I found my eyes opened by watching Bill Moyer's journal tonight on WNET (PBS). I had no idea the extent of the misdeamanors or the extent to which impeachment is seen by the founding fathers as the REMEDY to a constitutional crisis; that the issue is one of flouting the checks and balances of the Constitution. If you saw the program, what did you think? If not, it repeats this Sunday (July 15) WNET at 7PM EST. Write to say what you think. I am all energized by this!!!
2007-07-13 15:18:06 · 12 answers · asked by gilpers302 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
I JUST WAS SENT THE LINK TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE SHOW!!
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript4.html
2007-07-14 08:30:38 · update #1
I watched the Moyers program too. It was very good.
Don't look to answers here on Constitutional Law.....many can't even spell it.
2007-07-13 16:57:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The grounds for impeachment are whatever 218 members of the House of Representatives decide they are. But, the Constitution restricts impeachment to cases of high crimes and misdemeanors. In the case of President Andrew Johnson he was impeached for violating a law which was later declared unconstitutional. In the case of President William Jefferson Clinton, the Congress missed the mark when defining which high crime or misdemeanor he committed. Monica Lewinsky, after completing an unpaid internship at the white House was given a paid job in the office of the Defense Department's Press Secretary. That job required she hold a Top Secret "Q" level security clearance. And that required a detailed background investigation. None was ever done. If it was ordered to be skipped by the President, then he violated the National Security Act of 1947 (et.seq.) and that is a high crime.
The current members of Congress who prate about impeachment of President George Walker Bush have yet to indicate what high crime or misdemeanor he has committed.
As for the founding fathers looking upon impeachment as a remedy to a constitutional crisis which was flouting the checks and balances, the Congress did nothing when Chief Justice John Marshal wrote the majority opinion in Marbury versus Madison and declared that it was the job of the Supreme Court to decide which laws were constitutional or not and that those laws which were repugnant to the Constitution were "null and void". That power was not given to the Court in Article Three of the Costitution and Marshall's judicial opinion clearly flouted the separation of powers and the checks and balances.
2007-07-14 02:12:50 · answer #2 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Alright, since it's Saturday, and I haven't responded to this question yet today, here goes.
If Pelosi and the rest of the congress had an inkling of a charge they could level at President Bush and have it stick, he would have been impeached by February of this year.
They didn't and he wasn't. Like him, hate him, it doesn't matter.
If our politicians were to be tried in the court of public opinion, then Congress (which has a lower opinion rating than our President) would be gone as well.
Our system of government works quite well in this regard. Change is allowed due to "high crimes and misdemeanors" or by elections every 4 years.
And don't get me started about a constitutional amendment about impeachment or other means of removal from office. It would never get ratified by enough states to make it fly.
So, until I answer this question tomorrow, have a good day!
2007-07-14 08:18:47 · answer #3 · answered by Mark A 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Americans need to be looking to 08 and who we are going to elect to clean up the mess. George Lame Duck Bush is old news. Impeaching him would just sap the time and energy of the Senate and Congress and give them a excuse not to do anything about the real issues we face.
2007-07-14 00:13:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, I am positive Bill Moyer's journal has no agenda, other than informing the public. He is so politically balanced.
2007-07-13 22:24:07 · answer #5 · answered by T C 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
First Constitutional amendment: Free Speech.
2007-07-14 01:37:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm about "energized" about impeachent now as you were back when Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice. The difference is that Bush hasn't committed any crimes, real or imagined.
2007-07-13 22:22:37 · answer #7 · answered by Eukodol 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes-though impeachment would be another blow to the United States right now---when we don't need it. I do believe that in a European country like England. Bush would be asked to dissolve his government, resign, and new elections would be held. I wish we could do that here. If you feel impeachment is the answer: organize online, start a website, collect signatures on a petition, contact congressmen. Push for change. Good luck to you.
2007-07-13 23:15:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
well think about it? they were coming from a system where you could never remove the leader (king george) for any reason unless you killed him. in which case he'd only be replaced by another monarch.
it makes total sense that they would see impeachment as not only necessary but a vital part of the checks and balances system.
2007-07-13 22:30:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The founding fathers never intended for impeachment to be used for political differences, nor for the hatred of the guy in office.
It's intent was for high crimes.
2007-07-14 04:07:21 · answer #10 · answered by John T 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋