Question about impeachment, please respond if you know..

Can the entire administration be impeached at once?..Given all of the evidence of corruption coming to the forefront now, can we just impeach the whole lot of them and what are the provisions for doing such a thing?...can we have a special election?

it is my greatest hope that this can be accomplished but I always read about the chain of order and that is just not good enough...please respond and forgive if this has been discussed already...I just have a renewed hope that we can actually do something now...

than one at a time.

With a Republican dominated Congress and Senate?

pull away seeing that support of Bush** will hurt them in their elections it might. With Delay no longer heading things his power is diminished and there could be enough at some point to do this. It remains to be seen but remember Nixon. Remember Watergate.

I do not hold out a lot of hope for this but it could happen, if things are bad enough for them.

:hi:

Here's to a long relationship with DU!

:toast:

We have to take back the House and Senate and make sure we can get the impeachment hearings on everything that has happened since 2000. The truth about 9/11, 2004 election, Iraq, Halliburton tradings etc. There's so much we have to get justice for.

If a president is impeached can his appointments (particularly SCOTUS) be rescinded or at least reviewed?


One can only hope.

made by a proven corrupt adminsitration...

Just off the top of my head here but...once the Dems take back control, maybe the SCOTUS is where we should put our energies with impeachment, since they have a lifelong appointment...

Cat In Seattle

malfeasance. Difficult to prove in a scotus justice.

We have to get those papers I think still. There could be something important in there that we deserve to know if he is going to be ruiling over our lives. Why else would they not release these papers?

poor people, women and others who don't need any special help and should stand on their own sinking escape boat, ala Cuban refugee style.
A big part of the unwillingness to release papers is an attempt to make dem heads explode.
In my opinion, every thing those candidates for scotus have said or written right back to high school should be a part of the public record. We should not have to buy a pig in a poke to get a supreme court justice.

from someone who knows or from a knowledgeable person on DU, everybody responds anyhow. Get used to it. Seems to me that impeachments will be in 2007 after the 2006 elections if there is still a country left by then. Solution to Supreme Court is to pack the Court like Roosevelt wanted to. That's my two cents worth and I am no more knowledgeable than the next guy, although I did graduate from law school and have a Master's in history.

just a quick question..looks like * is going to succeed in packing the court...but if he gets impeached...and certainly if Delay and Frist and Rove and Libby, Cheney and others get indicted and convicted ..can any of these appointments be reversed?..are there any provisions for the will of the people?

to get his programs through. That's what I meant, increase the size of the Court to neutralize Bush's appointments.

1) No, an entire administration cannot be impeached at once
2) No, there is no provision for confirmed appointments to be reviewed if a president is impeached and convicted

Short of an armed revolution, Republicans will retain control of the White House until January 2009 at the earliest.

We could possibly retake both the house and senate in 2006 but it is highly unlikely. Even if we do, convincing enough Republicans to vote to convict George Bush etc. is totally unrealistic.

Suck it up. I hated Ronald Reagan more than anyone in my lifetime and I survived 8 years of him (I'm still not sure how, but I did). We will all survive George W. Bush.

I would love to see the whole bunch thrown out of office today but, due to our constitution, thats simply not possible.

somewhere in my heart i had hoped that the framers had provided for an emergency government in the event our government was held hostage by crooks and liars.and worse..treasonous warmongers...something obscure which addressed the will of the people..

This is far, far worse. Reagan started our country down the road of 'mourning' in America. If the Bush crime family stays in office, they will take us down the road to the end. I don't care if impeachement of them all before his term is up is unlikely to happen, we've got to make it happen, for our very survival as a country. Impeach every single one of them, including Hastert, who has been implicated in Sibel Edmunds accusations. A massive letter writing campaign to every Republican House and Senate member, outlining their slim to none chances of being reelected unless they take care of the people who elected them and demand impeachment proceedings and/or resignations from tainted administration members. I can't stand the defeatist attitude that we have to wait until 2006, or 2009 to rid ourselves of these parasites. If Fitzgerald has these people on treasonous charges, how in the hell can they even remotely expect to stay in office??? We can take our country back from these thugs, and we haven't got the luxury of waiting, they are destroying America every last minute they stay in office.

In our Declaration of Independence, it says right there that if a government is not working it should be ABOLISHED:

Quoted here:


"...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed when a long train of abuses and usurpations,pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,it is their right,it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government..."

Emphasis is mine - Cat

Nothing more need to be said....

Cat In Seattle

a violent revolution..just that we must all demand every crook be held accountable..and then a vision of a way to end this nightmare...there is so much corruption and i truly believe that the solid support for this administration is between 13-17%...the ball is rolling now but it appears we have no solutions other than to wait and allow more of the same until the next election and i just cant believe thats all we can do...just look at the mess they've already created..cant even imagine what more can be destroyed in the us and around the world in a couple more years...

But in the real political world in which we live, Republican Senators like Lott, Cochran, Vitter, Bennett, Brownback, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn,
Cornyn, Craig, Crapo, Demint, Dole,, Domenici, Ensign, Enzi, Graham, Grassley, Gregg, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Isaakson, Kyle, Luger, Martinez, McConnell, Murkowski, Roberts, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Stevens, Sununu, Thomas, Thune, Warner and, probably, McCain will never vote to impeach this president. Never. And they don't care because they have safe seats in red states. Thats 39 senators, well over the 34 needed to avoid conviction. Even then, I'm leaving out the wimps like Spector, Chafee, Collins, Snow, Voinovich and Dewine who'd probably goose-step on over to Bush's side. The reality is, unless Bush is caught in bed with a live woman or a dead man, he will hold office until January 2009.

"If" Fitzgerald has the goods, then maybe he can take down a couple of members of the administration but not enough to make any significant difference. Its not defeatist, its realistic to say that the only way to retake the White House before 2009 is armed and violent revolution. I'm not ready to get behind that idea, and I don't think anyone with any real grasp of reality expects that outcome.

It makes me sick too, but I'd rather spend my limited time, energies and money working for something I actually believe could happen-taking back the house in 2006, gaining senate seats in 2006, and electing a Democratic president in 2008.

I was listening to Thom Hartmann the other day and he took a call from an activist. This caller said that he had been an activist in politics for decades and that few people realized what an effect a letter writing campaign, or phone calls to representatives actually have. He said he had seen changes take place at the local level from just a few dozen phone calls or letters. Imagine what a concentrated massive, organized, focused letter writing campaign could do at a national level. The problem is that most Americans, and we are the majority, despite their disgust and horror at the Bush administrations destructive reign, feel that they have little power to affect change, Hell, even Barbara Boxer said she had received 20K phone calls to her offices right after the election and that that helped her make her decision to contest the election results in Ohio this time around. Of course working on campaigns for progressive candidates and taking back the house is vital but all I'm saying is we don't have the luxury of time to do only that. Hell, unless we let the Republicans know that no amount of vote tampering will save them in 2006 because we will vote against them in a landslide, they will continue to act as if they are invincible. Our job is to tell them they are NOT invincible. The Republican Senators you mention can't really be sure of their secure red state status if they hear from thousands of constituents, hell, millions of constituents saying otherwise. As Bushes poll numbers slide, can they really be so certain of their own survival as Senators no matter what. Just what is the tipping point?

BTW, violent revolution would suit Jr.'s crime syndicate just fine, they'd just declare martial law and round everybody up.

Also, I'm hoping and praying every day that Fitz has got the goods on everyone, straight up the food chain to the oval office. Will Republicans in the House and Senate be able to ignore TREASON in their executive branch. I don't see how.

I wasn't around during Nixon, but I survived Reagan. Reagan did so much damage. These people are so much worse. We can't wait any longer. We must act now.

BTW, you can always try this:

www.recallthecongress.com

Unilateral congressional contracts. That might work.

I think it must be an elective in this brave new world.

Similar to the Executive Branch, it sets a pretty high bar in terms of required votes for conviction, but it can be done.

Here is a link to an article that discusses it as it pertains to the Judicial Branch:

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/fitschen.html

Section three is of particular interest because it lays out (in chart format!) a list of impeachments and the ultimate result.


One excerpt from this article:

"One of the most intriguing aspects of the history of impeachment in America is that no judge has ever been impeached for some of the behaviors that citizens are the most concerned about. As they are today, in the wake of the Romer decision, Americans have often been concerned about judicial activism, judicial tyranny, evolutionary jurisprudence, rendering unconstitutional opinions, and the like. Indeed, at least one opponent of the current impeachment movement, Bruce Fein, has made much of this fact.

However, there are several historical reasons why impeachment has never been attempted for these offenses. In 1803-1805, President Thomas Jefferson attempted to use impeachment as a political weapon against Federalist judges. Jefferson, and those pursuing impeachment in the House, properly understood that "high crimes and misdemeanors" was an elastic term, designed to encompass unindictable offenses. However, they abused the process by attempting to circumvent the limits the Framers intended for the term.

History is the best guide to understanding why the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" was chosen. History also demonstrates that Jefferson went beyond the Framers’ intent when he sought to use impeachment to remove federal judges simply because they belonged to the opposing political party. Anyone who seeks to do the same today would be guilty of the same error. However, anyone who seeks to remove tyrannical federal judges would use the tool of impeachment exactly as intended by the Framers..."


I know it isn't exactly what anyone wants to hear, especially, but it IS pretty interesting stuff.



Laura

Pretty much sums it up huh? I do not think it is right to impeach a judge for being of the opposing party, but I do think it is right to impeach one for being tyrannical activist, which Roberts certainly has been. Such as, going down to Florida to stop the vote count? Being part of an impeachment himself over a lie about a blow job? Belonging to right wingnut societies where he has been a charter member that seeks to take away the rights of women and minorities? Uhhhh, if this is not tyrannical activism, nothing is...

My two cents...

Cat in Seattle

POTUS appeal.

http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Aug/1/130987.html

<snip>
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that judicial review of a Presidential impeachment is Constitutionally possible, where would such judicial review begin? Would it begin by the President filing suit in a United States District Court? If so, and relief were denied by the United States District Court, the President would have a right of appeal to a Circuit Court of Appeals, but might only have a right to review by the United States Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari. Thus, the Supreme Court could deny certiorari, and avoid ruling on the issue entirely.

But what if the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction over the review of a Presidential impeachment? After all, there were no inferior Federal Courts at the time the Constitution was created. The only Federal Court discussed al all in the Constitution is the Supreme Court. Could the President file suit against the Senate in the Supreme Court itself? And what of the possibility that, even if there is an avenue for judicial review, the "political question" doctrine which prevents Courts from deciding matters which are inherently political, rather then legal would be used to avoid ruling on the central issue? See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).

All of these questions remain unanswered at present.

Republican do NOT vote to impeach Republicans. Even if we win the house back in 06, there would still be the trial in the Senate.

A conviction in the Senate REQUIRES a 2/3 majority. That is 67 votes. There is NO WAY that we are going to be able to win a 2/3 majority in the Senate in 06. Just can't happen.

Therefore, removal by impeachment is just a fantasy. Maybe you can buy a ticket to see O'Rourke.

Moreover, I assume by "administration" you mean "the right wing bastards."

Unfortunately, they do seem to own the Senate and House. And, what's more, those are the ones who actually count; the ones who pass laws and give Bush powers. And I highly doubt that they would vote to impeach themselves.