Article II, Section 4. Impeachment: How do you interpret it?

[cali]

Section. 4.

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.


Do you think it mandates impeachment? Because it seems clear to me that the shall in that sentence refers to removal from office after impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.

How can you interpret that as a mandate for impeachment?

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. It means they shall be removed if impeached and convicted for

the stated offenses.

[Vincardog]

2. The operative word is shall . If it said MAY impeachment would be optional

since it says shall impeachment is mandatory as "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" have been not only committed but admitted to on TV and before Congress.

WE have to INVESTIGATE publicly.
When the steaming pile of lies and corruption is exposed
WE have to Impeach ALL OF THE CABAL
When they are exposed any Senator who wants to publicly stand with the evil ass hatters can vote to allow them to remain in office.

The DemocratIC party needs to ensure that the next election is conducted with PAPER BALLOTS
and we will wee how the evil doers fair in a fair election.

[cali]

5. Please reread it, and note

the shall refers to removal from office AFTER impeachment and conviction. It does NOT refer to the impeachment process itself.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. You question is ambiguous.

Are you asking if the constitution requires an impeachment process be initiated for suspicion of the specified reasons? I don't think it does. It says that if an impeachment and conviction for the specified reasons occurs then the impeached official must be removed from office.

[cali]

12. I don't see what's ambiguous about my question, but

yes, specifically I'm asking, in the OP, if people interpret that sentence to mean that impeachment is constitutionally mandated.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. and the answer is plainly no.

The consitution clearly states what happens should impeachment and conviction occur (removal), and what the process is (although not so clearly) for conducting an impeachment and trial. I don't see at all where it says Congress must impeach, which is why I found your question confusing.

[cali]

15. I know. It seems quite simple

but a fair number of folks seem to be laboring under the illusion that impeachment is mandated by the constitution. That seems mind boggling when you think about it. How would that work if the Constitution demanded impeachment?

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Ah - ok, so it was a bit of a rhetorical quesiton.

Although as 2 of the last 6 presidents were either impeached or resigned to avoid impeachment, and one of them is the most impeachment-worthy president ever, impeachment may in fact become an institutionalized normal mode of behavior. I consider the Clinton persecution and impeachment essentially revenge for Nixon by the descendants of the Nixon rightwing loons. They in turn will view what if anything we do to Bush, although entirely appropriate considering that he is a corrupt and dangerous criminal, as revenge for Clinton, so they will in turn go after whomever we put in the white house after the end of the shameful Boosh presinutsy. It may become a matter of course that if the opposition party holds the house it will impeach the sitting president, as we descend into a parody of a democratic republic on our general way down the toilet.

[Vincardog]

10. When the mis deeds are admitted there is not much doubt about the conviction

in a perfect world any way.
aWoL admits to violating virtually every one of our bill of rights.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Here's my take

If the House proves that Bush and Cheney have committed Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors, and votes to impeach, the Senate then has the trial. If convicted, they are removed from office.

We are in the preliminary stages of this process, or will be, once the 110th Congress is sworn in and the investigations start. Realize it will take a bipartisan group to go ahead--but what I see more likely is that we have a repeat of the Nixon maneuvers of 1974.

[Vincardog]

4. The More often jr does his crazy act on TV the harder it will be for the Radical

Reich to stand by him. I smell bi-partisanship cooking.

[Kelly Rupert]

7. the "on" makes it conditional.

Therefore is "should the President be impeached and convicted, he shall be removed from office." I've never seen a legitimate Constitutional scholar (read: more cred than "has a blog" or "wrote a book") claim otherwise.

[cali]

8. Precisely.

There seems to be a fair amount of confusion about this. Come to think of it, there seems to be a fair amount of confusion about impeachment, period, on DU. I'm surprised by it.

[Jacobin]

11. yep

[Bitwit1234]

9. Why don't they put him under house arrest and

cut all the electronic communications. Make him sit in the oval office and play with his toys, maybe he can't do any more damage.

[cali]

13. That question would be

should we have an uncontitutional coup and overthrow the executive branch of the U.S. government?

[TahitiNut]

16. So, is the Constitution Soft on "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"?

Is there no affirmative Duty to enforce provisions against "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"?

:eyes:

To claim that the sole enforcement mechanism against such acts by a sitting President and Vice President is optional would, in my opinion, be laughable if it weren't so despicable.

[cali]

18. what are the provisions against

Treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. The only mechanism provided in the Constitution is impeachment, and there is no affirmative duty to impeach. It is entirely left up to the members of the House of Representatives.

Impeachment is indeed optional. That's simply a fact. I believe that they have a moral duty to investigate and impeach. That's simply my opinion.

[MrCoffee]

19. shhh, don't let a silly thing like the Constitution get in the way of the

bloodthirsty mob.

[conscious evolution]

20. The mandate is found in

Article 1 Section 5 Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

andEach House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, , with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

This is the relevant passage:'and Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings'

One of the rules of proceedings is the Oath Of Office:"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."


This is a legally binding Oath.

Notice the part about supporting and protecting the Constitution? This is the mandate for impeachment.Unless you happen to believe that bushco has not violated and attempted to destroy the Constitution.