If this report is true (and sadly, I don't find it in any way incredible) some members of Congress (guess which party) are asking the Library of Congress if Karl Rove can be impeached. They're not just delusional, they're fundamentally ignorant of the Constitution. It would be an embarrassment to me to have such a dunce as my representative, but somehow, they get reelected.

[Update at 11:16 AM EDT]

It's for real. I expected this kind of stupidity from Conyers, but Barney Frank is involved, too. I disagree with him on most issues, but I never took him for such an idiot as this implies.

No, a political advisor is not a "civil officer," and he's not subject to impeachment. And of course, this is double stupid, because even if Rove were impeachable, the notion that an impeachment measure would have any traction in a Republican House is ludicrous. Of course, I suspect that, at least in Congressman Frank's case, he knows this isn't serious, but is probably good for fundraising from the moonbats.

Its for real.... If you have the stomach you can go to this blog and read the actual letter & press release. http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001601.htm

You don't need a strong stomach to read the letter and release, but you might need good control of your laugh reflex to read some of the comments in response to the "story". To wit:

When you live with more fears from your Presidential office vs. Terrorists, what does that say!?!

It says that your president is doing a pretty darn good job of protecting you from terrorists, I'd think. These people would prefer to live in a country with weekly suicide bombings?

I'd respond to other ignorant comments from that website, but I don't have the weeks it would take, and I'd rather not acknowledge any of them.

This is what happens when the people who believe "The X-Files" was a documentary take control of a major political party. At least the Black UN Helicopter crowd was kept to the fringe where they belonged.

(And even if you think they weren't, that's no excuse for you on the Left letting your own nutcases run free.)

Just FYI, since the poster of the original item seems confused. Karl Rove is the Deputy Chief of Staff for George W. Bush. Not simply "a political advisor" as the writer incorrectly suggests.

A Deputy Chief of Staff is also not a civil officer of the US--he's just a White House employee (doesn't even need Senate confirmation). There's no need to impeach, since he's subject to criminal law. The question remains nutty.

> There's no need to impeach, since he's subject to criminal law.

I thought that impeachable officials were subject to criminal law as well. (I seem to remember federal judges who got convicted but refused to resign being impeached some time in the last 20 years.)

Well, Presidents don't seem to be. I think that a judge can be convicted, but he has to be impeached to be removed from office.

I guess if Rove is actually convicted of something (though it would be pretty amazing if he's even indicted), then we can talk about what could be done if he doesn't resign, but certainly the president can fire him, for any reason whatsoever.

CIVIL OFFICER - The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and 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. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.

It isn't obvious that the Deputy Chief of Staff of the President is ruled out. Why not take a punt?

It isn't obvious that the Deputy Chief of Staff of the President is ruled out.

It is to me. Note the phrase "hold their appointments." This is referring to Cabinet Secretaries and undersecrataries and the like, not White House employees. Mr. Rove was not apppointed, or confirmed by the Senate, and he serves purely at the pleasure of the president. He is not a civil officer in a Constitutional office, he's just a White House staffer, albeit a very high-ranking one.

As for why not take a punt, it's because it's a waste of time, given that it would never even get out of committee in the House anyway.

Careful about references to the Constitution! After all, these are the idiots that keep blathering about the Constitution being a 'living, breathing document that must change with the times'.

- Eric.

> Well, Presidents don't seem to be [subject to criminal law]

You are incorrectly generalizing. The statement holds for the subclass "Democratic Presidents of the United States." That does not prove it applies to the more general class "Presidents of the United States."

If the Dems could have figured out a way to keep a Republican from succeeding Nixon, they would have been only too happy to see Nixon in the dock, on live national TV, perhaps "spontaneously" confessing all his crimes.