I'd like to say it's because it doesn't get used very often, but I think the real reason is because the last time it was used, it was used improperly and with malice, rather than to carry out justice. So now everyone thinks you can impeach a President because you don't like him.
Thoughts?
2007-03-02 08:26:07 · 10 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bigsey: Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. You guys did more digging around than a gopher to try to find something - ANYTHING - to use to impeach Clinton. Finally, he tripped up and handed you something. But if he hadn't, you'd have kept on digging, wasting those tax dollars you hate to pay.
2007-03-02 08:45:53 · update #1
its because they are filled with so much uneducatedd retoric comming from both Fox news and CNN that I dont think they know how to think for themselves anymore.
2007-03-02 08:32:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
The same thing happened with Andrew Johnson. Andrew Johnson was impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors," but really, the reason he was impeached was because he dismissed the Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton for cooperating with the Radicals against his wishes, and because he fired the dude, the Radicals that controlled congress impeached him. He wasn't removed from office, however because the Radicals failed to convict Johnson by a margin of 1 vote short of the 2/3 majority needed to remove a president from office. OK then, so he didn't get removed from office and neither did Clinton. All this impeachment stuff sounds like it's been pointless and a waste of money.
2007-03-02 16:35:48 · answer #2 · answered by RidiculousTallness 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you are onto something. The impeachment of President Clinton was really not about justice and impeachment should be used on rare occasions. I don't think a lot of people really understand all the steps it takes to remove a sitting President. Bush will be out of office in January 2009 before this ever occurs.
2007-03-02 16:31:16 · answer #3 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Impeachment may be the only way to find the truth. Nixon resigned rather than attend impeachment hearings, where he and many others would have been under oath. Who would've thought a president can get impeached because he lied about sex?
I'd like to get the current administration under oath somehow & see what happens.
2007-03-02 16:48:01 · answer #4 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be" - Gerald Ford - immediately after he voted to impeach Nixon.
The High Crimes and Misdemeanors part is very broad.
2007-03-02 16:36:09 · answer #5 · answered by ArgleBargleWoogleBoo 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is called a precedent, after all. A year ago, I would have fought tooth-and-nail for Bush's impeachment and removal; however, I believe it is now best to just let the Bush melodrama play itself out.
2007-03-02 16:30:46 · answer #6 · answered by Jackson Leslie 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I am SHOCKED that you think the Republicans who impeached Clinton dit it improperly and with malice.
They would NEVER do something so vindictive and wasteful of time and tax payer money.
2007-03-02 16:30:10 · answer #7 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Public education does not teach the impeachment process. Blame your liberal teacher's union.
2007-03-02 16:31:40 · answer #8 · answered by az 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bill lied to a grand jury, and you're telling me that the trial was only because of malice??????
2007-03-02 16:37:07 · answer #9 · answered by bigsey93bruschi54 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because too many people are affected by Bush Derangement Syndrome and can't really put coherent thoughts or logical arguments together.
2007-03-02 16:31:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋