First I want to make something perfecly clear: this is NOT a "political" question. I simply want to know on what LEGAL grounds (if any) could President Bush be impeached? I am not interested in answers like "because he's bad" or " you must be a liberal" - I really want to know: on what LEGAL grounds could G.W. Bush be impeached? If answer is "none" please be specific in your details. Best answer = 10 pts, as usual. Thanks to all who will post INTELLIGENT answers.
2006-12-24 04:31:39 · 12 answers · asked by Paul H 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I've noticed 6 "thumbs down" on here so far, apparently by people that are only reading the first line - READ THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH or you won't "get it" - this is a LEGAL question - not a political one!!! Answers from an expert on constitutional law might be the best.
2006-12-24 04:54:06 · update #1
You have to go to the Constitution to know, and there it says for "high crimes and misdemeanors." The act of impeachment is nothing more than an action taken by the House of Representatives to send articles of impeachment to the full Senate for a trial. Impeachment does not mean removal from office. Essentially, the founders meant for the House to be able to impeach the President if a majority of legislators could agree that the President's actions (specific acts) warrant an impeachment trial by the Senate, with the Chief Justice presiding. So it's no small act, and not something taken lightly. It's only happened twice in history. But to answer your question, the legal ground on which he might be impeached (not removed but impeached) is up the the House of Representatives and them only. As for myself, I don't know of anything he's done to warrant impeachment.
2006-12-24 05:50:58 · answer #1 · answered by The Scorpion 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
1. High crimes or misdemeanors. Pres Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury with regards to Monica Lewinsky. He lied about having relations with her. I would have preferred that he said nothing. There was no reason for him to say what he did. To be fair here, I never voted for him and think he was a horrible president.
He would have to do something relevant to what is above. Since I have no knowledge of him doing anything wrong, I cannot comment further.
2006-12-24 04:36:00 · answer #2 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Violating International Law are grounds for impeachment -- so invading Iraq and instituting torture would both count here. (Treaties have the force of law, and violating them constitute crimes.)
His illegal wire-taps are another ground for impeachment.
What I most want to see (since it's unlikely he'll be impeached, but that would be, well, peachy -- but only if we get them all, not just him) is for the lot of them to stand trial for Crimes Against Humanity.
I did a search and found a web site (there are others), if you want to know more.
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/grounds.html
2006-12-24 06:54:26 · answer #3 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. he's allowed to do despite he needs. this is the mendacity approximately it below oath - which all people else could be positioned at the instant interior the clink for - that i think of deserved to be dealt with. and this is oftentimes humorous that no one looks to remember how or why Republicans took over Congress in 1994, after an prolonged time of a non-provide up Democrat regime: because of the fact Clinton grew to become into this sort of miserably ineffective president in the previous that ingredient that no one even had to confess they voted for him interior the 1st place. something he "performed" after that ingredient is rather possibly due often to their majority - or, a minimum of, needless to say illustrates how lots extra effectively *he* worked with a Congress that grew to become into no longer owned and operated via his occasion.
2016-11-23 15:11:42 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are no grounds. He hasn't done anything wrong and if they were to try they know that while it's great to threaten it they don't have the sticking evidence they would need. To have to impeachments in a row would show the world we no longer have it togeather what so ever by either party.
2006-12-24 04:48:39 · answer #5 · answered by Brianne 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
It is now proven that he lied about WMD. But it took 14million dollars and 6 years for the GOP to impeach Clinton and then have it overturned. Remember Bush only spent 500 thou to investigate 911 and limited it to 3 months
2006-12-24 04:38:16 · answer #6 · answered by mykl 3 · 2⤊ 5⤋
the president is sworn to uphold the constitution.the president is sworn to defend our borders against foreign invaders(illegal immigration).attacking a sovereign nation for no reason.authorizing torture of pows.holding non combatants prisoner without charging them or letting them no why they are being held.there are more but i am tired of typing.
2006-12-24 04:42:10 · answer #7 · answered by sasuke 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Oral sex, if he did it or had it done. Even to or by Laura. That's apparently the only grounds that will pass muster in Congress these days.
2006-12-24 04:43:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 6⤋
NONE, HE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME, LIKE ,UH, PERJURY COMES TO MIND!
2006-12-24 06:18:21 · answer #9 · answered by taxidriver 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
ask tricky Dick, you know, Nixion! lol
2006-12-24 04:40:52 · answer #10 · answered by cprucka 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋