Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to For want of a comma...

re: For want of a comma...
azstrummer — (archived)

I can't argue with anything you just wrote but we're still talking syntax and ultimately the decision to go ahead requires no proof on a par with a civilian conviction, only the votes of politicians. IMO, the intent of the framers was not to restrict any legislature to narrowly defined reasons to impeach but to merely set the bar high as well they should.

Ultimately though the procedure is a non-judicial one and is pushed more by popular opinion than anything else. The only thing (and correct me if I'm wrong) that gives the illusion of it being a courtroom is that I believe the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the Senate hearings and vote.

What I'd love to see in addition to the possibility of impeachment would be a national recall election where it was on a par with the local ability most jurisdictions allow. If a majority of states gather sufficient petitions, a national recall election is called and the elected official's fate rests in the hands of the voters. Generally, recall elections don't require huge numbers of petition signers, simply enough to show that the issue exists. I'd guess that with a national office there'd be a need for more verified signatures but it shouldn't have to be on a par with a Constitutional amendment. This option should be available for any government official or congressman.

That would take away this whole silly thing about having to find some high crime to remove an incompetent leader.

Art

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (46 posts)