General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf the framers only wanted violations of criminal statutes to be grounds for impeachment
it could have been so defined. It wasn't. If the framers wanted that type of limit placed on the allowable grounds to impeach a president, they easily could have so specified in the constitution. They didn't. Why didn't they? I will venture to say they didn't because there was no consensus that the grounds for impeachment should be so tightly restricted that a President could spend every hour of every day on a golf course for four years and not be subject to impeachment; because no specific statute was broken.
Opinions differed back then on what should be impeachable. They also differed in the 1860's, and in the 1970's, and in the 1990's, but Abuse of Power has always been considered constitutional grounds for impeachment by the House of Representatives.
If the framers were so worried that a partisan congress might move to remove an elected President from office, over an "overly vague" charge such as "Abuse of Power", they could have built in a safeguard to prevent that. Instead of allowing a partisan simple majority to kick a President out of office, they could have raised that bar to require an overwhelming majority to do so, something along the lines of a two thirds vote of Congress... Wait a minute. It turns out that is exactly what they did, and a bar set that high has historically fulfilled it's function. Even Andrew Johnson got to serve out his term of office.
So all of the Republican arguments over eligible grounds for impeachment fail on every count. No President has ever been impeached for abusing his power to proclaim national holidays, or abusing his power to lower flags to half mast, or for abusing his ability to give his friends a ride on Air Force One. The Abuse of Power that Trump is accused of is as serious as a heart attack. The Republican Senate is acting like a hospital emergency room that refuses to examine a patient with severe chest pains because he isn't carrying a prescription for that treatment upon entry.
marybourg
(12,633 posts)unblock
(52,253 posts)would lead one to a similar conclusion. the truth is that even republicans know their arguments are complete and utter hogwash. they know damn well that they'd impeach a democrat in a heartbeat if they did the tiniest fraction of what donnie has done.
but republicans win no points for intellectual honesty or integrity. they win points by fighting democrats and winning by any means. so they are flailing about, throwing anything and everything against the wall and seeing what sticks.
if they hit upon anything that resonates emotionally in their favor, that's what they'll run with, no matter how stupid or illogical or just plain false it may be.
abuse of power wasn't merely meant to be grounds for impeachment. it was really the *reason* for impeachment clause in the first place. in point of fact, the framers were likely far less worried about a president who happened to have run afoul of a law or two than a president who abused the powers of office.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)But given that Republican Senators will attempt to hide behind any fig leaf they can find to avoid being exposed as enabling the exact behavior our framers sought to protect our nation from in a chief executive gone amuck, every single one of their talking points must be totally and repeatedly demolished.
unblock
(52,253 posts)if we only engage them on an intellectual level, even if we're crushing them at every turn, it grants their arguments a legitimacy they don't deserve.
we need people to understand that they're not merely wrong, they're embarrassingly and dangerously wrong and they look like clowns at best when they advance such arguments.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Well our team is free to use my heart attack/hospital metaphor any time they want
kentuck
(111,103 posts)And the abuse of power that was exercised by King George III.