At the Federal level, the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching the President, Vice President and all other civil officers of the United States. Officials can be impeached for: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.
I stand corrected if you can prove me wrong, but impeachment is brought on by the HofR, right?
Next, the Senate has the sole power of impeachment, right?
Last, the Senate, upon conviction, removes the official from his/her capacity, right?
What would it say about Congress, who turned a blind eye and funded the war, if Bush was formally convicted and impeached?
Since (Democratic) Congress basically turned the other cheek when Bush decided to invade Iraq, is this the sole and overpowering reason why Bush can't be impeached?
Arguments? Thoughts?
2007-09-03 15:05:06 · 19 answers · asked by Glen B 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Was it a problem that festered into a really big problem when Democrats took control of the Senate and did nothing to put Pres. Bush in check?
2007-09-03 15:09:00 · update #1
Mike; March 19, 2003 was the day Bush launched the invasion of Iraq.
Democrats won the majority of the Senate in 2002.
2007-09-03 15:42:19 · update #2
Susi; try being a little more superficial next time for me. I revel in your statements directed at me.
2007-09-03 15:46:19 · update #3
Let it stand that I'm conservative on majority of issues, too. This has nothing to do with political affiliation.
2007-09-03 16:05:02 · update #4
susi; one other thing, my congress is the same as your congress. I should applaud you for being so observant.
2007-09-03 16:06:14 · update #5
Could one be, he never officially declared war? Secondly, he had the majority of the US citizens backing him in the beginning. Could it be that's why the Democratic led Senate did NOT oppose the war?
2007-09-03 16:12:22 · update #6
Buick; that's the point. Congress couldn't go against the will of the people and Bush during a time when a whole nation supported him. Hell I was with him. Basically took the monkey off their back and went along with Bush's request...starting the swing of hell!
2007-09-04 03:09:41 · update #7
Buick; that's the point. Congress couldn't go against the will of the people and Bush during a time when a whole nation supported him. Hell I was with him. Basically took the monkey off their back and went along with Bush's request...starting the swing of hell!
2007-09-04 03:15:26 · update #8
bullocks
what was the % of americans that wanted this war after 9/11? I know I was one of them but when I found out that bush was lying, it of course changed my mind just like it did many other people. The thing that's really pissin me off is how bush continues to lie to everyone in the states but of course he can't look weak and hurt his pride...reminds me of other people
2007-09-04 01:24:24 · answer #1 · answered by buickbeast 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its useless, first the President has to commit a impeacheable offense like "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors . Secondly the process would take forever just to initiate, he would be long gone out of office, before it was even started. Thirdly the democrats routinely called for it, right now they are in a position and even acknowledged that they would not do it. After the impeachment then the senate would have to convict him. So not gonna happen. He hasnt broken any laws, and honestly there is no reason to impeach him, he is gonna be gone in a year, worry about the next president.
2016-05-20 22:47:36 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are a couple of holes in your argument.
1. Congress was controlled by the GOP the year of the invasion.
2. Congress did not turn a blind eye to his invasion, they authorised it with H.J.Res. 114 (Public Law 107–243). The senate voted 77 to 23 to pass the resolution, the House voted 296-133 to pass the resolution. In both houses of Congress there were a good number of Democrats that voted in favour of the invasion.
Since you know the process of impeachment, you also know that if the both houses of Congress voted strictly along party lines the results, if they were to impeach him today, The House of Representatives would pass the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate would Acquit him.
edit: In 2000 the GOP lost control of the Senate, in 2002 they regained control.
2007-09-03 15:35:16 · answer #3 · answered by Mike W 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he as committed a crime. I've seen the list of alleged crimes posted in here but none of them could hold water. None. There is just no grounds for impeachment. The Democrats in Congress know this. That's why they have not started the proceedings. The only Dems and Libs calling for impeachment are the sadly under informed general public. Hillary, Boxer, Pelosi, Kerry, and the rest of the left all voted for the war. And they continue to fund it. It it's an illegal war, does that mean that all those in congress that continue to fund it are guilty of crimes also? No they aren't. Because there are no crimes.
2007-09-03 16:05:22 · answer #4 · answered by Rick 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Congress NEEDS to impeach Bush. I don't understand why they haven't, because Bush, by illegally invading a sovereign nation, has done far worse than Clinton, who was impeached for his personal affairs.
2007-09-03 17:32:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's like the Natzi's impeaching Hitler, only the Nuremburg trials at the Hague could do that. It's a sick world, correction starts with grass roots. That's you and me folks. We have to change our attitude and the Pres wont act out our fantasies. Ben Laden is only acting out Mideastern fantasies. Calling it a Muslim thing is a fantasy trying to paint it as a religious war. It's a fundamentalist (narrow minded) extremist war.
2007-09-04 00:19:35 · answer #6 · answered by hb12 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There are abundant grounds to impeach Mr. Bush. The only reason it hasn't happened? Typical Democratic spinelessness.
Republicans should support impeachment, to restore the office to its Constitutional bounds. We WILL have a Democratic President someday. Likely soon. Do they want that person to have all the expanded powers that Bush illegally seized??
2007-09-03 15:22:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
Checkmate.
2007-09-03 15:10:20 · answer #8 · answered by Julie H 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Crickets
The Democrats controll congress and their silence on this matter speaks volumes.
They simply have nothing to impeach him for.
2007-09-03 15:08:57 · answer #9 · answered by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 · 7⤊ 5⤋
I would be embarrassed to write such an ignorant question. He has not committed any impeachable crimes. khooya
2007-09-03 15:22:07 · answer #10 · answered by mamadixie 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋