Post-term impeachment, any takers?

[backscatter712]

Don't get me wrong. I'm very big on impeachment. I desperately want Congress to grow a spine, impeach Bush and Cheney, and throw them out of office ASAP so they can't do any more damage.

But the impeachment critics do have one point. We're running out of time. We have a year and some change before impeachment becomes completely moot due to Bush and Cheney leaving office.

Or does it?

It helps to remember the punishments that can Constitutionally be meted out upon conviction by the Senate.

From the Constitution, Article I, Section 3:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments 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.

So what if we impeach the bastards after they leave office? It's even been done before - the impeachment trial of Secretary of War William Belknap continued after Belknap resigned, and he was acquitted. For one thing, a successful impeachment and conviction will leave a vital precedent that can be followed when the next asshole needs to be impeached. An impeachment, even after the accused leave office, would help to restore the rule of law which has been so badly damaged by Bush and co.

I'm also thinking about the other punishment that can be imposed upon conviction by the Senate, which amounts to barring the convicted from public office. Certainly, Bush, Cheney and Gonzales are going to find other jobs after they leave. The least we can do is make sure they're forbidden from holding office ever again in this country.

So, let's impeach Bush, Cheney and Gonzales. Just because they are about to leave office, or in Gonzales' case, have already resigned, doesn't mean we can't impeach them.

[Jack Rabbit]

1. This impeachment hawk has no interest in that

The practical purpose of impeachment and removal from office is to stop the bleeding. On January 20, 2009, that becomes a moot point.

Then it should be a matter of making Bush, Cheney and the neocons face the music. If the federal courts cannot or will not handle it, then I favor establishing an international tribunal for war crimes in Iraq and crimes against humanity arising out of the war on terror for that purpose.

[backscatter712]

4. Well, yeah.

If we can get an impeachment and conviction and throw the crooks out before they leave office, I'm all for that - stop the damage, as you said.

But if that doesn't happen, I say we impeach them anyways.

[Thothmes]

12. anyways

why bother with impeachment at that point. Just indict them for the crimes they have committed, try them in the appropriate court of law, and if convicted, assign the appropriate punishment.

[Vincardog]

7. You overlook the part about never holding office again. That goes for all the NeoConvicts

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Seriously

After what we've been through the last six and a half years, I don't think any of these guys are going to hold an office of trust again.

Successful prosecution of the war criminals should put a sufficient nail in that coffin.

[KingFlorez]

2. That's not a bad idea

They shouldn't be allowed to get away with anything even when they have left office.

[rwenos]

3. Impeachment Survives because Penalty #2 Survives

I'd say the impeachment can continue despite the officeholder leaving office. The reason lies in the second dependent clause. Thus, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than" (1) "removal from Office," and (2) "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States."

Clause (2), if imposed upon the impeached officeholder by the Congress, does NOT depend upon the impeached one being in office when the penalty is imposed. This second penalty, of "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office, . . . " is what we lawyers call a "legal disability." That means that, if the Clause (2) penalty is imposed, the recipient is thus legally disabled from ever again holding a job with the federal government. Any job.

Thus, there's no reason why the expiration of an officeholder's term should terminate an impeachment proceeding. There's more at stake in the impeachment than simple removal from office.

And, obviously, the impeachment officeholder is subject to criminal prosecution, before or after leaving office.

[Gregorian]

5. Would we have the time then?

Also I think of pardons. I've forgotten how, or if impeachment affects pardoning. I'm sure it does, but I'm not sure if it's meaningful if he has already pardoned.

I don't buy the time aspect. Let's say we begin now, it may still go into "overtime".

But the bottom line for me is not even punishing as much as forbidding these people from ever participating in politics again. Other than that I would gladly let these people go without pursuing them at this point if we could get our Constitution and Bill of Rights returned to normal. And begin turning the damage around. I want a good country with things like health care for all. Bush behind bars would suit me fine, though.

Well, you can tell it's late. I'm not sure that made a hell of a lot of sense.

[backscatter712]

6. The President may NOT pardon in cases of impeachment.

The Constitution explicitly forbids it.

That means that if Cheney were impeached, Bush could not pardon him. If Bush were impeached, he couldn't pardon himself.

And if Gonzales was impeached, even after he leaves next month, Bush cannot pardon him.

I agree with you in that I think the time factor is actually not as much of a factor as our Congresscritters make it out to be. As shown during Clinton's impeachment, Congress can indeed walk and chew bubblegum at the same time if it wants. It conducted the impeachment hearings, and conducted other business in parallel, and the process took a few weeks.

[napi21]

8. Naw. Shrub will never hold another office, and Cheney is too damn old!

Not to mention his pacemaker and some blood clot in his leg. We can't impeach the ones who are really behind all the dishonest manuvering because they don't hold an office!

I think we're running out of time for impeachment too, but nothing takes CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT our of the picture! I'm much more in support of holding Rummy, Shrub & Cheney criminally responsible for all they've done!

[Gregorian]

13. Thanks. There is still criminal persual.

If we cannot even impeach, I wonder if criminal proceedings would happen.

For what these people have done, there is a punishment. If not, the world is no longer what it was.

[lonestarnot]

14. Is he really dead? limpdick? He's just pretending he's alive isn't he?

[Demeter]

10. Impeaching Them Is Necessary and Vital to the Constitution and the Nation

no matter if they are still in office or not.

[AntiFascist]

11. Impeach Cheney next....

Showing his connections here may be useful:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=401&topic_id=264&mesg_id=264

[onenote]

15. The Belknap precedent isn't terribly helpful

William Belknap was Secretary of War under Grant. Accused of taking bribes, he resigned just before the House considered a resolution to impeach him. Despite his resignation, the House went forward with the vote. The Senate then decided by a 37-29 vote that it had jurisdiction to try Belknap notwithstanding his resignation. He was then acquitted by the Senate, not surprisingly since all it then took to acquit was 22 votes and more than that many had voted that the Senate didn't have jurisdiction.

Given that precedent,the further fact that Belknap's resignation was viewed as an attempt to evade impeachment (while merely serving out one's term is obviously different) and the fact that no attempt was made to impeach Nixon after he resigned, I cannot see any chance that if chimpy and/or cheney serve out their terms, any effort will be made to impeach them. The general public will think of it as a waste of time and resources by a Congress that should be looking forward not backward, imo.

[sofa king]

16. Here's one excellent reason to do it:

Article II, Section 2:

(The President) shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Others have suggested that the President cannot pardon his underlings if he himself is impeached for the same incident.