Originally posted by marg6043
Ask yourself this, how many presidents has been impeach since the history of USA? and for what reason?
Three, including the Clinton case about a blowjob as described by Sen. Feingold here:
This is an interesting analysis of the grounds for impeachment around the Nixon trial. Bush's abuses of power have been far worse than those of
THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL
(From the law of presidential impeachment by the Committe On Federal Legislation)
The most significant constitutional question about impeachment and removal is what the appropriate grounds for those actions are; in other words,
defining the proper scope of the phrase in Article II: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." "Treason" and "Bribery" are
terms of relatively precise meaning, with the former being defined in the Constitution itself (Article III, Section 3). The phrase "other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors," however, raises a number of questions. Is that phrase limited to acts which would be indictable as criminal offenses, or was it
intended to reach abuses of office or breaches of trust not constituting criminal acts? If impeachment and removal may properly rest on activities
which do not constitute crimes, are there any limits in principle on the type of conduct which can be the basis for impeachment and removal, or should
the exercise of these powers be governed solely by the free play of our political system?
We believe the intention of the Framers of the Constitution, the history of the actual use of impeachment and removal, and considerations of sound
public policy all strongly support construction of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as not limited to offenses under the ordinary criminal law. But
considerations of original intention, historical usage, and sound public policy likewise caution against a wholly unrestricted reading of the phrase.
The concept of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" should not be taken to mean anything and everything around which political expediency might
momentarily organize a majority in the House and two-thirds in the Senate.
We submit that Congress may properly impeach and remove a President only for conduct amounting to a gross breach of trust or serious abuse of power,
and only if it would be prepared to take the same action against any President who engaged in comparable conduct in similar circumstances. Although
the responsibility for giving content to the constitutional grounds for impeachment is, in our opinion, solely that of Congress, our conclusion is
that Congress should exercise these powers subject to a firm sense of constitutional restraint.
It has been argued, especially by persons facing. impeachment charges. that criminal acts alone justify resort to the unusual processes of impeachment
and removal. The main support for this position lies in the terminology employed in the Constitution, in particular that the words "Crimes", and
"Misdemeanors" are terms of art in legal usage, referring to criminal acts. Since treason and bribery are both traditional criminal offenses,
proponents of this view contend that the modifier "other" describes acts of the same criminal character. As further support for this interpretation,
proponents of the view that "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" encompasses only indictable offenses point out that references to impeachment in the
pardon and jury-trial provisions suggest that for other purposes "Cases of Impeachment" are within the criminal categories of "Offenses against the
United States" and "all Crimes," respectively.
While the constitutional text thus gives some support to the view that only indictable offenses can be "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," it also
contains provisions inconsistent with so narrow an interpretation. Such provisions, together with historical evidence and precedents in the few
impeachment proceedings which have taken place, all point toward the conclusion that the grounds for impeachment are not limited to indictable
[Edited on 10-5-2004 by MaskedAvatar]