What does impeachment solve?

[MaddLlama]

Really, I'm curious. For those of you who think that the president (and possibly the VP) need to be impeached for whatever crimes they committed, what purpose does it serve? Will impeaching them somehow stop the war, bring the troops home, and solve every other problem? Does it just serve to send a message and take frustration out on someone?

If Bush and/or Cheney are impeached, what happens after that?

 

[Mathematician]

The same thing it proves to fire an employee who did something illegal while at work?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Ask Bill Clinton. He was impeached.

 

[MaddLlama]

The same thing it proves to fire an employee who did something illegal while at work?

Ok, but firing the president is a much larger scale. I'm looking for specifics here. Will impeachment somehow bring the war to a dead stop and magically fix all the problems in Iraq?

 

[MaddLlama]

Ask Bill Clinton. He was impeached.

I don't think that did anything but prove that some people could throw their weight around.

 

[Storm]

Ok, but firing the president is a much larger scale. I'm looking for specifics here. Will impeachment somehow bring the war to a dead stop and magically fix all the problems in Iraq?

Of course not, but you already know that. What are you getting at, ML?

 

[MaddLlama]

Of course not, but you already know that. What are you getting at, ML?

I'm not getting at anything. I just want to know what problems people think will be solved by impeaching the president. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction, and I want to know if people have actually thought about it (since, with Clinton I didn't think anybody put any brain power behind that..)

Is it really just to show him that we don't like him? Who would make decisions in his stead, and would they be any better?

Wouldn't the impeachment process take longer than he actually has left in office?

What is the benefit of impeachment?

 

[Gentoo]

IWhat is the benefit of impeachment?

Maybe it's to show in some way that people are sick of the way he's doing things, and this is the first step in the process. That's my thought of it, anyway.

 

[Booko]

Ok, but firing the president is a much larger scale. I'm looking for specifics here. Will impeachment somehow bring the war to a dead stop and magically fix all the problems in Iraq?

No, but I have heard some thoughtful people raise the issue of precedent. Is it a good precedent to set that the Executive Branch can run roughshod over the law they swore to uphold, and the other branches give the Ex Branch a bye? That's the Reader's Digest version, of course.

 

[MaddLlama]

No, but I have heard some thoughtful people raise the issue of precedent. Is it a good precedent to set that the Executive Branch can run roughshod over the law they swore to uphold, and the other branches give the Ex Branch a bye? That's the Reader's Digest version, of course.

If the process started now, would it even finish by the election time next year?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I don't think that did anything but prove that some people could throw their weight around.

Exactly right. Let's go back the time before that. Nixon was pardoned by his Vice President, Gerald Ford. The government was business as usual after that.

I have seen two impeachments in my life time and they had no effect on how our country was ran or what we did globally.

 

[Booko]

If the process started now, would it even finish by the election time next year?

At this point? I doubt it. I suspect that's why a lot of people are not too happy with the Democratic leadership in Congress. They don't seem to be very effective in opposing efforts to quash our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution or asserting Congressional powers enumerated in the Constitution. They're seen as spineless and more interested in their political party than the nation.

In fact, if impeachment proceedings began now, it would be perceived as entirely political even if it weren't.

But there are some Congressional hearings, and oversight at least needs to be done.

There seems to be a hole in the Constitution right now, since the Atty. General has the option of ignoring Congress when it comes to enforcing Contempt of Congress charges. I wonder if the Founding Dads never imagined the top attorney in the nation could be quite so incompetent and craven and so never thought a remedy would be necessary?

Ah, for a time machine so I could go ask.

 

[Booko]

Exactly right. Let's go back the time before that. Nixon was pardoned by his Vice President, Gerald Ford. The government was business as usual after that.

I have seen two impeachments in my life time and they had no effect on how our country was ran or what we did globally.

Which two impeachments did you see, Rev. RIck? Surely you weren't around in Andrew Johnson's time?

Many people were enraged at Ford's pardon of Nixon, but personally I approved of it, and Ford being a straight up kind of guy, it could not be taken as a political cover, but truly a means to just get on with the country's business. Nixon's resignation was punishment enough.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Which two impeachments did you see, Rev. RIck? Surely you weren't around in Andrew Johnson's time?

Many people were enraged at Ford's pardon of Nixon, but personally I approved of it, and Ford being a straight up kind of guy, it could not be taken as a political cover, but truly a means to just get on with the country's business. Nixon's resignation was punishment enough.

William Jefferson Clinton was impeached.

 

[Booko]

William Jefferson Clinton was impeached.

That would be one impeachment, not two.

There have only been two impeachments in U.S. history, and Nixon was not one of them. He resigned first.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I suspect that's why a lot of people are not too happy with the Democratic leadership in Congress.

I am wondering when people are going to wake up and smell the coffee. Look at all the leading Democratic candidates right now. All of them are going to church and pandering to disillusioned right wing voters who are unhappy with Bush and the Iraq war.

The Democrats are no better than the people they rail against.

Both parties are hypocrites.

They all make promises and fail to deliver.

If you think it's bad now, watch the Dem's pander to the center after receiving the nomination and leave the pet left projects behind.

 

[Booko]

I've been upfront in questioning why we need political parties at all. They are a holdover from networking in the British upper class, are never mentioned in the Declaration or Constitution, and Washington himself warned against them.

As long as elected officials represent their party first and their constituents second, they don't really represent us at all.

Also, I'd love to see political contributions limited to individuals living in the districts where candidates are running for office. I see no reason whatsoever why someone in California should have any influence in an election in my district in Georgia. I want that representative to represent *me* and my neighbors -- not someone from out of state. And donations from other entities should be right out.

Well, now that I've throughly derailed this thread. :sorry:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really, I'm curious. For those of you who think that the president (and possibly the VP) need to be impeached for whatever crimes they committed, what purpose does it serve? Will impeaching them somehow stop the war, bring the troops home, and solve every other problem? Does it just serve to send a message and take frustration out on someone?

Your questions seem equally applicable to criminal law* in general, so the generally accepted justifications for criminal law should likely answer it:

- specific deterrence: to persuade George W. Bush and/or Dick Cheney specifically to not engage in illegal conduct. While neither will likely hold their current post after the next election, there's always a chance that one or the other will want to hold some sort of public office.

- general deterrence: to persuade future Presidents, Vice Presidents, and other lawmakers to obey the law with respect to the duties of their office.

- inculcation: to serve as a declaration by society as a whole that the conduct in question was not acceptable.

- rehabilitation... actually, even though it's usually considered to be a general justification for criminal law, I'm not sure it really applies in this case.




*in the sense of a legal code that says "do this, don't do that"... not necessarily limited to only laws with the word "criminal" in their title.

 

[Aqualung]

It holds elected officials accountable to those who elected him. It doesn't "solve" anything, per se, but it does remind everybody that the presidency is not a dictatorship by any means.

in the sense of a legal code that says "do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign! And the sign said anybody caught trespassing will be shot on sight. So I jumped on the fence and yelled at the house, Hey! what gives you the right to put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in...."

Fixed it.

 

[yossarian22]

Ok, but firing the president is a much larger scale. I'm looking for specifics here. Will impeachment somehow bring the war to a dead stop and magically fix all the problems in Iraq?

yes.
Don't ask how. If you ask how it won't happen.