Can Wilson be impeached for his disorderly behavior?

[yodoobo]

Obama's directive not withstanding, could Congress impeach him for this?

While it was clearly disrespectful, it was also threatening and unruly behavior.

Any one of us would have been arrested, charged with disorderly conduct and been the subject of Secret Service attention....and rightly so.

Is Congress really limited to a toothless reprimand?

(I realize that this is all moot now that Obama has called to move on from this, but I'm wondering what our options are when (not if) future Republicans begin behaving so horribly again to our President)

[Oregone]

1. Yeah, they could investigate him for being mean

Id rather have them work on important stuff.

[Dramarama]

2. ha

[yodoobo]

4. disorderly conduct, threatening behavior, inciting riotious behavior

could certainly be described as mean.

Murder is mean too. So thats why we have laws against all these things.

[Oregone]

6. At least he didn't throw a shoe at the president

Thatll get you a year in a third world jail and a cult following

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Well, he has the cult following

At least in some circles in which most of us at DU don't run.

[Cha]

22. No, he said "You LIe" when it's against

the rules to call others "liars" in the House Chamber.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Please, just stop. No need to make us look stupider than we actually are. Thanks.

[yodoobo]

12. We can disagree on how to handle things

But honestly Wilson is the one looking stupid here.

[Cha]

20. "Mean"? joe heckler wilson was a disorderly

asshole..and they can multi task.

[Oregone]

21. So did he commit an impeachable offense?

And would such an impeachment even lead to him being found guilty?

[Cha]

24. No

No.

[Oregone]

25. Good. End of silly conversation

[iceman66]

3. You really want to make a martyr out of him?

Best thing to do, moving forward, is to stop giving him and his ilk the attention that they so desperately crave.

[yodoobo]

10. Of course not. And its a moot question - for now

Obama spoke on this today and he does want us to move. So we will move on.

But I'm wondering. What options do we have for the future?

One thing we can count on. Now that Wilson got away with it, with the next address we will see far worse.

[SDuderstadt]

5. No

Read the constitution. It's clear as to who may be impeached. However, the house could expel him.

[cali]

8. he cannot be impeached

he could be expelled, but that would be utterly inappropriate to his offense.

[marshall]

9. Members of Congress are not subject to impeachment

They are not civil officers.

They can be expelled by a two thirds vote.

[yodoobo]

11. I see. So practically speaking expelled = impeached

for Congressional members.

2/3's seems to be a fairly high bar though, so it sound like Wilson and his ilk can pretty much continue this and only receive "reprimands"

A pity.

[cali]

15. no, it's not a pity. it should be a very high bar to expel

a member of Congress. It is after all, overturning the vote. It's absolutely frightening to me that DUers would want to expel that cretin. What you don't seem to realize is that if it were that easy to do, when the repukes were in power they'd do it. It's a piss poor idea.

[Pangolin2]

29. Yes that's exactly right and is also why I am very strongly against term limits.

People tend to forget that laws that benefit their own agendas will bite them in the ass when the other side returns to power...as it inevitably does.

[SDuderstadt]

43. Agreed...

we already have "term limits". It's called an election.

[backwoodsbob]

16. do we really want to set the bar there?

a repuke will be president again one day.Do we really want the bar set at expelling people for *being mean*?

I think the article I saw today that said his opponent has recieved $400,000 in donations since this happened is a much better result.

Lets not make a martyr out oh him...let's defeat him

[yodoobo]

18. but we have *NEVER* behaved that way

I suppose it possible that may change, but I have never seen a President shouted down by a Democrat during an address to the nation and Congress.

If it were set there, it wouldn't be the Dems that suffer imo.

[Pangolin2]

30. Oh, bullshit...he wasn't 'shouted down' for chrissakes. The Prez is over it,

why can't the pearl-clutchers do the same???
jeezus...

[Art_from_Ark]

42. In the UK and Japanese parliaments (and no doubt others, too)

members of the opposition regularly shout down the prime minister. I remember listening to Japanese PM Koizumi on the radio as he was making his pitch to support the Iraq War, and there were plenty of groans and an occasional "Uso!" ("Lies!") in the background.

[BlooInBloo]

17. It's not impeachment. No matter how religiously you cling to the word, it's just not...

Yet more proof that idiocy - and its staunch defense - knows no party.

[yodoobo]

19. right. its not impeachment. its expulsion

As I just learned. (I guess using the word 3 times in one day, including this post qualifies as religion?)

But the result is that the bastard is sent packing.

[wizstars]

14. it's more likely that he would simply be expelled....

...as Adam Clayton Powell was. Under the Constitution, each house has power to judge the qualifications of its own members.


(I see some folks beat me to this....)

[branders seine]

23. impeached by his redneck constituency?

most of whom probably believe he didn't go far enough?

[yodoobo]

26. constituencys do not impeach nor expell

That is the responsibility of Congress.

[branders seine]

39. they'd need 500 votes in the House and 75 in the Senate

LOL

impeachment is off the table

[mmonk]

27. Republicans can't be impeached.

[Pangolin2]

28. Tom DeLay did some disorderly stuff, he's dancin' his ass off.

Haven't you figured it out?...congresscritters rarely pay any price for nonsexual peccadilloes.

[yodoobo]

31. It does seem that way (nt)

[MineralMan]

32. Read the constitution, for goodness' sake.

Members of Congress cannot be impeached. They can be removed by a vote of Congress. I'm amazed at the limited understanding of our Constitution. It's a short document, and can be found with a simple Google search.

Please go read it. Thank you for your cooperation.

[yodoobo]

33. Good to know that everyone here is a constitutional scholar

and every detail is memorized. Perhaps Obama should choose his next SC pick from DU General Discussion members.

Just orta do away with that whole "post" feature entirely and we can just stare at the home page.

Yes I have read the constitution.

But I didn't remember this detail and I tend to enjoy most human interaction. So I figured it would be more enjoyable and expedient to just ask the question here. Shoot me if you must.

[MineralMan]

35. You know, the Constitution is not a complicated document.

Every regular poster on DU should have a good working knowledge of the Constitution. It's short, and simple to understand. Not to know the basics of how our government operates guarantees that one's opinion regarding the government is essentially flawed. It's one of the things I read once a year, as a matter of habit.

You don't even have to read the Amendments to find out that members of Congress are removed by Congress. It's right in there. I do recommend the Amendments, as well, since some changed the body of the document.

In my opinion, which you're welcome not to share, anyone involved in political discussions should have a strong working knowledge of the Constitution of The United States. It's not a terribly hard thing to do. My annual reading occurs on July 4, to make it easy to remember.

Ignorance is excusable. Deliberate ignorance is deplorable. So, go print a copy of that crucial document and read it tonight. Or don't.

[yodoobo]

36. Of course. But I like asking questions and talking to people

Your not going to make me feel guilty for asking a question.

[MineralMan]

37. I'm not trying to make you feel any way at all.

I'm trying to get you to educate yourself so you can participate in discussions intelligently. You take it as an insult, rather than saying to yourself, "Wow! I don't really know enough. I think I'll read the Constitution."

You do what you want. I don't really care. You decide whether you want to be a knowledgeable participant in political discussions or not. I'm just offering a suggestion. Take it or don't. It's a matter of indifference to me.

[yodoobo]

38. I learned a long time ago that I don't know everything

and I never will.

So I do enjoy reading documents, and I do enjoy conversing with pleasant people.

So while I have enjoyed your lecture immensely, rest assured I know my place in this universe.

cheers

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. No, a congressman cannot be impeached

some states could recall, a far shot.

but all the House can do is CENSURE

[SDuderstadt]

40. More bullshit from you....

but all the House can do is CENSURE

I'm certain the Framers would be amused to read your rather goofy claim, since they specifically provided otherwise. Read the constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 5, excerpted below:

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.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section5


You should seriously consider taking a moment to fact-check the nonsense you post or, better yet, refrain from posting on matters you clearly don't have the foggiest notion about.

[UTUSN]

41. Well, just personal ACCOUNTABILITY, RESPONSIBILITY, that is all. n/t