Re: Why Bush Should Be Impeached, #84

I don't believe that there is reason a Pres. couldn't be impeached for
offenses occurring before he "took" office.  ;-)

I'm not aware of any cases, and besides, the impeachment process is given
over by the constitution to Congress' sole discretion.  Any S.Ct. case on
point would likely rule that it was a nonjusticiable issue -- they couldn't
decide it because it was a "political question" that involved the plenary
authority of a co-ordinate branch of gov't.



> From: Kendall Grant Clark <kendall-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]>
> Reply-To: bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:09:11 -0500
> To: bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Bonobos] Why Bush Should Be Impeached, #84
> 
>>>>>> "jack" == Jack Bornstein <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> jack> Ummm... you can't impeach a president for something he did long before
> jack> assuming office.  You might as well have impeached Clinton for smoking
> jack> pot in college.  -Jack
> 
> What makes you think that a president cannot be impeached for high crimes or
> misdemeanors which occurred before the term of presidency?
> 
> I can't find anything in the Constitution which states or implies such a
> view. The only thing I can imagine would matter is a Supreme Court decision or
> injunction directly on point, and I'm not aware of any such.
> 
> U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4 says,
> 
> The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
> shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
> Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
> 
> That's just about the Constitution says about impeachment, save for the bit
> about it being the House's sole responsibility. As we've seen, the House has
> amazing latitude in pursuing impeachment. I take it that it's merely customary
> and not obligatory that impeachment and trial proceedings take place under the
> guise of common law and tradition.
> 
> And, more to the point than marijuana usage, I take it that all the special
> prosecutor inquiry into Whitewater was intended to create a bill of
> impeachment,
> had it amounted to anything at all.
> 
> But, fine, let's imagine a different case altogether; imagine a president is
> elected, and the electorate only later discovers that the president had formed
> an alliance with a foreign power, say Israel, but had not yet acted upon that
> alliance. I don't know that treason is purely a crime of intent, i.e., I don't
> think one is guilty of the crime of treason simply by virtue of forming the
> intent to commit a treasonous act. Surely that president could be impeached
> and
> convicted without having to have committed the treasonous act?
> 
> Or, even simpler, suppose that it were discovered that Bush, during his
> drunken
> frat boy days, had committed vehicular manslaughter, which had been neatly
> covered up by the local Texas political machine. Would that not constitute an
> impeachable condition? Or, even more realistically, suppose it were determined
> beyond doubt that Bush had only *pretended* to review requests for clemency
> and
> other death warrant materials while he was governor of Texas? Suppose some
> journal were discovered in which he bragged about being able to sign death
> warrants and deny clemency in total, willful ignorance of the details of each
> case? In other words, gross and substantive incompetence and dereliction of
> official duties, which lead to the deaths of more than 150 people deprived of
> due process?
> 
> Kendall
> _______________________________________________
> Bonobos maillist  -  Bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
> http://monkeyfist.com/mailman/listinfo/bonobos