It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There have been several impeachment proceedings initiated since the adoption of the Constitution, principally against judges in the lower federal courts. The most important impeachments were those brought against United States Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805, against President Andrew Johnson in 1867, and against President William Jefferson Clinton in 1999. None of these three resulted in removal from office, and all three stand for the principle that impeachment should not be perceived as a device simply to remove a political opponent. In that regard, the caution of the Framers has been fulfilled.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded to the presidency following Abraham Lincoln's assassination in 1865, was impeached because of his failure to follow procedures specified in federal legislation (passed over his veto) that prohibited the firing of Cabinet officials without the permission of Congress. The legislation, known as the Tenure of Office Act, was arguably unconstitutional because it compromised the independence of the executive. Nevertheless, the radical Republicans, who then controlled Congress and who recoiled at President Johnson's active hostility to their plans to protect the newly freed slaves, sought to keep the sympathetic members of Abraham Lincoln's Cabinet in office. When Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, the gauntlet was thrown down, and impeachment was voted by the House. Though just as political as the Chase impeachment proceedings, there was some support for the Tenure of Office Act (Alexander Hamilton, writing in the The Federalist No. 77, had suggested that the consent of the Senate would be necessary "to displace as well as to appoint" officials). As it turned out, the conviction of Johnson failed in the Senate by only one vote.
The administration of President William Jefferson Clinton was beset by assorted scandals, many of which resulted in the appointment of special federal prosecutors, and several of which resulted in the convictions of lesser officials. One of the special prosecutors, Kenneth Starr, recommended to the Congress in 1998 that it consider evidence that the President had obstructed justice, tampered with witnesses, lied to a grand jury, and sought to conceal evidence in connection with a civil proceeding brought against him involving claims of sexual harassment. President Clinton denied the charges, but the Arkansas federal judge who presided in that civil proceeding eventually cited and fined Clinton for contempt based on his untruthful testimony.
A majority of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted in early 1999 to impeach the President based upon Judge Starr's referral. The House managers argued that what the President had done was inconsistent with his sworn duty to take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. When the matter was tried in the Senate, in February 1999, however, the President's defenders prevailed, and no more than fifty Senators (all Republicans) could be found to vote for conviction on any of the charges.
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Well, we couldn't get Bush Jr. out of office, or Clinton.
Why do we elect people into the office of President that we all end up hating? Isn't there someone out there that can do a reasonably good job and both sides of the political spectrum can respect?
It's like cell phones. How many people here like their cell phone carrier, lets see a raise of hands?
*crickets chirping*
Yet we still continue to pay our cell phone bills for service that should be better but isn't.
originally posted by: Elton
Both the House and Senate need to vote on impeachment proceedings, that's what it takes.
Also, a list of laws broken helps (and probably actual laws and not constitutional interpretations) because you need congress to believe enough in prosecution to vote yes and you need to prove more than 'he hates america' or 'he ignored the constitution'. You are probably going to have to find broken laws otherwise the constitutional lawyers will just argue over the meaning of the constitution rather than trying to convict the president...
P.S. - Clinton was impeached, he just was not convicted.
A majority of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted in early 1999 to impeach the President based upon Judge Starr's referral. The House managers argued that what the President had done was inconsistent with his sworn duty to take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. When the matter was tried in the Senate, in February 1999, however, the President's defenders prevailed, and no more than fifty Senators (all Republicans) could be found to vote for conviction on any of the charges.
originally posted by: Elton
Both the House and Senate need to vote on impeachment proceedings, that's what it takes.
Also, a list of laws broken helps (and probably actual laws and not constitutional interpretations) because you need congress to believe enough in prosecution to vote yes and you need to prove more than 'he hates america' or 'he ignored the constitution'. You are probably going to have to find broken laws otherwise the constitutional lawyers will just argue over the meaning of the constitution rather than trying to convict the president...
P.S. - Clinton was impeached, he just was not convicted.
originally posted by: thesmokingman
originally posted by: Elton
Both the House and Senate need to vote on impeachment proceedings, that's what it takes.
Also, a list of laws broken helps (and probably actual laws and not constitutional interpretations) because you need congress to believe enough in prosecution to vote yes and you need to prove more than 'he hates america' or 'he ignored the constitution'. You are probably going to have to find broken laws otherwise the constitutional lawyers will just argue over the meaning of the constitution rather than trying to convict the president...
P.S. - Clinton was impeached, he just was not convicted.
This says they did not get the need votes for impeachment I think:
A majority of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted in early 1999 to impeach the President based upon Judge Starr's referral. The House managers argued that what the President had done was inconsistent with his sworn duty to take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. When the matter was tried in the Senate, in February 1999, however, the President's defenders prevailed, and no more than fifty Senators (all Republicans) could be found to vote for conviction on any of the charges.
originally posted by: howmuch4another
originally posted by: thesmokingman
originally posted by: Elton
Both the House and Senate need to vote on impeachment proceedings, that's what it takes.
Also, a list of laws broken helps (and probably actual laws and not constitutional interpretations) because you need congress to believe enough in prosecution to vote yes and you need to prove more than 'he hates america' or 'he ignored the constitution'. You are probably going to have to find broken laws otherwise the constitutional lawyers will just argue over the meaning of the constitution rather than trying to convict the president...
P.S. - Clinton was impeached, he just was not convicted.
This says they did not get the need votes for impeachment I think:
A majority of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted in early 1999 to impeach the President based upon Judge Starr's referral. The House managers argued that what the President had done was inconsistent with his sworn duty to take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. When the matter was tried in the Senate, in February 1999, however, the President's defenders prevailed, and no more than fifty Senators (all Republicans) could be found to vote for conviction on any of the charges.
Elton has it right. The House can Impeach but nobody is removed without a hearing before the Chief Justice and 2/3 of the Senate convicting.
originally posted by: thesmokingman
So was he impeached, just not convicted of charges? If so, how the hell does that make sense? You would think one would need a conviction of some sort to impeach.
originally posted by: Elton
originally posted by: thesmokingman
So was he impeached, just not convicted of charges? If so, how the hell does that make sense? You would think one would need a conviction of some sort to impeach.
Because impeachment is the name of the process (in which an official is accused of unlawful activity.)
Lots of people think it means removing someone from office, that's only one of the outcomes and not the name of the actual process.