Isn't it an impeachable offense for Bush not to enforce our laws?

Question

This is an open ended question which was written that way on purpose. I am not wanting people to say Cons this...Libs that...I am wanting an answer...not complaining or posturing.

This question has NOTHING to do with Libby. I am referring to not enforcing our immigration laws.

Dead Marxist...thank you for answering the question. That is what I wanted to know!

Ruth...that was a snide comment. If you would have read ANY of my questions or even answers you would see how wrong you were to ask such a question.

Answer 1

No

Law enforcement is the duty of the executive branch. However, the Attorney General is technically the nation's chief law enforcement officer. So even if failure to enforce laws was impeachable (it's not), you'd only be able to remove the AG.

EDIT: For clarification, since the President acts as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the supremacy of command for the chief Law Enforcement officer must be delegated to the Attorney General (who holds no military capacity) so as not to violate the doctrine of Posse Comitatus

Answer 2

WOW for such a simple question this one sure has some people stirred up. Dead Marxist hit the nail on the head.
As for impeachment, well that would be very hard to do. Bill Clinton was very impeachable but he was let to slide. I think it's a stigma no part of our government wants to give any person who has served as president. Even if a good majority of people want it. I think the president would be asked to step down before they were removed from office

Answer 3

The Constitution uses the terms "high crimes and misdemeanors." Neither term is defined. Committing a crime is an activity. Not enforcing is lack of activity. No president has been charged /impeached for such a reason in the past.
Most of the representatives in both Houses of Congress don't want the borders secured. If the President were charged, a majority of the House would not vote to impeach him.
His defense would be that the borders are being guarded and no type of police department can prevent all crimes.

Answer 4

If your referring to Libby the President has the power of pardon..

If your talking about illegal immigration I'm working on that myself. I think if the President is not enforcing certain laws it's up to the people to complain enough to Congress and direct Congress to direct the President to enforce said laws.

There are laws on the books to stop illegal immigration and it is the Executive Branches responsibility to enforce such laws.

It does not how ever rise to the level of Impeachment.

Answer 5

The Constitution provides that the president can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." These are terms not defined in the Constitution, although some believe that "high crimes" refers to crimes that eminate from the use of the office of the president, and "misdemeanors" refers not to the legal classification of minor crimes, but that of failing to maintain proper demeanor, implying actions that offend the dignity and moral values of the country.

Your intuition may be correct that failing to carry out the duties of the office may lead to removal from office, but I don't know that it would be by impeachment. There may be some mechanism for removing a president who has become unfit for office or who fails to perform the duties in a way that impairs the national wellbeing.

One problem with your formulation is vagueness; which law is he failing to enforce? The president is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the laws of the United States, but not those of the states. But that doesn't mean that the president is personally culpable for the failure of a federal prosecutor to do his job, or of a federal agency to fail to perform its function. For such a failure to rise to the level of removing an elected president from office, there would have to be an extreme scenario that I can't even (realistically) imagine.

I hope you found this helpful.

Answer 6

The pardon was first designed to mend a country after times of war. That way a President can release people charged of crimes. So that people can be put at ease and a minding process can begin. This was not a "pardon" Libby still has to pay a fine. However, I don't believe this was what our four fathers had in mind when they granted the president these privileges....

Answer 7

It is a violation of his oath of office not to protect our country from our enemies. He has not done this by refusing to secure our border, enforce our immigration laws, and support border patrol and ICE. He has been very negligent in not prosecuting businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens. It is not an impeachable offense however.

I do believe that he has committed impeachable offenses by his use of signing statements to change the content of laws that Congress has passed, and most importantly, he has ordered the wiretapping of many American's phones without a court order. That is a crime!

Answer 8

No...he would have to BREAK laws. There are many laws still on the books that I would NOT like to see enforced..such as public hangings for cattle rustling...or when a woman is supposed to get out of the vehicle and carry a lit lantern 10 feet out front of it when entering a city limits at dark...etc...

Answer 9

Bush has the constitutional power to offer commutations, of course. But if this commutation was granted to Libby in order to derail a criminal investigation, if it was granted to cover up prior or ongoing criminal activities, that is itself a crime meriting the impeachment of George W. Bush.

Answer 10

He is refusing to allow our immigration laws to be enforced or our border to be secured. He allows prosecution and imprisonment of those who try. He is essentially holding this country hostage and punishing the citizens for refusing to allow that disastrous amnesty bill to pass. If that isn't an impeachable offense it should be.