From Judiciary In '74-"If The President Be Connected In Any Suspicious Manner With Any Person..."

[kpete]

The following is from a report written and released by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis.

In the (Constitutional) convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...

.....................

Madison went on to say contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/2/193014/5401

[L. Coyote]

1. Works for me. K&R

[trashcanistanista]

2. Me too, but

do Harry and Nancy know this?

[HughMoran]

4. If enough people recommend this post

...perhaps they will :D

[file83]

17. We'll need about 300 million more recs....

:cry:

[ProudDad]

65. Nope - just 208 Recs

208 members of the House of Representatives...

[bleever]

3. Let's put this at the top of the Greatest page.

* is an accessory to a crime. This commutation may be within his rights, but it constitutes obstruction of justice.

[tridim]

5. There it is, precedent. Suspend and then impeach. nt

[PurpleChez]

16. Not while Chief Enablers reid and pelosi are in charge. Precedents are off the table.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

40. I keep hoping dems will sooner or latter come through for us.

I think they're waiting to impeach prior to the elections.

[PurpleChez]

45. I like to think that there is some well thought out reason

for them continuing the rethug tradition of runningsix paces behind the Chimp, carrying his jockstrap for him.

[tbyg52]

6. I am so sick of living through major history

Unless, of course, "they" win, in which case the history of this time will not get written (at least not accurately).

[Pacifist Patriot]

29. Isn't that a chilling thought?

My husband and I had this very discussion two nights ago.

[many a good man]

7. Most relevant

K&R!

[bleever]

8. Kick because this needs 100 recs.

:kick:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

10. Couldn't agree more

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[halobeam]

61. 155 recs right now... very nice.. can we get ALL DU members to rec this?

would love it to be the highest number of recs on record here.

[Individualist]

9. K&R

[Individualist]

11. 32 recommendations so far

Let's see it go higher!

[NYC]

12. Recommendation #35.

[crazylikafox]

13. Can we send this to Keith? Needs to go in his "special comment" tomorrow

[bleever]

14. Welcome to DU, crazylikafox.

[email protected]

[Lifelong Protester]

15. What is the next level of censure beyond impeach?

I think we are at whatever ring of hell is beyond impeach. I say we must listen to Madison, one of the greatest minds that ever lived.

[defendandprotect]

18. Firm bit of logic there . .. for Pelosi --

e-mailing it to the Speaker --

[WritersBlock]

19. Whoah! Did I read that right? The *HOUSE* can remove him????

"If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty..."

Is the "they" (who can remove him) the House? I mean, once the House votes for impeachment, the man is impeached, regardless of the Senate vote, isn't he?

Or does the rest of the sentence imply that he would still need to be tried by the Senate in order to be "found guilty?"

My reality-mind says it's probably the latter, but my hope-mind thinks this bears further research.

Even so, that is an excellent article, and there're several little gems in there, like this one:


"Unlike a criminal case, the cause for the removal of a President may be based on his entire course of conduct in office. In particular situations, it may be a course of conduct more than individual acts that has a tendency to subvert consitutional government."

Highly recommended reading!




edit: grammar / lack thereof

[EVDebs]

20. What wikipedia has to say. Wow, the House can do it...a TWO-Fer

"At the Federal level, the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching the President, Vice President and all other civil officers of the United States. Officials can be impeached for: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

With this Libby thing, you got a two-for-the-price-of-one deal. Cheney AND Bush.

[ClintonTyree]

25. ......."automatic upon conviction in the Senate."

And there lies the rub. The oft described "Democratic majority" in the Senate simply doesn't exist. Not with the likes of Holy Joe, the Nelson boys, Landrieu etc. and Senator Johnson still out of action. There would never be enough votes in the Senate to Impeach. The Democrats MIGHT hold together enough in the House of Representatives to pass it on to the Senate but it would arrive there DOA due to the DINOs who always seem to side with the Rethuglicans on every issue. :grr:

It's time to send those DINOs out to pasture.

[MsMagnificent]

26. Unless

The PEOPLE call their representatives --no matter if they're Democrats or Republicans-- and howl.

The Republican politicians are already feeling the heat of the Bush blowback, and now this...

When it comes down to Republican politicians protecting these two Lame Duck criminals in the White House or trying to retain their own jobs (a futile endeavor, but they'll still try) which do you think they'll pick?


Look, there are over 70% of Americans unhappy with the Bush and Dick show and that was last week. Yet the meme is 'Oh, well we don't have the numbers -- Republicans in Congress, you know'
That's pure baloney.
Put pressure on the Pukes, even if you're a Democrat. MAKE them feel their constituents anger; because even if a Democrat, you're still their constituent.

If they hear from enough Americans, no matter what exact party, they will finally have to listen.

[DeeDeeNY]

31. What you said

:applause: Exactly right!!

[ProudDad]

67. Without jumping joe Lie-berman

we only need 17 republicans in the Senate.

Shouldn't be too hard to find 17 repukes who are from states where they can be beaten if they vote for bush.

It mainly depends on the body of evidence the Speaker of the House can present to the Senate and the American People.

Pelosi, let Conyers roll now!

[Spazito]

90. There are 22 Senate republicans up for re-election in 2008

Those are the ones to focus on, put as much pressure as possible on them, not leaving the others out in case there might be a republican or maybe even two who have a vestige of an ethical conscience left within in them.

[EVDebs]

71. Even a symbolic DOA is bettern nuthin' nt

[bleever]

21. Up, up, and up. The early fireworks are banging in the distant sky.

The netroots are turning their
outrage towards the weedy
work required to get the better
of snakes.

Snakes: beware.
It's almost Independence Day.

[orleans]

22. k&r--i sent this to olbermann. n/t

[WillyT]

23. Big K & R !!!

:kick:

[Faux pas]

24. ..

[krj44]

27. what are we waiting

for?

[HereSince1628]

28. C.O.U.R.A.G.E.

There's dearth of it in the current climate of fear.

[DemReadingDU]

30. Rec#82

[Felinity]

32. K&R n/t

[L. Coyote]

33. K&R + X-POST = tracking media reaction to commutation news

GOOGLE News: Already "all 560 news articles" = There will be HELL to pay
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1232031

[bdamomma]

34. kick and recommended.

[DemSoccerMom]

35. K & R #98 n/t

[Beelzebud]

36. But do our representatives have the guts to do it?

That is the question.

[zalinda]

37. Has anyone sent this to their reps?

Mine is a repub and firmly in Bush's ass, he wouldn't do a thing.

zalinda

[orleans]

62. my congressbitch is the same. maybe i'll send this to durbin & obama

i sent it off to olbermann last night.

[AzDar]

38. K & R.....

:kick:

[MasonJar]

39. Hopefully Bush has mistimed this announcement which falls during

an extra long 4th of July holiday. This could be a call for independence from the evil doers! Enough is now beyond enough!

[zalinda]

41. Does any one know where this quote

originated from? I would like to compose a fax to our reps and include the quote

"Madison went on to say contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected."

and then ask if they have the back bone to do this. But in order for this to work I have to find where the original quote is.

zalinda

[kpete]

46. zalinda

look here:

3. Grounds for Impeachment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

[bigtree]

57. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

http://books.google.com/books?id=jKvYs_m-bkUC&pg=PA498&lpg=PA498&dq=if+the+president+be+connected+in+any+suspicious+manner+with+any+person+and+there+be+grounds+to+believe+he+will+shelter+him+the+house+of+representatives+can+impeach+him&source=web&ots=ON_G8eoOjx&sig=jUZRkPQu_LMs6Y0TxdQ68rMNPR0#PPA496,M1

[Kablooie]

42. But what about the situation where the House decides to let him continue committing crimes.

And impeachment is "off the table".

PUT THE GOD DAMNED IMPEACHMENT BACK ON THE DAMNED TABLE!

GOD I'M PISSED. THEY'VE DECIDED TO IGNORE EVERY SINGLE CRIME THE PRESIDENT DOES.

[redqueen]

43. Rec #119

Also, I'm sending this to Madame Speaker.

[jackstraw45]

44. How times have changed....nt

nt

[MyDogWilbur]

47. Taking action

I snipped this and sent it to my Se, Rep, Pelosi, House Jud
mem and all friends

[redqueen]

48. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

And thanks for taking action to help stop these criminals! :yourock:

[bleever]

52. Welcome to DU, MyDogWilbur.

And thanks for your action.

[helderheid]

49. Rec 129!

[Lorien]

50. This needs to be sent to every member of the house and senate

yep, even the repubs. There have to be a few out there who think of themselves as Americans first and republicans second.

[Davis_X_Machina]

51. House Committee Article 1, Section 9 --

Adopted 27 July, 1974:

9. Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

Impeachable then, impeachable now....

[berni_mccoy]

53. This is in essence THE REASON Bush Commuted Libby's sentence.

[treestar]

54. Good find! THere has to be some limit on this

Having an unfettered power to pardon and commute is just too much temptation for the likes of *.

[Martin Eden]

55. K&R !!!

Unmistakenly, there is a conflict of interest here.

Libby was Chief of Staff to the Vice president AND an assistant to the president. He was in a position to know who was behind the leak, and may very well have finally cooperated with investigators to keep himself from going to jail.

The founding fathers would have cited this and other abuses of power by this administration as prime examples of why the impeachment clause was included in the Constitution.

[bigtree]

56. they were debating presidential power to pardon

during a rebellion.

It appears that he's refuting the objections of Mason to the president's power to pardon by asserting that Congress could check that power to pardon with an impeachment . . .

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution: By United States Constitutional Convention

{snip}

Mr. MADISON, adverting to Mr. Mason's objection to
the President's power of pardoning, said it would be extremely
improper to vest it in the House of Representatives,
and not much less so to place it in the Senate ; because
numerous bodies were actuated more or less by passion, and
might, in the moment of vengeance, forget humanity. It was
an established practice in Massachusetts for the legislature
to determine in such cases. It was found, says he, that two
different sessions, before each of which the question came
with respect to pardoning the delinquents of the rebellion,
were governed precisely by different sentiments: the one
would execute with universal vengeance, and the other
would extend general mercy.

There is one security in this case to which gentlemen
may not have adverted : if the President be connected, in
any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be
grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives
can impeach him; they can remove him if found
guilty; they can suspend him when suspected, and the
power will devolve on the Vice-President. Should he be
suspected, also, he may likewise be suspended till he be impeached
and removed, and the legislature may make a
temporary appointment. This is a great security.

Mr. MASON vindicated the conduct of the assemblies
mentioned by the gentleman last up. He insisted they
were both right; for, in the first instance, when such ideas
of severity prevailed, a rebellion was in existence : in such
circumstance, it was right to be rigid. But after it was
over, it would be wrong to exercise unnecessary severity.

Mr. MADISON replied, that the honorable member had
misunderstood the fact; for the first assembly was after the
rebellion was over. The decision must have been improper
in one or the other case. It marks this important truth,
says he, that numerous bodies of men are improper to exercise
this power. The universal experience of mankind
proves it.


NICHOLAS.] VIRGINIA.
Mr. GEORGE MASON thought this a most dangerous
clause, as thereby five states might make a treaty; ten senators —
the representatives of five states — being two thirds
of a quorum. These ten might come from the five smallest
states. By the Confederation, nine states were necessary
to concur in a treaty. This secured justice and moderation.
His principal fear, however, was not that five, but that seven,
states — a bare majority — would make treaties to bind the
Union.

Mr. MASON differed widely from the gentleman. He
conceived that the contiguity of some states, and remoteness
of others, would prevent that reciprocity which he had mentioned.
Some states were near the seat of government ;
others far from it; for instance, Georgia was eight or nine
hundred miles from it. Suppose, says he, a partial treaty is
made by the President, and is to be ratified by the Senate.
They do not always sit. Who is to convene them ? The
President. Is it presumable that he would call distant states
to make the ratification, or those states whose interest he
knew to be injured by the treaty he had proposed ? This, I
conceive, will have a contrary effect from what the gentleman
says.

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in answer to Mr. Mason, insisted that we were on a safer footing in this Constitution than in the Confederation. The possibility of five states making treaties was founded on a supposition of the non-attendance of the senators from the other states. This non-attendance, he observed, might be reciprocated. It was presumable that, on such important occasions, they would attend from all the states, and then there must be a concurrence of nine states. The approbation of the President, who had no local views, being elected by no particular state, but the people at large, was an additional security.

Mr. NICHOLAS asked if it was presumable that the
President, who depended on the people for his political existence,
would sacrifice the interest of the eight largest states, to
accommodate the five smallest. The gentleman had said
once that the Senate would be always sitting, and yet five
states were now to effect the business, because the rest were
away. A desultory conversation took place . . .


more: http://books.google.com/books?id=jKvYs_m-bkUC&pg=PA498&lpg=PA498&dq=if+the+president+be+connected+in+any+suspicious+manner+with+any+person+and+there+be+grounds+to+believe+he+will+shelter+him+the+house+of+representatives+can+impeach+him&source=web&ots=ON_G8eoOjx&sig=jUZRkPQu_LMs6Y0TxdQ68rMNPR0#PPA496,M1

[ProudDad]

69. If ever there was a pResident

whose usurpation of power warranted Impeachment...

This is the one...

[Martin Eden]

84. Thank you for that historical record ... n/t

[1776Forever]

58. 1776 Forever! This makes me proud of our founders! We need to adhire to their ideals!

This post made me proud to be an American again! It gives us a true path to dealing with this illegal and disgusting crime ridden Administration!!!!!!!!!!!:patriot:

[AntiFascist]

59. Excellent, and people really need to connect the dots....

Why did Libby obstruct justice? To prevent discovery of a conspiracy within the administration to out CIA agent Valerie Plame. Why was Valerie Plame outed? Several reasons, most importantly to intimidate the CIA (through criminal means) into rubberstamping falsified or unverifiable reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It could also have been an act of revenge against her husband Joseph Wilson for raising specific questions about yellowcake. Most intrigueing are reports that Valerie Plame and her group may have been on the verge of uncovering a nuclear weapons network that could have put a big kink in future terrorist threats. In a nutshell, the neocons in the administration NEED terrorist threats in order to advance their war plans, beginning with the invasion of Iraq, and they will do everything in their power, including treasonous and criminal activity, in order to advance those goals.

[SammyWinstonJack]

60. Just Damn!

:wow: Recommended!

[orleans]

63. here is a link with this from washington post

"George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:


"f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...63

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

[orleans]

64. and here is the email i just sent to durbin, and will send to pelosi & obama

"George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:


"f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...63

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

CAN WE IMPEACH THEM NOW?? WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO STOP THIS OUTRAGOUS BEHAVIOR??

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

http://www.speaker.gov/contact/

[donkeyotay]

66. So, is this commie Madison saying the Unitary Executive isn't a king?

Tee vee keeps telling us about presidential powers and prerogatives and pleasures and doesn't seem to think there are limits to our Dear Leader's powers. If congress won't limit him, we need to. I've been waiting for someone to organize a General Strike, but I forgot - we have no leaders, so here:

I propose a general strike for election day of 2007 - that would be Nov. 6th. A follow-on strike could be held on July 4th, 2008 (yes, it's a holiday) with a third strike to be held on election day 2008. I invite the right and left to join in calling for representative government to be restored to the people of this country. Make bribery illegal again, and make our congress responsive to the citizens by stopping the subversion by corporations and others of our representation.

No one is in charge. Simply a grassroots and grapevine effort. No political affiliation. The right wing is feeling pretty burned by their party, and we have reason to doubt that things will be much different with the dinos in power. We, the people, need to restore our power to influence our own government.

[michaz]

68. K & R

[RoccoR5955]

70. Tell Harry and Nancy

That the people DEMAND impeachment! No more ASKING. WE WANT A DARN IMPEACHMENT of these criminals.

They lied, many died, they should be tried!

If I was a pirate, I'd hang them from the highest yardarm!

[roxnev]

72. Impeach

and jail for crimes committed

[racaulk]

76. Welcome to DU

And you're right. Enough is enough. Impeach!

:hi:

[npincus]

73. kick

[Supersedeas]

74. have some respect for our founders....take action Congress!!!

[racaulk]

75. I wish I could recommend this post more than once!!!

Excellent find, kpete! I sure hope Speaker Pelosi is paying attention to this!

K&R

:kick:

[jaxx]

77. I added mine to the total.

This is the the kind of thing we need to spread.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

78. You nailed it. . . . nt

[Miss Chybil]

79. K/R nt

[midnight]

80. James Madison knew in advance of the crimes that those with

this great power were/might find themselves capable of doing. Let's suspend and find this office of the presidency guilty of the crimes against this country. He has already admitted that he is spying without the approval of the fisa courts.

[Loki]

81. The founding father's were wise men.

They knew human nature and they provided a protection and a solution for the people. Madam Speaker, do your constitutional duty and fulfill your oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.

[Pharaoh]

82. Then lets do It!!

I'm sick of all the talk!

Just find your balls and spines and DO IT!!!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

83. Barbara Jordan also used Madison's words in her famous speech

as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, while explaining the basis for impeachment -
July 25, 1974.


You can read and listen to it at this site:

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/sayitplain/bjordan.html

[tandot]

85. I had enough! Impeach!

K & R

[Pierzin]

86. What is it going to take people??? OMG

Honest to God!

This is so outrageous! Will it be the straw that broke the lack of spine that the DLC Democrats have? IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH!

[Hotler]

87. Kicked!

Thanks Kpete

[cascadiance]

88. I don't think we should rely on the House to do this. He should NOT BE ALLOWED to pardon...

... in certain circumstances.

If we had the same House we had before the election, we'd still be in a mess now!

I think we should have a constitutional ammendment, which the Republicans SHOULD WANT (given that they are likely going to be a minority in congress AND not control the presidency next term).

This ammendment should state that the president does NOT have the power to appoint anyone that he personally hired or appointed to public office. Perhaps we can tweak it a bit so that we make sure we don't let him have any more corruption monkeys that are spoonfed with pardons, but by doing that, even if there is a Republican congress, he cannot pardon someone that he's appointed to office. Therefore he can't give any more "deals" to people like Gonzales that guarantee them immunity from prosecution from any wrongdoing he wants them to join a conspiracy in doing.

That way, these bums will think twice before jumping on board on any conspiracy wagon he has going.

For other pardons, perhaps a supermajority in the Senate could overturn them to prevent other abuse of this privilege if need be, but I think this sort of restriction would keep us from getting these sorts of cabals from ever happening again in the future.

I would think that Republicans would also like to turn off the possibility that Democrats could weave such cabals in the future too that they couldn't turn off like we haven't been able to recently.

Say to them that if you help us pass this with a supermajority so Bush can't veto it (and if Specter's no signing statement bill goes through, NO SIGNING STATEMENT), then we'll only impeach Cheney first and work more together on getting a Republican replacement in as VP before we impeach Bush's ass! Otherwise, we're looking to put Nancy Pelosi in charge and for her to "clean things up"...

[bobthedrummer]

89. .