Talk:Impeachment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

Looking at the word "impeachment", it appears that its root word is "peach". I'm curious as to how (if at all) this name is related to the fruit. Does anyone know the etymology of this word? –radiojon 01:51, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

It's from the old French, "empeechier," meaning, "to hinder." It has nothing to do with peaches! -- 213.145.133.175 06:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Congress Is Subject to Impeachment

Members of Congress ARE SUBJECT to impeachment and I have updated the page to reflect this fact, as indicated by U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 4. Please do not mistake expulsion for impeachment; they are two different processes by which the conduct of Members of Congress can be called to account for misbehavior. And while impeachment of Members is rare, it is still legally possible.69.141.72.212 20:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)jac

During the impeachment trial of Senator Blount, it was argued that the House of Representatives did not have the power to impeach members of either House of Congress; though the Senate never explicitly ruled on this argument, the House has never again impeached a member of Congress. The Constitution allows either House to expel one of its members by a two-thirds vote, which the Senate had done to Blount on the same day the House impeached him (but before the Senate heard the case). (From Impeachment in the United States.)

Twelve other judges

The article used to say that Associate Justice Salmon Chase and "eleven other federal judges" have been impeached. It now says twelve, but cites no source, and the impeachment in the United States article has not been updated with any details. I couldn't find any recent federal impeachments with Google. Can anyone confirm this? Richard75 21:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I am updating the article now with a complete listing of all impeachments tried by the Senate (totally 17) and including the appropriate number of judges (Source is the ...U.S. Senate Archives.) JasonCNJ 03:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Using that source I found the name of the omitted judge and added him to the Impeachment in the US article. Richard75 11:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Congress and Impeachment...again

I have a problem with the source used to support the idea that Members of Congress are not "officers of the United States" and thus are not subject to impeachment..

The source listed is the testimony of M. Miller Baker, a partner in a prominent DC law firm with extensive experience in government (Office of Legal Policy under Reagan, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah).

However distinguished his resume, though, the testimony he presents is just that ....his viewpoint. He cites no decision or finding by any Court or by any Congress or committee that ever stated Members of Congress are not "Officers" under the meaning of the Constitution. In fact, by passing the 1947 President Succession Act, Congress seems to be on the record directly opposing his viewpoint.

While I attempt to find evidence supporting an assertion that Members of Congress are subject to impeachment (although I do submit the fact that the House already did it is enough), I would like to change the section to read that there is dispute and no firm evidence either way on whether or not Members of Congress are subject to impeachment.

I am eager to hear the thoughts of others. JasonCNJ 20:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I find Baker's argument to be compelling, I agree that this issue has not been decisively resolved and that the article should say that there is dispute about this. Richard75 21:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the article to indicate evidence of a dispute. JasonCNJ 05:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Returning to Impeaching Congressmen

For what it is worth: According to THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION, prepared by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and identified as Senate Document 108-17 (found on line at: http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/ ), "While the language of section 4 covers any ‘‘civil officer’’ in the executive branch, 762 and covers judges as well, 763 it excludes military officers, 764 and the precedent was early established that it does not apply to members of Congress. 765" The footnote to this reads: "765 This point was established by a vote of the Senate holding a plea to this effect good in the impeachment trial of Senator William Blount in 1797. 3 HINDS’ PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES §§ 2294-2318 (1907); F. WHARTON, STATE TRIALS OF THE UNITED STATES DURING THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF WASHINGTON AND ADAMS 200-321 (1849); BUCKNER F. MELTON, JR., THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT: THE CONSTITUTION’S FRAMERS AND THE CASE OF SENATOR WILLIAM BLOUNT (1998)."

So, it would appear that the thought of the Congressional Research Service is that the House cannot impeach members of Congress. Frankly, I tend to agree with this conclusion, especially in light of the fact that they are not directly mentioned, and the fact that the text discussing "civil officer"s is found in Article II, which covers the Executive, not the Legislative. However, one has to admit that Judges are covered by Article III, yet it is quite agreed that they may be impeached, presumably for behaviour that is not "good." Doug 03:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my claims on the Impeachment in the U.S. talk page and disagree with your assessment. Additionally, it does not appear that the "precedent was early established" that Members of Congress were exempt from impeachment, as the CRS report states. Further, I have yet to see any evidence - the footnote notwithstanding - that shows the Senate made a definitive statement on the propriety of impeachment of Members of Congress. And even assuming arguendo the Senate made that finding, the power of impeachment is solely in the House of Representatives. The conclusions of the Senate on the House's power may be interesting, but they are not binding upon the House of Representatives and whom the House may choose to impeach. Given how you mentioned that the provision covers Article III judges, I think we should discard any suggestion that the provision doesn't apply to Congress simply because of its placement in Article II. JasonCNJ 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

UK Impeachment after reform of Lord Chancellorship

Would the Lord Chancellor continue to preside over an impeachment trial, or would it now be the Lord Speaker ? 85.210.161.111 18:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not the Lord Chancellor, since he is no longer Speaker or a judge. However it is likely that they would want a judge to preside, rather than a politician like the Lord Speaker, so they might appoint a judge to the position of Lord High Steward and get him to preside. Chances are that only the law lords would be involved (at least until they are removed from the House of Lords to form the new Supreme Court). Richard75 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Where in the Constitution does it say that the House has the sole power to impeach?

Please Clarify where in the Constitution does it state that Impeachments occur solely in the House? I understand that Article I, Sec. 3, Cl. [6] states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." (U.S. Const. Art. I). However, I cannot find any language in the Constitution which states that Impeachments must occur only in the House? Please cite to the Constitution or binding legal authority. Missourimorris 20:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)missourimorrs

I'm sorry you couldn't find it. You should check out Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 which states: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." You can view those words on the Constitution's Wikipedia entry or the Constitution's page at Cornell Law School.

Article 1 section 8 Gives Congress all the power. They have the power not just to Impeach, but to set up tribunals and in the current climate of judicial and justice corruption remove all the loyalists in the justice department who weren't asked to resign. They could courtmartial and remove the President when after a declaration of war he has been called to active service as Commander in Chief and becomes part of the military. Congress has the sole power of removal specified in the Constitution. Short of removal of individuals they can cut funding for offices. They have the sole power of legislation and if they decide they need to make the extent of their power clearer to the Supreme Court they might decide it only needs four justices, or at a later date decide it needs eleven. Rktect 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If Congress wanted to it could react to a presidents Contempt for its supoenas by turning the White House into a post office and give the president a desk in the basement to work out of. They could cancel funds for the selective service.

Impeachment class simulation

[Reformated hdg (was not a section) & Steps moved from unrelated section of article.]

Step One: Class decides what official to impeach, and forms groups for the official who is being impeached and who is in the house and the senate, and if necessary, the justices of the Supreme Court.

Step Two: The group who is the House passes the articles of impeachment (which are either formed by the class ahead of time or by the teacher). This is done by a simple majority vote. For the executive branch, the Articles of impeachment should only include charges of treason, bribery or other high crimes such as kidnapping torture, murder holding without rendition, premptive war, treason,and misdemeanors.

Misdeameanors would include lying to Congress, incompetence, corruption of purpose where the Executive Branch attempts to encroach upon the powers of Congress, contempt of Congress, Obstruction of Justice, jaywalking, parking in a no parking zone and other such minor offenses... For the Judicial Branch, the Articles may include anything that is not considered “good behavior” such as decisions not in the best interests of We the People. The official is not officially impeached.Rktect 05:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Step Three: After the Articles of Impeachment are passed, the Senate holds a trial. If the defendant is the President, then the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides.

This exercise does not have a clear place in the article, and may have no proper place in the article space. Wiki (Text)books? Wiki source?
--Jerzy•t 03:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional Comments

I've just removed the following from the article as it seem better suited for the talk page (Davorg 16:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)):

E.g if blair was impeached - he would be placed under arrest for war crimes -if he was found guilty he would go to prison. The fact he is inprisonned would mean that he could no-longer be a part of govenment office.

if this is wrong tell me: bob@bonski.co.uk

The fact that he was impeached would mean that he could no-longer hold govenment office. Rktect 05:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I would like to know which two US presidents were impeached. I'm going to guess Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. More explanation? DJ Clayworth

You are correct each one was was impeach by the House of Reps and than acquited by the Senate. Johnson I believe was acquited by one vote. Nixon resign before the House started the processSmith03 16:26, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The article states: The hearing for removal is conducted in the Senate and in the case of the impeachment of a President or Vice-President the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States presides over the proceedings. The Constitution, however, only provides that the Chief Justice preside when the President is being impeached. I would be interested to know how it arises that the same may be the situation when the Vice President is impeached. Lord Emsworth 04:44, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

There is a rule at common law that no man may be judge in his own case: nemo judex in sua causa, which might prevent the Vice President from presiding over his own trial. The United States inherited common law from Great Britain and so the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution could be interpreted as incorporating nemo judex into the Constitution. It may be the case that the Founding Fathers did not think of this possibility arising, but it is also possible that they took it for granted that the VP could not preside over his iwn trial and thought it was so self-evident that it was not worth mentioning. Richard75 21:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wishing Doesn't Make It So

I just reverted an edit that had changed a sentence in the U.S. section to read the House has initiated impeachment proceedings 62 times "(most recently against George W. Bush)" because, much to the dismay of many, the House of Representatives has not initiated impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush. Outgoing Rep. Cynthia McKinney, on the last day the House will be in session, introduced a resolution to impeach the President, but with the 109th Congress adjourned sine die in the next 24-36 hours that resolution will expire and will never be considered by the House. Most certainly, the House could not be said to have begun impeachment proceedings on the President. Impeachment proceedings are a series of votes in the full House -- and that has NOT happened.

Perhaps if the House were to authorize the Judiciary Committee to investigate possible grounds for impeachment would I consider the edit as appropriate. And even that's stretching it.

I appreciate the idea, believe me, but let's keep this page as factual and non-partisan as we would expect an encyclopedia to be.

JasonCNJ 10:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Its impossible to be both factual and appear non partisan with this administrationRktect 05:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court Justice

The article states that "Chief Justice Samuel Chase in 1804" was impeached. This is incorrect. Salmon P. Chase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_P._Chase) was the Chief Justice in the mid-1800s. Samuel Chase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase) was an Associate justice who was impeached in 1804.

I have corrected this.

Can a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court be impeached for behavior while presiding at the trial of an impeached President? Rktect 05:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

after being impeached

Do impeachment and ensuing conviction legally prevent an elected official from holding public office in the future? Would impeachment without conviction have any legal effect on future public office holding? Grounce 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Impeachment without conviction has no legal effect and is of no legal consequence. Impeachment and conviction remove an officeholder from his position and permit the Senate, by majority vote, to prohibit that person from holding any office of honor or trust under the United States. If the Senate imposes that penalty, then the convicted person is ineligible from holding a federal position (appointed or elected) ever again. (They are still able to hold positions in State government.) If the Senate does not impose that penalty (the Senate chose this course of action with Judge Hastings) then the convicted official is eligible for federal office. (Judge Hastings later sought and won election to the House of Representatives, the body that had impeached him as a federal judge years earlier.) JasonCNJ 15:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What happens if a President, Vice President and Attorney General are impeached at the same time and the managers take it to trial in the Senate but don't manage to complete their proceedings before the next election?

If after aggresive interogation as permitted for those suspected of being evil doers under the Patriot Act, results in confessions... subsequently 21 Senators who heard the evidence lose their elections and are replaced and the votes of the new Senators find the President, Vice President and Attorney Gen guilty... presumably that would prevent them from holding office again and maybe affect ther legacy, but wouldn't they still have to be bound over for indictment before their war crimes trials could begin? Rktect 06:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your question is clearly POV and this talk page is a discussion about the article impeachment and not impeachment in general. To answer your first inquiry, the Senate as a "Court of Impeachment" holds a continuous calendar and its proceedings are not expired at the end of a Congress. If the House impeaches any person, that person will receive a trial in the Senate under its rules without regard for if the House has adjoured sine die or not. Your second question does not make any sense so I won't reply to it.

impeach

When was the last time a British Prime Minister was Impeached.......if ever?--62.253.96.40 07:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yet to happen to date, though there was recently an attempt against Blair --New Progressive 16:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who was the cabinet officer impeached in the U.S.? When?

William W. Belknap, Secretary of War 1876 Richard75 16:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody wrote anything about Nixon, wasn't he impeached? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.60.221 (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"It is widely accepted that had Nixon not resigned, his impeachment and removal from office would have been an inevitability." - this should be removed, since this is an opinion. Many legal scholars have opined that had Nixon faced down impeachment, he would NOT have been removed. Of course, we will never know. Which is why this should be removed.

2/3 sentence

If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

This is ambiguous at best. It reads to say that if 2/3 of senators do not vote guilty to one or more of the charges, it is an acquittal.

Does that mean 2/3 of senators voting not guilty on a single charge is tantamount to acquittal? That's not quite right. A conviction requires 2/3 voting Guilty. If less than 2/3 vote guilty -- say, 1/2 -- then that's acquittal.

But if there is a 2/3 Guilty vote on a single charge, that's still conviction and removal, right?

I initially intended to reword this as

If less than two-thirds of the senators present vote "Guilty" on...

but then I realized that rest of it was also misleading. But since it repeats what has already been said in the section, therefore redundant, it isn't even necessary. It doesn't add information to the article.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

When reading the article, this error jumped off the page at me. Before noticing this talk comment, I changed the line to:

"If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "Guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed."

This sentence doesn't sound as nice, but at least it is logically sound. If anyone rewords it for ease of reading, be sure the logical content is not disturbed. Silpion (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Last conviction on impeachment in the UK

Dundas was the last person to be impeached in the UK but was acquited, as was Hastings. Who was the last person to be convicted (if that's the right word) on impeachment in the UK?Cutler (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Contempt of Parliament

I asked this question on the Bill of Attainder talk page, but what is it called when parliament has a trial to convict and punish someone for contempt of parliament and such (but, unlike impeachment, that person is not a government official, and gets more - like jail - than simply being removed from office)? - Matthew238 (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In the congress they decide over a dinner how to remove the president from his power.

Middle of the main topic this is stated. I'm not following the context for this and it sounds like it should perhaps be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wunderdude (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it Jackson, not Johnson who was impeached?

The article says that Andrew Johnson was impeached but it was Andrew Jackson wasn't it? 98.166.114.133 (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Johnson, who only assumed office because Lincoln was shot and was hated by the Union members dominating the Congress for being too soft on the South. bd2412 T 22:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Impeach! Then what?

The top of the article states that impeachment is the first of two parts. What is the second part? 69.181.150.9 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Other uses of impeachment?

Is "impeach" solely a political term? I have heard it used in other contexts, ie "his integrity is unimpeachable". Or is this just an extended metaphor, as in use of the phrase, "advertising campaign" (from the military use)? 65.78.27.60 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)