Will using impeachment to disrupt an administration's policy you don't agree with cause a weakening of the

Question

office of the President and set a dangerous precedent for the future?

I keep hearing about all these anti-Bushies wanting to Impeach him, but do they realize how dangerous that would be to the future of our country by setting a precedent of impeachment without the legal standard for impeachment being met.

Thanks for answering. I gave everyone except the bush lied people died guy a thumbs up.

Answer 1

A mistaken notion running rampant through the answers to your question, and that permeates your question itself, is that impeachment is somehow similar to or the same as recall.

The availability or unavailability of impeachment is governed by the Constitution, not by how the people feel about the president and his policies at any given time. It isn't equivalent to a vote of no-confidence in a country that is governed by a parliamentary system.

Impeachment in the United States is the prerogative of the House of Representatives only. It is an accusation. If the House makes the accusation, that is, if the House impeaches the president, the Senate then tries the issue and either convicts the president of one or more of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" specifically alleged in the indictment (i.e., impeachment) as required by the Constitution and thereby removes him from office or fails to do so and he goes on with his term.

If the Senate fails to convict a president who has been indicted (i.e., impeached) by the House, as it failed to convict President Clinton, that does not mean that the president was not impeached. All the impeaching that could have been done was done by the House, so President Clinton was indeed impeached.

However, he was not convicted by the Senate and therefore was not removed from office.

Answer 2

I beg to differ because I feel that it is more dangerous to the country for an incompetent and rather cocky president to remain in office than removing the problem and attempting to mend this country and move it back on track. Those who feel that President Bush should be impeached do so for a number of reasons but what I find to be the most logical are his false pretensions on the war, 9/11, and domestic issues including the Patriot Act. He can technically be impeached for several things, but the only thing stopping it is someone with the balls to do it or at least seriously bring it up in a conversation. If you read The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing George W. Bush From Office you will find that there are many instances in where Bush's policies have bent or broken the law and the arguments made by his adminstration are there to cover his tracks.

Its a difficult fact to contemplate that although this president says and does things that he feels is good for America could, in reality, be breaking it apart.

Answer 3

I see your point.

However, is it better to let other potential leaders see that the American people will allow ourselves to be trampled at every turn? We have given up all power in the gov't, impeachment is one of few chances to show that we still have it. Unfortunately it would really need to end with removal from office, and Cheney would be worse than Bush-Pelosi isnt an improvement, just a different sort of evil, and unprepared to handle the type of mismanagement done by Bush.

We need to make a stand, but its virtually impossible to do, and we would likely be in just as bad a situation afterward.



Warren--Clinton was impeached.
I really wish people would stop saying he wasnt. Clinton and Johnson were both impeached (both Dems)-the only two Presidents to be impeached. Cog :) Thankyou for not being lazy like me

Answer 4

Relax!! Only the House of Representatives can impeach the President. They are not about to try to impeach President Bush because they have no impeachable offenses to charge him with. They had plenty on Clinton such as lying under oath, and he was not impeached. I hardly think the Democrats will attempt to impeach Bush.

Chow!!

Answer 5

A little. But they need two thirds of the senators to impeach the president, and they aren't going to be able to get that easily, so it's not that big a deal.

Answer 6

so far no legal standing has been met as you stated....clinton should have been impeached for committing perjury. the republicants in the senate made their deal with the devil and full impeachment was not reached. for the demorats to try to make a circus side show of impeachment proceedings against el bushie would do nothing other than strengthen their already rabid base of lefties who have screamed for impeachment since bushie took office on day 1.

Answer 7

Politicians talk the talk but don't always walk the walk. In order to start impeachment, there has to be some evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors. Legislators cannot make up charges. The opposition party will not allow it to happen.

Answer 8

Everything to these Bush-haters is a full borne mental illness called Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Answer 9

First, a President has to break a law to begin impeachment Proceedings. Bush has not broken any law.
If he had, Pelosi and Reid would have already jumped on it.

Answer 10

The Democrats are attacking the entire administration at all levels. So far they have succeeded in wasting taxpayers' money and showing us what a terrible job the Dems can do as the majority in Congress.