[dweller]

7. CRAP!!

you had to bring up Roberts didnya?

all the more reason to fight his appointment.

dp

[Amonester]

9. Good find! Nominate.

Yep. RECALL!

Then sue, judge, and imprison for a lllloooonnnnggggg list of crimes.


:bounce:

:patriot:

[tx_dem41]

10. Your interpretation of the phrase "shall be" is 180 degrees wrong....

"Shall" has a particular use in a legal document. It is much more affirmative and authoritative than "will".

[berni_mccoy]

19. Legal definition of "shall"

http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/shall.htm

[tx_dem41]

22. Key phrases...."some statutes" and "depends upon the context".

[berni_mccoy]

27. The bottom line is that impeachment is NOT the only means of removal

And that control of Presidential Election IS a power of Congress.

[dweller]

23. ...

Shall

v. 1) An essential command, such as "you shall not kill." 2) Some statutes refer to "shall" as a direction which is not necessarily mandatory, but
it depends upon the context.

from link.
dp

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

48. Actually that site is not correct. The word "shall" implies MANDATORY

And especially in the constitution where other words exist such as "will" etc, it is expected that the word SHALL is indeed MANDATORY.

Trust me...I deal with the legal definition of SHALL every day

[oddtext]

20. as a lawyer

this is exactly what i see that is wrong, lamentably, with this argument. Shall is "will". it's not "may". there is no discretion or condition inferred in the word "shall".

i don't think the constitution supports this. it's certainly not as iflike congressional dems have to will to advocate for this interpretation anyway.

[berni_mccoy]

26. The bottom line is that impeachment is NOT the only means of removal

And that a recall election IS a power of Congress.

[bigbrother05]

54. The use of shall is the emphatic.

It is a directive, without discretion. The most common legal and contractual interpretation. No court would accept a case based on that particular argument. Until the 25th Amendment, death was the only way a president's authority could be passed on between elected terms.

[Brightmore]

14. There is also this way

Not likely, but:

25th Amendment
Section 4

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

[Yupster]

15. When they're saying the congress chooses the

date for the election, that is the day the electors vote.

The Constitution does not say anything about an "election" for president, and the Constitution does not require an election as we think of it with the people voting.

There are popular votes in each state only because state legislatures have chosen to have them.

The president could be elected entirely Constitutionally without a vote of the people at all.

[leveymg]

16. The Other Way: Congress removes the Prez, but any court can convict him

See US v. Nixon (Watergate tapes) - Presidential immunity is not absolute, President is subject to judicial power at all times; also, see Jones v. Clinton (Sexual Harassment suit), seated President is subject to private party suits for serious wrongs.

While only the Congress can remove the President from office, both criminal and civil courts can try, convict, compel, fine and imprison him.

This still isn't a monarchy.

[kodi]

17. back it up with something from the Federalist Papers

or the correspondences of the Continental Congress - Constitutional Convention of 1787, then we'll talk.

[berni_mccoy]

21. Why don't you try proving me wrong instead,

Then we'll talk.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[berni_mccoy]

40. Wow, using republican tactics of name calling... great argument

I'm pointing out an observation: That Congress has more ways to remove the President than Impeachment and it's IN THE CONSTITUTION. You are telling me this is a mis-interpretation. YOU need to show me the founding fathers intended it otherwise.

Maybe YOU should log off and stop embarrassing yourself.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[berni_mccoy]

47. You are completely disrespectful

And belligerent. You are unable to argue with civility so you resort to rudeness.

I laid out an argument and you have yet to challenge it with anything but insults.

If you were respectful in your discourse, I would honor a challenge, but until then, you are on your own.

BTW, if you've read my response to your original post, you'll find that I answered your first challenge despite your rude delivery of it.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[TankLV]

51. Hey - he quoted the direct text, goddammit! You need to provide the proof

of your claim - he has already proven his.

Get a clue!

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[tritsofme]

58. Thanks for putting this silly theory to rest.

Surprised no one replied yet...

[onenote]

59. ditto

At most, all that the OP has proven is that Congress can change the date on which a Presidential election is held. I suppose, taking it to an extreme, Congress could vote to have a Presidential election next week. Of course, whoever was elected wouldn't take office until Jan 20, 2009 -- the end of the fixed term of four years established in the Constitution.
And one more point -- how exactly would citations from the founding fathers about the right of the people either to amend the constitution or revolt support the idea that the Constitution gives Congress the right to recall the President? Revolution is not just overthrowing one branch of governement, its tossing out the whole kit and kaboodle...i.e., its an extra-constitutional act.

onenote

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[berni_mccoy]

38. Ok, Here you go:

Madison wrote to Webster that the people have the right to revolution if their gov't is screwing up:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s14.html

I think that supports the intent of the founding fathers giving Congress the power to replace the President in more ways than one.

[berni_mccoy]

44. Here's another point from past presidents and founding fathers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4686404&mesg_id=4688232

[garybeck]

18. what are you smoking and can I have some?

there is no difference between "shall be" and "will be". even if there was, you'd still need CONGRESS to do something about it, and if they were going to do something like that, they would just impeach him.

Just because it doesn't say that they can't do something, it doesn't mean they can or will...

Does it say Congress can't wipe peanut butter all over the walls of the Capitol?

[berni_mccoy]

24. Legal definition of "shall"

http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/shall.htm

Shall is not a statement of requirement.

Also, the U.S. Constitution only lists the powers that each branch has. This is a power that Congress HAS. I'm not talking about a power that is unstated or that they don't have.

[halobeam]

32. honest questions here...

What are "some statutes"? Can you cite any? and let's break down "the contexts in which it depends on" ...


how does "shall" read other than will or must in another context? Can you give me an example?

I would love to see this, and I'm not being facicious..really.


Shall
v. 1) An essential command, such as "you shall not kill." 2) Some statutes refer to "shall" as a direction which is not necessarily mandatory, but it depends upon the context.

[berni_mccoy]

34. Is Impeachment the only way to remove a president

As another poster pointed out, the answer is no. The constitution allows for other ways explicitly. The one I'm pointing out is not explicit removal, just a use of Congress' power to CHOOSE the time and date of the next election (which will remove Bush from his 4 year term 2 years early).

Shall works in this case (the president's term "shall" be 4 years... doesn't mean it WILL be).

[Mairead]

66. You should really read Madison's transcript of the 1787 Convention

Madison and the other federalists make it crystal clear that their goal is to PREVENT DEMOCRACY.

That's why they only allowed the People to vote for one person at the federal level: our so-called Representative, and why the members of that 'lower house' have the shortest terms and the least power. And to make sure that most of those elected to even that House would be the wealthy, they made the minimum district size 30K people! The US House has only 435 members, each of whom 'represents' 600K people! Contrast that with New Hampshire's state House, which has 400 members all by itself.

Your idea about holding early elections is based on a misunderstanding.

[AuntiBush]

25. The Biggest Pile in American History!

Over and over again, for months on end. Hell, years. And still they're machine runs blatantly upfront in our face. They don't care.

And what are we to do? The outrage is a disgrace in itself. I know of NO ONE on all levels from the most highly respected, and this rank group keeps their power.

Clinton. Taken down with more money spent by the REPUKS over 1 dress, 1 lie, 1 fling w/a consenting adult.

They oughta be ashamed, and they oughta be in-peached many yesterdays ago. I honestly have but a shred of hope hanging 'cause I just don't know this country anymore. At least now we know it's the most of Americans. No, it's the few (in comparision to US) right-wingers that should be super shamed.

[nicknameless]

28. Can we hear from DU legal experts on this?

Kicked and recommended for more to see.
:kick:

[atre]

77. Not an expert, but this argument is crap

The word "shall" is what we lawyers use in contract drafting to create the most affirmative, air-tight obligation. Failure to follow a provision qualified by the term "shall" unequivocally gives rise to a cause of action for breach.

[Tace]

29. Berni -- Did Your Thread Earlier On Court Martial Get Yanked?

Before I went out for a few beers, I thought I saw it on the Greatest Page.

[berni_mccoy]

30. No, I just conceded it was not going to work...

The president is not subject to UMCJ unless he is also active military or qualifies under one of the other conditions of subjectivity.

[dweller]

31. god, what a catch-22 that is.

he didn't serve, yet he did. or vice versa, whatever.

feh.

hey, berni_mccoy. I believe you are on to something. Hopefully if will garnish some serious legal eagle replies.
nom'd

later.
dp

[Trillo]

46. Too bad about that AWOL status. nt

[onenote]

33. Creative, but unsupportable

The Constitution specifies that the President is elected for a "Term" of Four years. Congress cannot shorten that term except as expressly provided -- i.e., impeachment. Indeed, the Constitution provides that the President shall receive for his services compensation, which shall "neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected."

The Prez, when elected, is elected for a Four year "term" or "period" and if you can't diminish his compensation, you can hardly throw him out of office.

The issue of the length of the Presidential term was hotly debated by the founding fathers and the concept of a Term being a fixed period, not a period that could be changed at the whim of the legislature, was well understood.

onenote

[berni_mccoy]

35. That would mean if the president became disabled

he would continue to be compensated if removed? I don't think that argument has any more support than my original argument...

[onenote]

42. yep, he'd be compensated because he's still president

The President isn't "removed" when he's disabled. Rather an "Acting President" takes his place. And he's compensated at the same rate as the President. But the President is still the President, he just can't exercise his power.

onenote

[onenote]

36. and there's also the 20th Amendment

Which states that "the terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified....'

Further indication that the Constitution views a Term as a fixed period of time.

onenote

[FlaGranny]

39. No way, really, because

whoever took his place would be just as rotten, but perhaps a bit smarter.

[berni_mccoy]

41. It would only be temporary.

When a new President is elected, he gets to replace the admin.

[dweller]

43. ...

:kick:

[firefox]

49. Recommended - cannot discuss Constitution enough n/t

[TankLV]

50. Why yes there is - they did it with Kennedy, McKinley, Garfield & Lincoln

But I am not by any means suggesting anything, Agent Mike. Just mearly pointing out historical tidbits.

[ladylibertee]

53. Why do you toy with me......

and get my hopes all up like that? gosh darn it.... Well, there is yet even another way to get him out of office....The Pat Robertson idea for President Chavez. I'm just kidding, I hope I don't get placed on the Terror Watch list now.In my defense, I'm a private citizen and as Donald Rumsfeld once said," Private citizens say things" hahahahahaha:P

[Wizard777]

57. I thought you were going to toss out the Old Congressional Immunity.

*******This is just a theory. Repeat this is just a theory*******

Congress is immume from prosecution while on the official Business of the Congress. So it was THEORIZED that Congress in an official act could elect a represenative to go to the White House and kill the President. As long as it was done as an Official Act of Congress. The Congressman or Senator could not be prosecuted.

*******This is just a theory. Repeat this is just a theory*******

Oh BTW Conressional Immunity was tossed out. So just like your theory. The theory above won't fly either.

It is more important than ever before that we stick strictly to the letter of the Constitution. We must now prove to the world that Democracy works domestically before it will be accepted on a wide scale internationally. Once again the world is watching. If we fail here at home. We can only fail the world. That is not what America is about

[The Backlash Cometh]

61. "Shall" is a strong legal term. Sorry.

Shall is the strongest legal term to mean mandatory or authoritative.

[Seabiscuit]

73. That was my first thought. "Shall" is a very strong "must", sorry to say.

A very creative interpretation of the document, but, unfortunately, whimsical at best.

Unfortunately, impeachment is the only constitutional means of removing a President.

Unless, of course, you want to interpret the right to bear arms, redress grievances, and revolt provisions as providing a constitutional underpinning to assassination...

[Vinca]

62. The key word is "Congress." It's Republican.

Maybe in 2006 things will change, but for now we're SOL even if he can be removed without impeachment.

[MildyRules]

64. The ONLY key word is "Shall"

which in the Constitution means WILL or MUST. Period. This malarkey about "shall" meaning "may" is nonsense.

[ochazuke]

69. Right.

That subject line was really exciting. So, imagine my disappointment to learn that a fellow DUer has such a poor grasp of the English language.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

63. you are so far out on a limb it is laughable

you are hanging your hopes on a phrase that had been well interpreted for over 200 years? And getting all lathered up about it? Drop it berni...won't (can't) happen)

subjectProdigal

[Silverhair]

65. No Way.

First, lawyers have told you in this thread what is wrong with your interpretation.

Second, Even if it was tried, it would end up before the SCOTUS, and guess who controls that?

Go back to your drawing board, get a blank sheet of paper, and start again. That's 1950's talk. In early 21st century talk - hit "delete" and try again.

[berni_mccoy]

67. I thought DU was a forum for discussion of ideas

Some of you wonder why I'm probing the problem of legal removal of the president.

It's because yesterday, one of our Political leaders came out and said, our president is "Oblivious" and "Dangerous."

And she is still standing by those words despite blow-back.

We are in SERIOUS trouble now and we need to be CREATIVE. I don't care if I am wrong, because when you seek for an answer to a problem, you are going to find wrong answers before you find right ones. But time is short and to exhaustively research an idea by yourself would take serious time. That's what I thought a forum like DU was for.

I appreciate many of the posters who respectfully argue the wrongs of this idea, but others choose disrespectful and immature means to degrade new ideas. I am not sure why; perhaps they have nothing better to do; perhaps they are jealous. If we want a legal way to remove Bush, it isn't going to happen through impeachment even if we gain control of Congress in 2006 (supreme court changes).

But what it says to me, is that there are many here who would take out their frustrations on each other instead of directing them to solve a problem. I wonder if that is an indication of bigger problem with our party...

At any rate, I thank those with legal experience who have answered above. And to those who choose to be belligerent and insulting, I hope that you take a look at your actions... you won't stifle my ideas, but I fear that those who are more creative than you who would be quieted by your bullying. Please be more tolerent of creative thought.

[petgoat]

72. Regardless of Whether Congress Can Call for a New Election,

can't we have a national resolution on confidence or lack of same in the
Bush administration in 11/06? If he loses, the pressure to resign would
be great. Can't we do that?

[H2O Man]

68. Not. n/t

[dzika]

74. kick n/t

[RogerARTcom]

75. WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS

WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS

IT BECOMES NECESSARY for the PEOPLE of the United States

TO ALTER or ABOLISH the United States Government

as it exists in the year 2001 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 / 06

Using the Authority, Law, and Intentions of the Constitution

and the Declaration of Independence.

And Now the People Step Forward

and Charge High Treason,

and Show that Democracy in its roots today,

is Corrupt.

And that the Constitution has been Altered and Betrayed

in Favor of A Small Group of Millionaires,

Over Another...

the Governed,

the People of the United States.

And that the Election Process is UN-fair

and has been Overwhelmed

and Monopolized

by Millionaires

and their millions of dollars

Continued at www.RogerART.com

Scroll Down till You see Yellow link to

( Re-Written ) Declaration of Independence

Thank You, [email protected]

[unblock]

76. if the founders had intended a no confidence vote,

they might have made it a tad more explicit.

seriously, this is just plain wrong.


congress COULD shose to set the presidential election much earlier, say, later this month, but the winner would stll not take office until january 20, 2009.

[Independent_Liberal]

78. Congress people can be recalled. Check this out...

www.recallthecongress.com

This website explains it all. People around here are sitting on their asses suffering for no reason. It's kind of like that Eagles song "Already Gone." Isn't the lyric "So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key"?

[NYC Liberal]

79. Wrong wrong WRONG! You are missing something big:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4: Congress chooses the date of the ELECTION, but NOT the inauguration.

Congress could say now that we are gonna hold the next election, say, in a week. OK, great, we elect a new president next Saturday. BUT THE PRESIDENT-ELECT WOULD NOT TAKE OFFICE UNTIL 2008, when GWB Constitutionally-specified 4 year term ends.

Just like we hold elections now while the current prez is still in office, but the prez-elect does not take office until January.