Does leaving Impeachment "Off the Table" put President Bush in Danger?

Question

Does Congress leaving impeachment "off the table" put President Bush in any danger? The authors of the US constitution put impeachment in as the recourse to remove a bad President.

Given the fact that polls show 35-45% of Americans approving of impeachment, and congress's unwillingness to do it, might this possibly put Bush in danger from extremists?

In case you haven't heard, there's a pretty organized movement calling for impeachment right now. There will be a mass march on Washington on the 15th.

See: http://www.impeachbush.org/site/pageserv... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/movement_to...

And to those who pointed out my folly in asking this SAME question before, which I removed because I admittedly framed it badly, I believe in peaceful solutions-- not violent extremism.

I am just asking a controversial question, as I tend to do once and a while. I even read controversial books-- that's part of being American.

Yes, I believe that it does threaten the rule of law. That's why I asked this question to begin with. :)

Keeping impeachment off the table means that not only the President will have the unchecked ability to undermine US law, but violent extremists may also feel the need to violate the rule of law.

It's written into our constitution for a reason, and blatantly stating it's not on the table puts our system and our leader in unnecessary jeopardy, while undermining the effectiveness of democracy.

Answer 1

Taking impeachment off the table puts the rule of law and democracy in danger. If ever there was a President and Vice President who deserved impeachment, it is Bush and Cheney.

Answer 2

First, impeachment is not for the removal of a bad President. Bad is a very vague word. It may mean different things to different people. Over 1/3 of the people believe that Bush is doing a good job as President. The Constitution is very specific about the reasons that a President can be removed. They are for "high crimes and misdemeanors" not for being a bad President.

You are also misusing the word impeached. Two Presidents were impeached, neither of them was removed from office. Impeachment means bringing of charges by the House of Representatives. The charges have to be "approved" by the Senate which was never done.

Finally, taking something off the table does not mean that it cannot be placed on the table again.

Answer 3

I would love to impeach Bush, but the reality is, like Clinton, the Senate does not have enough votes to impeach him as it takes 2/3. The Republican Congress knew this when they tried to impeach Clinton and failed. After a trial, the senate barely got 50% of the required 2/3! The Democrats recognize this, unlike the Republicans who just wanted to see how much money they could waste!

Ironic that the person pushing for the impeachment, Trent Lott, was having an affair on his wife at the time, who was the person he was having an affair with on his prior wife!

Slew, the people are talking about it. Nancy Pelosi took it OFF the table when she was elected as Speaker! It is a non issue, unlike the dumb Republicans, the Democrats are dragging nothing out as you allege!!!

The people want him to go, and it is their constitution right to say so!

Answer 4

Impeachment is not to remove a bad President, but to remove a President that broke a serious law. I am not saying Bush did not break the law, and I believe he should be kicked out a while back. I stopped supporting impeachment, because he's a lame duck and the only reason Democrats talk about it, is to embarrass teh Republicans to gain votes. I find that amoral, that they would drag this for so long. It destroys our governments ability to function.

Answer 5

There have been calls for President Bush's impeachment since before he took office. Other than the rantings of a few very extreme leftists, no one has been able to bring serious evidence that the President has committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

This is a tit-for-tat for the impeachment of President Clinton which, although ill-advised and done more out of a meanness of spirit than a quest for justice, actually did have a prima facie legal basis.

Answer 6

A handbook to sturdy public conversing, an invitation to dinner at my place, a severe thinking textbook, a highlighted replica of the U.S. shape (i'm borrowing from a prior answer and including to it), some historic previous books, and a bumper sticky label that reads: "whilst Bush Took place of work, gas improve into $a million.40 six." i do no longer hate the guy, yet i think of he and that i could take a seat and have a severe communicate approximately what has befell for the duration of his administration.

Answer 7

this kind of things had always happened , of the past and present , to whome that rules without being a KING or a QUEEN. So , as an ELECTED RULER such as a PRESIDENT , to that's , of about whats you're saying , was and will be the expected , and , i'm sure only by the KNOWLEDGEABLE INTELLECTUAL THINKING PEOPLES of a GOOD NATION , can a GOOD PARTY AND PRESIDENT WILL SURVIVES.