Just for grins, should the President be tried for malfeasance of office?

Question

Just wanted to see how many people know the difference between malfeasance and misfeasance.

For the record, I am not advocating character bashing or anything else. This is a question and answer forum. I asked a question. If I needed rant on something I would ask for it. This is just a question. Answer or don't.

Chip-good answer. Cool.

Answer 1

No. Malfeasance is the commission of some act which is positively unlawful. Misfeasance is the improper performance of some act which a person may lawfully do. While I think he has made some enormous mistakes in judgment, I can't see any malfeasance. While you could argue he got us into Iraq without an exit strategy, for example, no true examination of the facts would support misfeasance. Everything I think was poor judgment is based upon subsequent events or knowledge not available to him when he exercised his judgment. It's all in hindsight.

Answer 2

There will be no economic recovery. Whoever our next president is, they will be forced to raise taxes due to the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration. Because of Bush's war, the U.S. is facing an additional debt that many predict will end up costing the U.S. 3 trillion dollars. This year alone, spending in Iraq will top 160 billion, and this is not counting long term veteran's health care costs, debt payments, and re-equipping our tired and worn out military. There is no easy fix to the mess Bush has created. That's why it is so important to elect a president that will end this war, and not vote for someone who vows to continue this fiasco for another hundred years. So, we have a choice...pay for more bombs or provide unemployment insurance to the many who will lose their jobs. There is a clear connection to this war and our crumbling economy. Without an end to this war, there is no economic fix, and there will be no one to take any credit...where credit isn't due.

Answer 3

Can't be done. The Constitution and the law limit action against a sitting President to impeachment and removal from office for high crimes and misdemeanors. In the case of the current sitting President, there is no evidence of his carrying out illegal acts, especially in his capacity as Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces. Public Law # 107-40 of September 2001 authorized the use of offensive military operations to combat terrorism. Public Law # 107-243 of 2002 authorized the use of offensive military operations in Iraq. Section 314 of Public Law #107-108 authorized the use of warrantless electronic surveillance for up to 72 hours as an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and codified that policy which was first established in Executive Order # 12949, signed by President William Jefferson Clinton on February 9, 1995.
So, on the major bones of political contention about the current President, a prosecuting attorney would find that his "slam dunk" is actually going to be an "air ball".

Answer 4

For Grins... No... but it is an interesting idea!

Malfeasance is a very strong word !!!

It may grow on me!!!

Answer 5

Malfeasance mate. You got it! And a lot more. good question.

Answer 6

Wally, I just figured out what an aviator was a few weeks ago, I'll have to pull out my Webster's and get back with you!

Answer 7

No, if for no other reason than that he could never pronounce the word. Just think of the malapropism we would have to endure.

(Webster's definition: malaprop.. grotesque misapplication or pronunciation of word)

Answer 8

Malfeasance yes, but I'd like to sue him for malpractice. He should be made to pay for his mistakes. How is it a politician isn't made to be financially responsible for their destruction?

Answer 9

Now wouldn't that be nice! Get all of his "friends" in line behind him too. That would be a fantasy story!

Answer 10

He should be tried for something. Not sure what though. I guess you have some good ideas about that one.You made me look up the words and now I say charge him with both.