Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Nuts and Bolts of Impeachment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:11 AM
Original message
The Nuts and Bolts of Impeachment
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 10:12 AM by MrCoffee
The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

1) The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

2) The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.

3) The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.

4) The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.

5) The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.

6) At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.

If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.h...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. That last one reminds me of the phrase "Out of the frying pan . . . "
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 10:13 AM by bryant69
But thanks for posting this, good to keep the details in mind.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. There seems to be some serious misunderstanding of what's involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalEsto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. During the Nixon era, we had Spiro Agnew
Agnew, a major sleazebag, was Nixon's "anti-impeachment insurance."

Many people were loath to consider impeaching Nixon because it would mean an Agnew presidency. Finally, Agnew was hauled into court on corruption charges stemming from his days as governor of Maryland. He gave his infamous "nolo contendre" plea, meaning that he did not contest the charges against him -- a cop-out against pleading guilty. Agnew resigned from the vice presidency in disgrace, and Gerald Ford was appointed to replace him.

Only when Ford was in place did Congress move to impeach Nixon. Nixon resigned prior to being impeached and was replaced by Ford -- the first never-elected president (prior to 2000 and 2004.

If I were a Democratic party strategist, I would be researching the lawbooks for possible ways to unseat Darth Cheney before doing anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. So what happens if say the VP is implicated in large parts for the same
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 10:16 AM by nam78_two
stuff as the prez. -can you have joint impeachment proceedings (if that makes sense)?
Like if Bush is being impeached for Iraq, I don't see how Cheney would be unscathed-which means that Pelosi becomes prez.(hypothetically)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. there's no reason you couldn't...but it would be logistically messy
it would probably be easier for everyone involved to hold two proceedings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. You better impeach the Veep first, then. nt
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
klyon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
31. then Jeb would replace him and then when W is impeached
well Jebbie is Pres.
Jeb may replace Cheney anyway after the election or next year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. I doubt it
Wish we could get a twofer. Note the last requirement: two-thirds majority. Does anyone here seriously think, even if we have 52 in the Senate, that 15 Repukes are going to vote against Bush? Not that it's not worth trying, but I think indictment and a criminal trial sounds better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Everyone is ignoring the Senate's role in impeachment.
Just because the House passes Articles, doesn't mean *'s out. It means there's a trial in the Senate. And that's where the party ends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. A real trial would expose the truth. It could also prevent further
illegalities and damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. So would sworn testimony in front of every House committee.
Investigate the life out of this gang of thugs. Call them before EVERY SINGLE House Committee and subcommittee. Make them raise their right hands in front of the cameras.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. Not if the media doesn't cover it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. C-SPAN will, and the rest will follow...
with the WH's numbers in the toilet, you don't think the networks will peek in from time to time? If El Diablo is testifying in front of House Armed Services or Intelligence UNDER OATH, you don't think that's newsworthy?

There's been nothing to report from the Hill for the past 6 years. That will all change soon, my friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. C-Span has already covered plenty the corporate media won't cover.
Conyers investigating bush will be framed as Conyers being extreme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. from the basement? get their asses UNDER OATH,
which we would be able to do when Conyers gets his committee Chairmanship.

Teach those bastards to stick him in a friggin' basement.

Sworn testimony will be media gold. CNN would broadcast that live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. CSPAN would cover it-FWIW/nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
7. So he could be impeached but still remain in office
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 10:23 AM by solara
like what happened with Clinton, right? What about censure? Or just arrest. What a great image, W and his cronies being escorted out of the whitehouse in handcuffs. Yeah. 'Indict and prosecute' sounds -alot- better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. i'll answer that with my own question...
Can anyone name 10 Repuke Senators who would vote to convict either Chimpy or Dickhead? i'll spot you the 5 or 6.

If we brought Articles against either one, they would remain in office, because we do not have (nor will we be able to pick up) enough seats in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FightingIrish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
9. If Cheney is impeached in a second process will he be able
to choose his successor by virtue of having selected the vice president following Bush's impeachment? Would the speaker of the house become president if the president and vice president are impeached at the same time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Order of succession
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 10:24 AM by nam78_two
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Ac...

Actually no, I think it would be Ted Stevens ( :puke: :puke:) then and then Pelosi (since this would be the scenario where the Dems have the house), then I think Secretary of Defense and then Secretary of State (if I am not mistaken).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. No, Speaker of the House is 3rd in line
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Hmmm then that wiki article needs editing
which isn't really surprising...

Thats what I always thought too, but I remember looking it up (wistfully ;)) at some point and being surprised to note that it said the Prez. Pro-Tempore of the senate...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. In the real world
the only way that chimpy or cheney could be removed from office would be for repub support for them to collapse to the point that a majority of repub senators would vote to convict (not just the 15 or so necessary to get to 2/3 if you assume all Democrats would vote to convict, which in and of itself is a pretty significant assumption). If that was the case, chimpy and cheney would be prevailed up to resign as part of a deal whereby, rather than the Speaker filling the Presidency (next in line), cheney would resign first, a repub would be confirmed as VP in his place and then chimpy would resign.

Of course, in the really real world, the one in which we actually live, none of this is going to happen. Flame away, but you can take the following to the bank: chimpy and cheney will serve out their terms in office and they will not be arrested or tried by anyone, domestically or internationally, after they leave office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Well I think you raise what I think is the key point
It all comes down to public support....say we get a majority in the House and the Senate (which is the minimum requirement here), I think if we have a scenario where the public is just howling for blood, then you can get the Rethug senators to try and save their own sorry asses.

I agree its a long shot ...but...what a beautiful thought. I am not gonna flame you because I pretty much agree with what you think. Its just depressing is all... :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. You're absolutely right (and that sucks),
but given the composition of the Senate, there's no way in hell either of them is removed from office.

That's why INVESTIGATIONS are (IMO) the way to proceed. Make the bastards swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ON CAMERA. Who knows, there might be enough pressure for them to resign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Yeah-that seems the solution
Real investigations... :grr:

It infuriates me to think of the time and money spent sniffing Monica's dress, when the real war crimes here are being ignored... :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. i think you've misread the wikipedia article
The first presidential succession act designated the president pro tem as next in line after the VP. But that was changed. BUt if you scroll down the wikipedia page, you'll discover that the law was changed in 1947 to make the Speaker the next in line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Ah ok-thanks/nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #9
23. If the vice presidency is vacant, the president appoints a successor
Subject to approval by both houses of congress. During the Nixon era, VP Agnew resigned in 1973. Nixon appointed Gerald Ford to replace him. In 1974, Nixon himself resigned; Ford became president and appointed Nelson Rockefeller the new Veep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FightingIrish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. If Nixon had resigned before Agnew, the new president (Agnew)
would have appointed the new vice president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Brethren Donating Member (853 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
30. Thank you MrCoffee
for the info. and link on the impeachment process.

Here is some additional info. on the subject; an excerpt from The National Archives from a discussion with Sol Bloom, National Archives and Record Administration:

Q. Is it possible to impeach a justice of the Supreme Court?
A. It is possible to impeach a Justice of the Supreme Court or any other official. The Constitution makes provision for impeachment by the House and trial of the accused by the Senate sitting as a court of "all civil Officers," which includes the Justices (Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 5; sec. 3, cl. 6, 7; Art. II, sec. 4).

Q. Are Senators, Representatives, and justices of the Supreme Court civil officials of the United. States?
A. Justices are, but the others are probably not. The Constitution in several places seems to make a clear distinction between legislators and officials, though this has been contested. Members of Congress are not subject to impeachment, but are liable to expulsion by the vote of the House of which they are members (Art. I, sec. 5, cl. 2).

Q. What would be the proceeding in case of the impeachment of a Cabinet officer?
A. An impeachment proceeding may be set in motion in the House of Representatives by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a member or territorial delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; by charges transmitted by the legislature of a State or from a grand jury; or the facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. After the impeachment has been voted by the House, the case is heard by the Senate sitting as a court. When the President of the United States is impeached and tried, the proceedings are the same except that the Senate is then presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States (Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 5; sec. 3, cl. 6, 7; Art. II, sec. 4).

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/ch...

note: If the links above don't show up on this post -- each of the articles, sections and clauses mentioned are hyperlinks to their actual text in The Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 23rd 2014, 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC