06-09-2003 09:27									#31
	Put an end to popups!

However, look at it this way - if Congress wants to impeach someone, who will stop them? The courts? If Congress is really in the mood to get this guy out of office, all they have to do is threaten to impeach the Justices if they interfere.

	06-09-2003 09:29									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: July 27, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes the first of three articles of impeachment, charging obstruction of justice. August 8, 1974: Richard Nixon becomes the first U.S. president to resign. Vice President Gerald R. Ford assumes the country's highest office. He will later pardon Nixon of all charges related to the Watergate case.

Ahh! Thought I was right.

http://www.watergate.info/chronology/brief.shtml

	06-09-2003 09:30									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by skywalker However, look at it this way - if Congress wants to impeach someone, who will stop them? The courts? If Congress is really in the mood to get this guy out of office, all they have to do is threaten to impeach the Justices if they interfere.

Imagine the fantasy land of a congress where you could get 2/3 of the senators to rule against a president, without fearing electoral probems later in thier careers.....

	06-09-2003 09:31									#34
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by skywalker However, look at it this way - if Congress wants to impeach someone, who will stop them? The courts? If Congress is really in the mood to get this guy out of office, all they have to do is threaten to impeach the Justices if they interfere.

Well as long as you are talking about usurpation of Constitutional mandate...The President could issue an executive order eliminating Congress and The Court and then call in the Army to enforce it.

	06-09-2003 09:37									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Yeah, if any branch of gov. had the uper hand when it comes to unconstitutionally getting rid of others, its the executive.

Poor, poor court..lets give them an army just to be fair.

	06-09-2003 10:04									#36
	Increase Your PM Length

Actually, I'd say sky is correct. Congress can impeach over anything it damn well pleases. If it can get the votes, it can do it... just call it a 'high crime' which is vague as Hell.

	06-09-2003 20:05									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Don't forget the Andrew Johnson case - he was nearly impeached for basically trying to fire one of his cabinet without Congressional approval. (Though I suspect that there were "legal" issues added into the impeachment charge).

	06-09-2003 20:09									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Hmm...Congress has the power of impeachment...The Executive Branch has the power of executive order...the judicial branch has legislative review. Is there a balance of power here or does one branch have more power than another? In practical terms it seems that the judiciary exercises its power more often.

	06-09-2003 21:42									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by PLATO GePap, IIRC the bill was out of commitee and was going to the floor when he quit. Its passage was considered a sure thing. Of course I was only 10 at the time so I could be wrong. It was really interesting seeing how upset all the adults were over what was happening.

Three of five articles of impeachment were voted out of the House Judiciary Committee, two with strong bipartisan support, and one on a near party line vote. After Alexander Butterfield's testimony about the tape system, Nixon was in trouble, but he would only have gotten a 5-3 adverse ruling from SCOTUS, until he had some of his hatchet men suggest that the Executive Branch wasn't obligated to comply with the judiciary's rulings on Executive Privilege.

That pissed off SCOTUS and the challenge to judicial authority guaranteed Nixon a unanimous ruling against. Coupled with the Saturday Night Massacre, and then the contents of the tapes themselves, Nixon made it virtually impossible for his supporters to stick with him.

When he resigned, if was after some of his advisors told him that a quiet, informal caucus of the Republican membership in the House showed only about 15% could be counted on to support him against the two most damning articles of impeachment. At that point, Nixon realized he was doomed.

BTW, for the Boris-skywalker tiff, the question of whether a President could be impeached for utter incompetence was researched in the time of Millard Fillmore, and the conclusion reached was that some degree of criminal malfeasance was needed.

	06-09-2003 21:45									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Sharpe Don't forget the Andrew Johnson case - he was nearly impeached for basically trying to fire one of his cabinet without Congressional approval. (Though I suspect that there were "legal" issues added into the impeachment charge).

Technically, Johnson was impeached for a "crime" not for removing the officer in question. The Congress wanted to tie Johnson's hands, and passed a (flagrantly unconstitutional) act that required consent of Congress, to remove any Executive officer whose appointment had been approved by Congress.

Thus Johnson was impeached for violation of that law.

	06-09-2003 21:45									#41
	Remove this text

Congress impeached Andrew Johnson for, essentially, using his veto too damn often. They failed to convict him in the Senate by one vote.

In theory, yes, you need to have committed a crime, but in practice, if 1/2 of Congress and 2/3 of Senate really, really, doesn't like you, you're toast.

EDIT: Oops, someone said this already!

	06-09-2003 21:48									#42
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Technically, Johnson was impeached for a "crime" not for removing the officer in question. The Congress wanted to tie Johnson's hands, and passed a (flagrantly unconstitutional) act that required consent of Congress, to remove any Executive officer whose appointment had been approved by Congress. Thus Johnson was impeached for violation of that law.

Mtg, If that law had been later overturned and Johnson had been dismissed as President, what would the Constitution guide us to do?

	06-09-2003 21:52									#43
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat BTW, for the Boris-skywalker tiff, the question of whether a President could be impeached for utter incompetence was researched in the time of Millard Fillmore, and the conclusion reached was that some degree of criminal malfeasance was needed.

Ah, good ol' Millard. Not many chaps named Millard about these days!

And MtG rests my case.

	06-09-2003 21:54									#44
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Actually, I'd say sky is correct. Congress can impeach over anything it damn well pleases. If it can get the votes, it can do it... just call it a 'high crime' which is vague as Hell.

Vague, but still controlled by the term "crime" The real issue is that the House does not have any standards of conduct or law placed upon it similar to standards which apply to a grand jury or prosecutor in a grand jury proceeding - that is, there's no minumum standard of evidence, no special ethical rules, nothing at all - so a hostile House can stretch as far as it wants regarding what is evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, but they must at least allege some act that can be described as a high crime or misdemeanor. It should be pretty clear that by associating the vague statement with treason and bribery, in the same listing of offenses, that the Framers intended that some gravity of offense was necessary, and not, for example, double parking your horse and buggy.

	06-09-2003 22:01									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: so a hostile House can stretch as far as it wants regarding what is evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, but they must at least allege some act that can be described as a high crime or misdemeanor

Exactly... but as the Johnson affair showed us, Congress can make just about anything into a 'high crime'. Those Senators voting to kick Johnson out didn't care that he dismissed Stanton, but instead because they hated his adminstration.

	06-09-2003 22:01									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by PLATO Mtg, If that law had been later overturned and Johnson had been dismissed as President, what would the Constitution guide us to do?

Impeachment and removal are not judicial proceedings and are not appealable, so my assumption is that the removal would stand, but the act in question would be overturned, and thus not useable in the future.

What is more interesting, because AFAIK, it's a huge gap in the Constitution (since the Framers never really intended judicial review ), is what happens if a sitting President under threat of impeachment goes to the judiciary seeking a ruling on the law in question and a stay of the impeachment or trial.

Traditionally, the judiciary most often takes the approach that disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches are "political" and beyond judicial review. That's somewhat gutless, but practical because the judiciary can't really afford to seriously piss off the rest of the government.

	06-09-2003 22:03									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: so a hostile House can stretch as far as it wants regarding what is evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, but they must at least allege some act that can be described as a high crime or misdemeanor Exactly... but as the Johnson affair showed us, Congress can make just about anything into a 'high crime'. Those Senators voting to kick Johnson out didn't care that he dismissed Stanton, but instead because they hated his adminstration.

They had to contrive a law that Johnson would violate, in order to create a "high crime" and they couldn't do it ex post facto. They had to draw a line for Johnson to cross after they drew it.

	07-09-2003 00:47									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by mrmitchell Honestly, I don't give a **** about who Bill, George, or anyone is screwing, just as long as they can do their job good.

But Clinton's "private matter" did prevent him from doing his job. Read the book "Losing Bin Laden". If Clinton had been doing his job instead of getting a blowjob, 9-11 might not have happened!

	07-09-2003 00:49									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Even if the judiciary was inclined to strike down a law being used to impeach and remove a president, they would most likely judge the mood of Congress first. Congress has in the past, told the SCOTUS to back off or watch its power be stripped (which Congress can legally do, except for what is given to SCOTUS in the Constitution). That's what SCOTUS stepped aside and let Johnson be impeashed on a clearly unconstitutional law.

As for the initial question, it is unlikely that Watergate could happen again today. It was a product of its times, in which a large section of the populace was very angry and suspicious of the government (due to the war and civil rights). Furthermore, neither party today has the integrity to take on a President from their own party, and the Dem's don't have enough spine yet to take on a Republican president. On the other hand, we've seen to what lengths the Republicans will go to get a Democratic president.

	07-09-2003 00:51									#50
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat But Clinton's "private matter" did prevent him from doing his job. Read the book "Losing Bin Laden". If Clinton had been doing his job instead of getting a blowjob, 9-11 might not have happened!

Losing Bin Laden is F.o.S. It repeats disproven allegations as if they were still fact. The Republicans are more at fault for crippling the Clinton presidency, which hampered his abilty to do his job.

	07-09-2003 00:51									#51
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat But Clinton's "private matter" did prevent him from doing his job. Read the book "Losing Bin Laden". If Clinton had been doing his job instead of getting a blowjob, 9-11 might not have happened!

If the thesis of that book is that Clinton's sexual deliances prevented him from hunting Bin Laden, permit me to laugh at it right now. Is that really what the book says, or are you drawing an unwarranted conclusion about why Clinton didn't do some things?

Even if one were to accept as true that Clinton was negligent in pursuing Bin Laden, proving such carelessness was a result of his chasing skirt would be pretty much impossible. After all, it didn't prevent him from being very active about other policy matters during his presidency, so asserting it just affected him in regards to terrorism is absurd.

	07-09-2003 01:10									#52
	Suffering from ads?

Nixon resigned after the revelation of the smoking gun. At that point, Goldwater came to him and said that he had only twenty votes in the Senate. He was counting on 34. When he got the news, he resigned.

The greatest question is whether there will be another Deep Throat. Deep Throat is the person who unravelled the Nixon Presidency.

And what would we call Deep Throat today?

(BTW, does the term Deep Throat imply that the person was either a woman or a gay?)

	07-09-2003 01:14									#53
	Inflate your Upload Space

In 1926, it was ruled unconstitional.

BTW, misdemenor has two meanings: a class of crimes and misbehaviour.

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat But Clinton's "private matter" did prevent him from doing his job. Read the book "Losing Bin Laden". If Clinton had been doing his job instead of getting a blowjob, 9-11 might not have happened!

Bush was in the White House for almost a year before 9/11, what was he doing all that time - taking English classes?

	07-09-2003 01:15									#54
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Losing Bin Laden is F.o.S. It repeats disproven allegations as if they were still fact. The Republicans are more at fault for crippling the Clinton presidency, which hampered his abilty to do his job.

If Watergate happended today, the radio talk shows would all be mocking the Democrats' claims of a rightwing conspiracy, the Justice Department would bury all investigations, and the witnesses would be held in protective custody for national-security reasons. Oh yeah, somehow it would all be Bill Clinton's fault.

	07-09-2003 01:17									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov If the thesis of that book is that Clinton's sexual deliances prevented him from hunting Bin Laden, permit me to laugh at it right now. Is that really what the book says, or are you drawing an unwarranted conclusion about why Clinton didn't do some things?

No, the book does not say that Clinton's sexual deliances prevented him from fighting terrorism.

I am saying that it was highly irresponsible for Clinton to be having sexual excapades when he knew that a 9-11 style attack was a possibility.

I am simply saying that as President, he should have done more to protect the American people instead of having sex with Lewinsky all the time!

quote: Even if one were to accept as true that Clinton was negligent in pursuing Bin Laden, proving such carelessness was a result of his chasing skirt would be pretty much impossible. After all, it didn't prevent him from being very active about other policy matters during his presidency, so asserting it just affected him in regards to terrorism is absurd.

Well, it is an undisputed fact that Clinton was utterly negligent in pursuing terrorism.

White House documents clearly show that the Clinton administration knew that Bin Laden was behind the WTC bombing and the USS Cole bombing. Yemen government offered to help the FBI capture Bin Laden, and Clinton turn them down for political reasons. To refuse to pursue a terrorist like Bin Laden purely for political reasons, especially when you know he is a such a dangerous threat to America, that is utterly irresponsable!

	07-09-2003 01:19									#56
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat Well, it is an undisputed fact that Clinton was utterly negligent in pursuing terrorism.

Actually, it's quite disputed. That's why we're disputing it.

	07-09-2003 01:27									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat No, the book does not say that Clinton's sexual deliances prevented him from fighting terrorism.

Well then, at least it isn't egregiously stupid, as opposed to:

quote: I am saying that it was highly irresponsible for Clinton to be having sexual excapades when he knew that a 9-11 style attack was a possibility. I am simply saying that as President, he should have done more to protect the American people instead of having sex with Lewinsky all the time!

This doesn't make much sense, because if Clinton knew everything he is believed to and was not acting on it, it doesn't matter what else he was doing. His negligence would be a thing unto itself, not dependent on what else he was doing at the time.

Regardless, this isn't what you initially asserted. You said that his sexual behavior was precluding him somehow from acting, which is a far cry than what you're saying above. You've offered zero evidence that the blowjobs in the White House negatively effected his job performance as President in any way.

quote: Well, it is an undisputed fact that Clinton was utterly negligent in pursuing terrorism.

It is being disputed. As realpolitic pointed out, it's kind of amusing you'd accuse Clinton of being negligent, when Bush not only had the exact same information, but also inherited from the Clinton Administration strong recommendations in pursuing Bin Laden and dealing with Al Queda, which Bush & Co. summarily ignored before 9/11 bit them on the ass. It certainly is baffling as to why Bush sent Powell to the Taliban with over a hundred million dollars in "aid" to help "fight drugs" when he knew, as Clinton did, their connection to Bin Laden.

If you think Clinton was negligent, you have to think Bush was even moreso.

	07-09-2003 01:38									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov but also inherited from the Clinton Administration strong recommendations in pursuing Bin Laden and dealing with Al Queda, which Bush & Co. summarily ignored before 9/11 bit them on the ass.

If Clinton made all these strong recommendations to Bush, then why didn't Clinton just act on his own recommendations and take Bin Laden out himself? Why wait 8 years to recommend that the next president do something?

	07-09-2003 01:45									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat If Clinton made all these strong recommendations to Bush, then why didn't Clinton just act on his own recommendations and take Bin Laden out himself? Why wait 8 years to recommend that the next president do something?

That's not the issue--if you want to assume negligence, go ahead. If so, it still won't absolve the Bush Administration from being just as negligent, perhaps even moreso. However, it is indisputable the intelligence and recommendations were passed on:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/n...ml?pagewanted=1

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...nes-osama_x.htm

	07-09-2003 01:50									#60
	Tired of ads?

Let's this say that Watergate happend because Nixon was an out-of-control political animal. He had a hate list, for God's sake. He was willing to commit burglaries and to use the government to cover up his crimes. The closest we have see to such political extremism in recent years is Hilary Clinton - the FBI files, the billing records, Travel Gate, and the rest. She is an extremist, just as was Nixon. Bush simply is not in their class, IMHO. Neither was Bill Clinton.