View Story | 124 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
the Constitution proscribes what powers everybody has, but is silent on when they should be used. I didn't vote in your poll because the premise is misstated. The Constitution does not "call for" impeachment in any circumstances; it is always up to the House.
The frogurt is also cursed. -8.25, -6.51
by Superribbie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:21:41 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
premise except for the Constitution's premise.
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:22:56 AM PDT
Article II, Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
or shall we debate the meaning of "shall"?
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:24:42 AM PDT
Don't gloss over that clause.
When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.
by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:51:12 AM PDT
It still doesn't say "Do not attempt impeachment unless conviction is ensured prior to a trial beyond the shadow of a doubt."
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:00:08 AM PDT
is you're misunderstanding the grammar. The sentence does not say they are required to be impeached and removed from office after committing crimes. It says they shall be removed from office upon conviction. There is no imperative other than removal upon conviction. No requirement to impeach and no requirement to convict.
by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:07:55 AM PDT
misunderstanding the grammar. I think what you are missing is that there is nothing, nothing there that says the only way this remedy shall be applied is if Congress feels like it.
There is no imperative to have enough votes, or be assured a conviction either. There is, however, an imperative, obviously, if you believe that "shall" means "shall" to present an opposition through impeachment and/or conviction, in accordance with our Constitution to
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
and our representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution.
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:21:37 AM PDT
there is no affirmative restriction on bringing impeachment proceedings when you don't have the votes. Nor is there an affirmative directive to bring proceedings in any circumstance. It is purely discretionary. Now, you can question the current Representatives' use of that discretion under the current facts, but you cannot argue that there is some mandate that they are violating through inaction.
by Superribbie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:30:30 AM PDT
which clearly states that crimes committed by the Executive Branch and others shall be responded to with impeachment/conviction/removal from office.
So yes, I can and will argue that they are not doing their Constitutional duty.
Unless you'd like to argue that the administration is not guilty of the crimes as outlined, I don't get what your point in continuing to argue against this is.
Do you have some other plan that will lead to the same end?
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:40:57 AM PDT
It doesn't say they shall respond with impeachment. It simply doesn't. It says they shall be removed from office upon conviction. That's it. There is no other directive.
I wish it said what you are saying it says but it doesn't. There is no imperative to impeach anywhere in the constitution.
by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:45:40 AM PDT
available to the Congress to deal with their crimes.
Is the Constitution, which they are required to uphold, to be circumvented and Congress' power abrogated? Do you not see the danger in arguing against the power of the legislative branch at this juncture in history?
There is an imperative to uphold the Constitution, the President, VP, etc. shall be removed by the remedies therein.
The question we should have is why is this being ignored, and if the answers aren't in keeping with Congress' sworn duty, then we the people need to say so!
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:49:48 AM PDT
of the legislative branch. They have the power to impeach. They also have the power to not impeach.
by Superribbie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:51:58 AM PDT
to impeach to defend the Constitution and preserve the system of checks and balances. Not impeaching is not translating as a power, obviously. Look to Bush's response at every turn.
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:39:36 PM PDT
and I'm not arguing against it. What I am arguing against is your misunderstanding of the grammar of that sentence.
The shall in that sentence applies only to removal upon conviction. It does not apply to impeachment.
by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:52:53 AM PDT
sentence, what I was misunderstanding was that there was a completely separate side argument going on that had little to nothing to do with my original point. I operated from the assumption that the premise of my diary was actually being addressed, and I should have known better as a regular participant here.
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:41:44 PM PDT
You said something that was in error and you were politely corrected.
by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:45:00 PM PDT
response and subsequent explanations. I thought I was defending the premise of my diary, apparently that was not the case. I apologize for misunderstanding, but this has had nothing to do with my point, which is that there is nothing in the Constitution that limits Congress to use their powers, and that it is time for them to uphold the and defend the Constitution, as they have sworn to do so. The rest was side arguing over whether they were required to do so by that phrase in particular, which I understand now.
So here, clonelone, and supperbibbie, I will officially concede that there is nothing in the particular phrase that means Congress has to impeach if that is what you need to hear. I'm a teacher and I swear to not allow young minds to develop in my classroom without attempting to bias their thinking, and I suppose I can ignore that oath as well if I want to. There may be some problems with that if I attempt to ignore it and my boss finds out though. And that is where we the people come in.
They are sworn to do so, and absent any other remedy in the Constitution, they must do so when the Constitution is being subverted lest they abandon their oaths.
That is my take on it. You can have the semantic argument I hardly knew I was in to begin with.
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:56:37 PM PDT
If convicted, they shall be removed. It is a penalty provision. That is the only "shall" regarding impeachment.
This is kind of like the standard criminal code provision that says "if convicted, an individual shall receive not less than...and up to..."
These penalty clauses do not impose any requirement on prosecutors to bring specific cases; that is always up to prosecutors (and grand juries).
As for my motive, I'm just looking for a little intellectual honesty. While it may feel better to make grand Constitutional pronouncements about requirements and duties, the honest thing would be to say "I think what this administration has done adds up to impeachable offenses and I wish Congress would exercise its discretion to use the power alloted to it."
by Superribbie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:50:50 AM PDT
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:42:22 PM PDT
"shall be removed from office on impeachment..."
it defines what happens if an impeachment proceeding is brought. The latter clause gives guidance on the types of things a legitimate impeachment should have. It does not, however, say that when those things are present, the Congress shall commence an impeachment proceeding. That decision is completely discretionary with the House.
by Superribbie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:27:43 AM PDT
"shall be removed" modifies which nouns? Hello?
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:42:55 AM PDT
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States.
So what?
The point is still that they shall be removed upon conviction. Nothing more.
by Superribbie on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:54:34 AM PDT
directive to Congress that this happens only if they feel they have enough votes prior to even beginning the proceedings.
The Constitution mandates this remedy, and evidence of crimes exist.
Congress is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not to add "if and when" to their considerations.
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:59:12 AM PDT
It mandates nothing. There is no requirement to impeach.
by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:00:43 PM PDT
inherent requirement. The oath to defend and uphold yada yada yada is NOT a "requirement," in your mind. Technically, if you slice and dice the words just so, you may be right.
By doing this, however, you're essentially arguing that there is no implied duty that goes along with the sworn oath. Think about what you're saying there.
Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark
by cfaller96 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:13:34 PM PDT
How does not impeaching a president violate that oath? There is not requirement to impeach, so there is no violation of the oath.
by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:20:59 PM PDT
preserve the balance of power and remedy crimes by the Executive Branch then? Do you really think the founders just left that out?
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:23:28 PM PDT
You have a serious misunderstanding if you think can and should mean the same thing.
by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:28:50 PM PDT
Constitution and did not say to themselves: Hmmm, there may come a day when the President, VP or other officials commit criminal acts. Did they simply leave it out, or is this the remedy intended.
We can parse words all day, but I think it is obvious that this is what the power granted to Congress is, and I think it is Congress' duty to preserve the balance of power created by Constitutional checks and balances.
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:37:31 PM PDT
they would have written imperatives. They didn't hesitate to write imperatives in other sections of the document.
by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:40:18 PM PDT
and defend the Constitution is an imperative to use Constitutional powers to do so?
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:02:25 PM PDT
It seems you disagree.
by cfaller96 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:09:32 PM PDT
But I haven't seen basis for turning "can" into "is required to". It's just not there.
by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:12:14 PM PDT
I think if they wanted imperatives on this topic they would have written imperatives.
What I'm saying is that such a literal interpretation of what's "written" in the Constitution essentially rejects the implied imperatives in the Constitution that 'living document' believers like myself embrace.
I like to call an implied imperative a 'duty.' Do you think Congress has a duty, or implied imperative, to impeach a President who engages in high crimes and misdemeanors?
by cfaller96 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:57:30 PM PDT
by cfaller96 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:06:12 PM PDT
...No consequences means carte blanch. It means no fear of accountability. No fear of losing his job no matter how much he screws-up the country. Bush and company must be drowning in their champagne! I wish I had a boss that wasn't required to fire me if I screwed-up. No such animal. Why is Bush and his pals any better than us poor working slobs? I forgot, he's our King!
Repeat after me, "All hail King Bush"!
"Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan
by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:18:47 PM PDT
I'm not arguing against impeachment. All I am arguing is that the constitution does not require it. There is no imperative about impeachment anywhere in the document.
by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:22:05 PM PDT
that took an oath to defend the Constitution. It is the remedy provided.
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:24:49 PM PDT
You're the one who wrote a diary criticizing people for assuming text that isn't there. No you want assumptions that fit your argument? How about we stick to what is actually there.
by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:38:49 PM PDT
crimninals in the Executive branch to justice. Are you really trying to argue that Congress is not responsible for doing that by using their Constitutional powers, who is responsible for it if they are not?
I wrote a diary pointing out that the limitation to their powers is nowhere in the Constitution. That was the premise, despite all of the meandering side roads others have taken in attempts to distract from that very easily understoon and valid point.
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:06:42 PM PDT
Would you mind reading it again and telling me where it is wrong?
The entire point of my diary is that there is no (0 / 0) directive to Congress that this happens only if they feel they have enough votes prior to even beginning the proceedings
Now, we went off on a nice little tangent that you and I don't agree upon, but that has nothing to do with my premise, unless you can find where it says in the Constitution that Impeachment will not be entered into until Congress deems that they have enough votes prior to beginning the proceedings, or any of the other "not in the Constitution" facts I added in bold actually exist.
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:20:33 PM PDT
The consitution does not lay out terms for when impeachment must take place. Here's what it says:
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
No requirement to impeach there.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
No requirement to impeach there. The only requirement stated is removal of office upon conviction by the senate.
That's it. There's no requirement to do anything.
by clonecone on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:27:52 PM PDT
people will go to to get the constitution to say what it clearly doesn't say. You're points are patently obvious and shouldn't have to be argued.
by Warren Terrer on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:02:15 PM PDT
to begin with.
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:21:45 PM PDT
if they are convicted they automatically are removed from office. It has nothing to do with when they should be impeached. Superribbie is correct.
But I voted in the poll because I felt like it.
by Warren Terrer on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:58:21 AM PDT
made. I should have recognized it and not questioned it, but I guess I assumed that the diary was actually being addressed. Silly me.
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:01:01 PM PDT
is right.
by Warren Terrer on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:03:34 PM PDT
by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:10:13 PM PDT
The Constitution is silent on what comprises high crimes and misdemeanors. That might actually be cause for amendment, when you think about it.
by amyzex on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:36:17 AM PDT
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:38:32 AM PDT
Congress proposes, and the states dispose. A commendably decentralized process.
by amyzex on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:46:40 AM PDT
by Karma for All on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:01:08 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 124 comments