Re: Why Bush Should Be Impeached, #84

a statute of limitations (or a judicially created equivalent, is only a
legal remedy, i.e., it only applies to criminal and civil judicial cases
(maybe some administrative law cases, as well, not sure about that).
Usually, there's no need for anything else, because only the judiciary tries
people and imposes sanctions (plus the administrative agencies, etc.)

But impeachment/conviction/removal is a legislative power, not a judicial
one.  And it is pretty much *exclusively* legislative, with damn near no
judicial oversight or remedy.

In one of the leading cases on the "impeachment" power, a Judge Walter Nixon
(no relation) sued over his conviction for impeachment in the Senate, and
his removal from office. His beef was that the Senate had delegated most of
the fact-finding, i.e., the "jury" function, to a committee, which then
reported (if I recall correctly) to the whole Senate for a vote.  Nixon
claimed that since the Constitution charges the Senate with "trial" of
impeachment, the *whole* Senate had to participate in the fact-finding, not
just some committee.

That is a pretty important claim, in that it invokes the sacred ideas of
jury trials, due process, and the interpretation of a key passage in the
Constitution -- direct interpretation as to what specific words mean, not
just their implications or reading-between-the-lines.  I'd say that these
issues are far more important than any implicated by either the question
whether a guy/girl can be impeached for crimes before office, or the
questions raised by any statutes of limitations (SOL)

So, what did the Court hold?  It invoked the "political question doctrine,"
one of the "non-justiciablility" doctrines it uses to get out of deciding
cases.  It said that the trial on impeachment power was granted by the
Constitution *exclusively* to the Senate, and that therefore the Court had
no power to decide the issue -- that inherently "political" questions like
this are for Congress and the people to hash out.  There was some talk about
how if the Senate decided they would try impeachments by a simple coin toss,
that *might* violate Due Process, but short of that Nixon was outta luck.

Anyway, the point is that given this precedent, even though I don't know for
sure about a case that addresses the "prior offense" question, I'm pretty
confident that it would be a "political question" and the Congress could do
whatever it wanted, absent some express Constitutional provision, of which
there are none.  That goes for the SOL, as well.

Pretty much what Kendall and Bij said, but with more words and jargon for
added pomposity!
> From: [email protected]
> Reply-To: bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:26:13 -0400
> To: bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Bonobos] Why Bush Should Be Impeached, #84
> 
> OK, maybe I was wrong about the rules... although I'm still looking for
> a definitive answer from an impartial party :-)
> Does the statute of limitations apply to impeachment?
> -Jack
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bparsia [mailto:bparsia-vEoVa6Jh+/J4piUD7e9S/[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 2:17 PM
> To: bonobos
> Cc: bparsia
> Subject: Re: [Bonobos] Why Bush Should Be Impeached, #84
> 
> 
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Michael Zara wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> I don't want to know about, much less agree with anything called
> "Bijan's
>>> thrust"... Egads!
>> 
>> actually, I think that will be the name of my new band: "Ladies and
>> Gentlemen, please welcome Bijan's Thrust!"
> 
> Even I don't want to go there.
> 
> Zoe would *kill* me if I suggested that name for a band of hers :)
> 
>>> Really? Gross violations of the law governing the use of
> international force
>>> isn't a high crime?
>> 
>> yes, but this is not what Clinton was impeached for.  That's my point
> about
>> abuse of the system.
> 
> Well, wait. I thought the discussion is whether Bush can be impeached
> for
> his "youthful evil". Jack's original point was "by the rules, you
> can't". He was wrong though I don't quite see where he admitted that ;)
> 
> That is, you can pretty much *impeach* the prez for whatever you
> want. Whether the trial will be successful is a different matter.
> Whether
> it's overall helpful or hurtful is yet another matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/2002
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bonobos maillist  -  Bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
> http://monkeyfist.com/mailman/listinfo/bonobos