Did that say Impeach?
With Bush having admitted to ordering surveillance of citizens without obtaining a warrant, certain elements are talking impeachment. So far that's just the radical left, the same groups who were talking that in relation to the Abu Ghraib incidents. My comments on that round can be found here.
A lot of the arguments I made previously still stand, but there are some differences. First off, Bush did win re-election. Second, he isn't up for re-election. Third, Bush himself was directly involved in the incident in question.
Impeachment is a major thing, and of the three times it has been attempted it has failed each time. The very first time, for Andrew Johnson, came within a vote of working. Nixon, who we had dead to rights, resigned before things to got to that phase. Clinton was politically motivated and didn't come close to the super majority needed.
The Andrew Johnson case is interesting. He and Congress feuded openly over many topics, and his own party turned against him during the impeachment process. Congress was openly hostile, and it was only a single Senator 'turning coat' that prevented Johnson from being kicked out of office.
If you look at all three cases of Impeachment proceedings, in each one of them it was the party in power at the time that started the process. Johnson was a Republican, and it was Republicans that were in power and started the Impeachment process. Nixon was a Republican, and it was Democrats who were in power and started the process. Clinton was a Democrat, and it was Republicans who were in power and started the process. Because of this, any move to Impeach Bush has to come from the existing Republican majority.
The Johnson case is the one to look at because it is the only one we have where the seated President's own party was the one that turned on him. To get to that stage you have to really piss people off, and Johnson did just that. Bush hasn't gotten anywhere near there yet, despite the grumblings from the Republican members of Congress. Johnson repeatedly vetoed legislation that was then overridden by Congress. Bush has yet to veto anything.
The secret surveillance may very well have been a 'high crime', but without something clearly and indisputably evil his own party won't turn on him. There will be bickering, don't get me wrong. And the Democrats may manage to get enough renegade Republicans on board to make a solid fight of it. Articles of impeachment may be drawn up, but I don't expect them to make it past the Senate. Bush, unlike Nixon, was (arguably, and believe me it will be argued) working within the framework of the law.
There is a very good reason why the Impeachment process required a two thirds majority in the Senate in addition to a majority vote in the House. If Congress could topple a seated President willy nilly, it would greatly change the balance of power.
If the Democrats held both houses I'm sure talk of Impeachment would be a lot louder. But they don't, so what I'm hearing is the wistful hopes of the left.
A lot of the arguments I made previously still stand, but there are some differences. First off, Bush did win re-election. Second, he isn't up for re-election. Third, Bush himself was directly involved in the incident in question.
Impeachment is a major thing, and of the three times it has been attempted it has failed each time. The very first time, for Andrew Johnson, came within a vote of working. Nixon, who we had dead to rights, resigned before things to got to that phase. Clinton was politically motivated and didn't come close to the super majority needed.
The Andrew Johnson case is interesting. He and Congress feuded openly over many topics, and his own party turned against him during the impeachment process. Congress was openly hostile, and it was only a single Senator 'turning coat' that prevented Johnson from being kicked out of office.
If you look at all three cases of Impeachment proceedings, in each one of them it was the party in power at the time that started the process. Johnson was a Republican, and it was Republicans that were in power and started the Impeachment process. Nixon was a Republican, and it was Democrats who were in power and started the process. Clinton was a Democrat, and it was Republicans who were in power and started the process. Because of this, any move to Impeach Bush has to come from the existing Republican majority.
The Johnson case is the one to look at because it is the only one we have where the seated President's own party was the one that turned on him. To get to that stage you have to really piss people off, and Johnson did just that. Bush hasn't gotten anywhere near there yet, despite the grumblings from the Republican members of Congress. Johnson repeatedly vetoed legislation that was then overridden by Congress. Bush has yet to veto anything.
The secret surveillance may very well have been a 'high crime', but without something clearly and indisputably evil his own party won't turn on him. There will be bickering, don't get me wrong. And the Democrats may manage to get enough renegade Republicans on board to make a solid fight of it. Articles of impeachment may be drawn up, but I don't expect them to make it past the Senate. Bush, unlike Nixon, was (arguably, and believe me it will be argued) working within the framework of the law.
There is a very good reason why the Impeachment process required a two thirds majority in the Senate in addition to a majority vote in the House. If Congress could topple a seated President willy nilly, it would greatly change the balance of power.
If the Democrats held both houses I'm sure talk of Impeachment would be a lot louder. But they don't, so what I'm hearing is the wistful hopes of the left.
posted by Corwin at 2:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home