It’s not crazy to talk about it:
The Framers intended impeachment as the ultimate accountability. Without at least the credible threat of it, there is no realistic checking of a president who seems increasingly disposed to abuse his awesome powers, in fulfillment of a promise to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America. Maybe we are already transformed. The Framers did not see impeachment as outlandish; it was a realistic response to an imperious executive’s seeking to upend our constitutional order — the specter of which gripped the constitutional convention with fear.
I think that we’d be a lot better off, historically, if more presidents had been impeached and removed (Wilson certainly comes to mind — Clinton should have as well). Such examples might rein in their dictatorial tendencies. Unfortunately, the Founders didn’t anticipate political parties or the degree to which party loyalty would overcome legislative-branch jealousy in their prerogatives.
This whole Prime-Minister-who-is-accountable-to-Congress idea might not be such a bad idea. The Imperial Presidency keeps coming back after every round of scandals.
Parliamentary systems have their drawbacks too, but in this respect it’s tempting to consider putting up with those to be rid of the drawbacks of our current system.
The best form of impeachment is if there were only 50 democrats left in the house after November 2014 and 32 democrats left in the Senate..
I would amend that to say “…if there were only 50 incumbents left in the house after November 2014 and 32 incumbents left in the Senate.” I am not inspired by the thought of most of the current GOP returning to office.
No such chance in the Senate. Only 1/3rd up for election.
True that.
The only craziness is thinking impeachment would succeed with punishment of Obama when the Senate is controlled by Harry Reid. Otherwise, there were numerous attempts to impeach President Bush and so far zero attempts to impeach Obama, despite several of his policies being slapped down by federal courts as unconstitutional and illegal.
The occupier of the Whitehouse, and several other high government officials, deserve to be impeached. But a snowball would last longer in you know where than an impeachment article in the current Senate.
The current mechanism doesn’t work though.
Pondering replacements, perhaps:
The House makes and writes a single-sentence Impeachment.
If it passes the House, the Senate must vote “We’ll investigate” or “We won’t yet”.
If -not-, every House & Senate member has to reiterate either “I do believe XYZ is an impeachable offense” or “I do NOT believe XYZ is an impeachable offense.” (Where XYZ is exactly whatever the House wrote. So you’ll have to answer “No, I don’t think obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense” -not- “No, I don’t think he should be diddling Monica.”)
That is: If they’re going to be complete weasels, make each and every one of them have a C-SPAN snippet of them being weasels. Jim McDermott would still get away with the blatant lying. But a large number of other peep would be punished at the ballot box. -Or- Play it a leetle more straight in the first damn place.
“No, I don’t think he should be diddling Monica.”
You spelled “perjuring himself” wrong.
Well the same statement could also be said for National Convention being assembled so the states regain some power, though that genie may be better kept in the bottle. Though congress would and has done what ever they could to stop it.
Well, maybe Obama will cross some “red line” some time. I’ll just note that Obama despite what he’s done this time, still polls no worse than he’s polled in the last three years. There’s a large group of people who will support him no matter what he’s done.
Yes, as was the case with Bill Clinton.
Obama could nuke Switzerland and the first reaction of a third of the country would be, “Did he get the Koch brothers’ accounts?”
Needless to say, any talk of impeaching His Excellency the Right Honorable Reverend Doctor Barack H. Obama BA JD (pbuh), the First African-American President of the United States, be raciss.
BA JD = badass jerky demagogue?
technically Clinton was impeached, the Senate just didn’t have the
votes as a “Jury” to remove him from office.
Uh huh, yet Rand was talking about “and removed”, so what’s your point?
Funny, nobody’s mentioned the 800 lb gorilla. Obama won’t be impeached because he’s black. The same reason Clarence Thomas is a SCOTUS member and not Teddy Kennedy Senate road kill. Impeach the first black President and you’ll have another 100 years of 98 percent Democrat loyalty. That’s why Obama can get away with pushing his limits of power far beyond any previous President.
Conservatives let the schools and the media be taken over by the left. Now the only alternative is to bite the pillow and think of England. Enjoy the decline.
Yeah, I’m afraid you are right. It would only serve as more race baiting fodder for those that enrich themselves by dividing and alienating. Hell, they still use events that happened over 50 years ago to control the narrative.
Speaking of impeachment, nobody is going after Holder despite his shenanigans associated with Fast and Furious. If Congress won’t go after a lower ranking official who is protecting people who probably committed a number of federal felonies, then why would we think that they’d go after Obama?
Congress has gone after Holder for Fast and Furious, but they haven’t gotten anywhere because they haven’t found proof of illegal activity. It’s easy to imagine all sorts of crimes; actually proving your suspicions with evidence is a different story.
Yup, sometimes the guilty go free.
but they haven’t gotten anywhere because they haven’t found proof of illegal activity
Holder has withheld evidence, including perjury to Congress. As I said, they haven’t impeached Holder despite what he’s done.
Should Reagan have been impeached for Iran-Contra?
Maybe for the “Iran” part, but that was mostly just poor judgment. Anyway, it seemed to be a one off.
Also Reagan was essentially pro-freedom, whereas Obama is a statist, having imbibed the State-cult’s Kool-Aid since he was a Red Diaper Baby. I cut people who essentially support my liberty some slack, but cut no slack to statists.
A better question is if Reagan should have been investigated for his role in Iran-Contra, shouldn’t Obama be investigated for his role in Fast and Furious?
If Bush was investigated for his role in leaking Valerie Plame, shouldn’t Obama be investigated in leaking the operators involved in the Bin Laden raid?
In both cases I mentioned, a member of the Republican administration went to jail, but so far in the Democrat Administration, the AG hasn’t even appointed a prosecutor.