If a simple majority was the Law, Clinton would have been kicked to the curb by the RedsStaters
If a simple majority was the Law, Bush would already be on unemployment.
2007-04-20 05:17:04 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think it would make the office less Lordly.
If King Bush knew his job was unstable as American factory workers. He might do a better job.
2007-04-20 05:40:39 · update #1
can we go 5/9 th's???
2007-04-20 05:21:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Actually it only takes a simple majority in the House of Representatives to impeach a president. The president is then tried in the Senate where a 2/3 vote is needed to convict.
As pointed out above, the Republicans knew that impeaching Clinton had little or no chance of resulting in a conviction, but they did it anyway.
The Democrats could probably impeach Bush but since he wouldn’t get convicted, it would serve no useful purpose.
I think a 2/3 Senate vote to oust a president is not out of line.
2007-04-20 12:50:35 · answer #2 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here is the thing.... the act of impeachment is very vague... it calls for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors" Since it is so vague it is up to the house to determine if president did something worthy of impeachment proceedings and the senate to determine if they are guilty of the charges brought. Although Clinton had a straight party vote and therefore remained office.... it needs to be done that way.... otherwise, take for example now.... since there is a democratic majority in congress.... they could pretty much remove a republican president at will if it was a majority vote to remove from office.
2007-04-20 12:25:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no the president does not have an unfair advantage. impeachment is a long drawn out process requiring that the house impeach him. to be removed from office, the removal requires a 2/3 vote of the senate in a trial in the senate in which the chief justice of the supreme court is the presiding officer (judge) and the senators are the jury.
such a trial has only occurred once. that was the impeachment and subsequent trial of president johnson in the 1860s. he was not convicted by one vote.
nixon had bills of impeachment referred to the full house in 1974, buit a full vote was never taken by the entire house since nixon resigned before it could be taken. he knew he would have been impeached, and then convicted in the senate trial and would have been removed from office.
clinton was impeached, but was not tried in the senate.
in every case, the impeachment process itself took about two years to occur. a trial would take another 3-12 months. the democrats have not tried to impeach bush, not because he shouldn't be, but because it would take up too much time, and he would be out office before he could be tried anyway.
and if he did face trial, he could not be convicted since NO republican would vote against him anyway. thus, the impeachment process, and the subsequent trial would be a waste of time and resources which would accomplish nothing.
2007-04-20 12:35:17 · answer #4 · answered by de bossy one 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think 2/3 is about right. I think that to remove a President, the most drastic of actions, it better be a large majority that votes for that action. It prevents one party from simply removing a President because they hate him/her. Hate/dislike/contempt/anger is not enough and shouldn't be. 2/3's ensures that a President is being removed for non-partisan reasons and I think that's important. No Bush fan here, exactly the opposite, but I can't disagree with that 2/3.
2007-04-20 12:31:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is another example of the wisdom of our founders.
It also shows the utter cynicims of the Gingrich congress - they impeached Clinton for stupid reasons even though they new there was no way the Senate would convict him. It was solely to embarrass him. And look at all the time they wasted doing that to a president who retired with one of the highest approval ratings in history.
2007-04-20 12:36:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sometimes a president needs some breathing room. It is good not to be able to remove a president the second the going gets tough. If you don't like a president, you can remove him in four years. Impeachment is still necessary in case things really get bad. But it shouldn't be as easy as it was to put him in office in the first place.
2007-04-20 12:22:21 · answer #7 · answered by t78t78 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
ousting a president is nothing to take lightly, if a 2/3 majority deem it necessary then he's really screwed up and needs to leave. A simple majority could easily be party driven and give the "party" way more power than it should ever have.
2007-04-20 12:28:24 · answer #8 · answered by Alan S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Red Staters did not have the Votes to remove Mr. Clinton
and I am laughing at you because you can't even achieve articles of impeachment. I paid alot of money to get the articles of impeachment using Hillarys justification to impeach Nixon, to impeach her husband. Unlike you, I got it done, but I understood the Votes were not there in the Senate.
2007-04-20 12:29:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you don't have a LARGE majority, then there could be possible impeachment proceedings for minor political issues all of the time. It would cripple the US government.
2007-04-20 12:21:52 · answer #10 · answered by spewing_originality 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Impeachment should be difficult or it would happen all the time. It was wrong in Clinton's case and it would be equally wrong in Bush's case.
It'll all change in 2 years kids. Keep your pants on and you'll get screwed by people you AGREE with instead of people you DISAGREE with. (And if you're a low-down dirty righty, then vice versa.)
2007-04-20 12:20:43 · answer #11 · answered by Captain Fluffy Pants 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋