Impeachment Coming from Vermont, New Mexico and other States

Johnson, being from Tennessee, was in trouble as a result of that. It didn't sit well that a Southerner, even an anti-slavery Unionist like Johnson, was in the White House during the early years of reconstruction. There was a lot of resentment in the North as a result of the war and there were a lot of people around who felt the South needed a vicious punishment, and that Johnson would be too soft to deliver. So there was a political motivation behind his impeachment.

However, "misdemeanors and high crimes" are not the only requirements for impeachment. Incompetence is too, and that's a more subjective judgement that must be made. In spite of the uphill battle he already faced as a Tennessean in the White House, a lot of the damage Johnson inflicted on his crippled, doomed presidency was of his own doing. The post-Civil War depressions, both economic and psychological, led to one of the most grave, low points in national morale. American cities lay in ruins, tens of thousands were going hungry or dying of hunger, inflation was rampant, and selfish ambition and opportunism was interfering with reconstruction. Unemployment was on the rise, as was crime. There was fear that one of the European powers might take advantage of America's weakness. Johnson was both incompetent and powerless. Yes, he probably did deserve to be impeached and removed from office.

 

He WAS impeached! In the late 1860s, but fortunately he was not convicted and removed from office. The deciding vote of "NO!" was cast by one Edmund G. Ross, who said, "I looked down into my open grave!" He was correct. For his brave stand, the able and brilliant Ross was never elected to an office, again.

Ed

 

The Constitution (fortunately) says nothing of incompetence, as a basis for impeachmant and removal from office of an official. That is an entirely subjective 'charge', and could be leveled at any high government official one did not like or agree with.

Ed

 

And I don't think lying amounts to high crimes and misdemeanors. He's got Congress watching him now, and hopefully he won't do anything else stupid in the next year or so.

 

The President can be impeached, according to the constitution itself, for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. He can be removed from office only upon conviction of impeachment. By precedent, according to two Supreme Court rulings, failure to discharge the duties of office by "any elected or appointed official of the United States of America" is also grounds for impeachment and, upon conviction, removal from office. Those rulings were made in cases involving US Congressmen, but apply to the President, Vice President, Senators and Supreme Court justices as well.

Essentially, if there is support for it in Congress, articles of impeachment could be drawn up and voted on simply if a majority of members wanted to do it, regardless of what the reasoning would be. They could charge him with whatever crime they wanted to. The check on that power is the voting box. I'd say this particular Congress will be quite safe from any voter backlash should they opt to draw up and approve articles of impeachment against Cheney and Bush, and there will be plenty of high crimes and misdemeanors from which they can choose.

 

Let me get this straight:

The country was for the war. The congress voted to give the president permission to begin the war.

But, now a minority wants to impeach him for it?

 

Yes, Lyndon Baines

 

You know guys, I am not a fan of George Bush, but time used for things like this could be spent solving problems we have. Bush is not going to be impeached. He has less than two years left, a Democratic Congress, and a hostile public. Time will end his term much quicker than impeachment would ever work. All these legislators ought to be working on helping the American people and stop wasting our time and money.

 

==You have really got to know better than this. Sure there will be measures proposed to impeach Bush but none of them are going anywhere. Why? Because both parties are gearing up for 2008 and neither are interested in dragging the country through impeachment hearings. Also I don't think many democrats really want to see President Dick Cheney.

Besides I think all of this impeachment stuff is dangerous. A president should not be impeached unless he is clearly guilty of treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors. Making bad decisions is NOT a constitutional reason for impeachment. Being a poor president is NOT a constitutional reason for impeachment. And I am greatful that our founders knew better than to allow those things to be reasons for impeachment. Impeachment is becoming a very political thing. There will be people who want to impeach every president from this point forward and for what reason? They don't like his/her policies. Yet that is not good enough.

 

Politics.

I don't believe anyone that matters cares about state resolutions. They are recognized as what they are.

Politics.

 

While Bush and Cheney are treasonous and deserving of impeachment...what if impeachment and removal was succesful? President Nancy Pelosi?

 

There is no evidence at all of treasonous activities. It's a totally ridiculous assertion.

However, it is worth noting that impeachment is a political process and, if they have the votes, they can impeach the president for spitting on the sidewalk.
Even the Supreme Court can't stop them. Only the fear of public opinion can.

 

I wonder who of us will get what they deserve. When we lack appropriate fear in God we say such things. If God were to open up hell and let us take a look inside much like we will in the future I dare say we would not be so hateful or revengful. But walk with fear, trembling and humbleness. In the kingdom of God correction is not about getting what we deserve but it is about bringing the wayward child back to God. What we all deserve is eternity in hell.

Isaiah 66:24

And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

 

It's truly astounding how many people don't know what, according to the Constitution, "treason" consists of. :BangHead:

They prefer to remain ignorant of the facts as long as it suits their agenda.

 

Isn't subverting the U.S. Constitution an act of treason? How about merging Cananda the U.S. and Mexico into a North American Union without the consent of congress or the American people? What about illegal wire taps, condoning torture, soviet style national ID's, removing the protection of habeas corpus, arrests without warrants, indefinate imprisonment with no due process...etc, etc.

All this is so far from the principles this country was founded on how can it not be treason?

 

Only if opinions count.

 

You go ahead and keep dealing in opinions I'll stick with the facts.