Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
This is not a "Impeach Obama" thread. Get your own damn thread for that.
It occurred to me that someone growing up today, or recently might be under the impression that calling for the impeachment of a sitting president is an ordinary, expected political tool.
I may be wrong, but it's my recollection that this wasn't really a thing before Clinton was impeached (but not convicted). I don't really there being any serious talk of impeaching Ford, Carter, or Reagan. Yeah, obviously there was Nixon, but few would argue he didn't deserve it.
I don't really get into politics much any more. Am I just being nostalgic, or is politics just nastier now than it was during the mid 70s-early 90s?
I'm not aware of any impeachment besides Watergate and the blowjob either. Now that they know it's possible, though, everyone who hates the current president is going to call for impeachment. Why wait 4-8 years for the guy you didn't vote for to leave?
Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted, but agree with the sentiment in the OP. Today's constant calls for impeachment are meritless and a childish grandstanding reaction whenever there are policy disagreements.
I was considering an analogy to a kid that threatens to take his ball and go home as a means of exerting more influence over the group, but realized in this case those making the impeachment threat don't have sole ownership of the ball. The impeachment bit is simply a temper tantrum thrown in lieu of negotiation and compromise when they can't have things exactly as they envisioned.
Not that there hasn't always been some level of vitriol in politics, but I have to imagine that the members of the Constitutional Convention would be appalled at the level of dysfunction and inability to compromise on major legislative efforts.
President Johnson, I believe, was impeached. The first one.
Following the US Civil War, the legislature passed the "Tenure of Office" act, which basically said "the president can't remove anyone he has appointed before the appointment's term is up without the legislature's consent." President Johnson wanted to reintegrate the south very quickly and sort of get back to life, but the congress wanted to continue to exert more military control over the southern states (reconstruction and all that). Johnson hoped to take some of the steam out of the congressional plan by refusing, as commander-in-chief, to order the military to enforce the reconstruction plan, but his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, agreed with congress and made it difficult for Johnson to control the military. Johnson kicked Stanton out, "pending a congressional vote" pursuant to the act. Congress, of course, voted not to remove Stanton. In the face of this, Johnson proceeded as though Stanton was not his secretary and purported to appoint a new one. Congress impeached, and ended up voting 35-19 to remove Johnson - a single vote short of the 2/3 majority needed to remove him. Stanton resigned, the act was repealed as being poorly written and unconstitutional (which was confirmed when a similar act was passed and invalidated in the 20s), and Johnson won that round.
(November 18, 2015 at 1:38 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: President Johnson, I believe, was impeached. The first one.
Following the US Civil War, the legislature passed the "Tenure of Office" act, which basically said "the president can't remove anyone he has appointed before the appointment's term is up without the legislature's consent." President Johnson wanted to reintegrate the south very quickly and sort of get back to life, but the congress wanted to continue to exert more military control over the southern states (reconstruction and all that). Johnson hoped to take some of the steam out of the congressional plan by refusing, as commander-in-chief, to order the military to enforce the reconstruction plan, but his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, agreed with congress and made it difficult for Johnson to control the military. Johnson kicked Stanton out, "pending a congressional vote" pursuant to the act. Congress, of course, voted not to remove Stanton. In the face of this, Johnson proceeded as though Stanton was not his secretary and purported to appoint a new one. Congress impeached, and ended up voting 35-19 to remove Johnson - a single vote short of the 2/3 majority needed to remove him. Stanton resigned, the act was repealed as being poorly written and unconstitutional (which was confirmed when a similar act was passed and invalidated in the 20s), and Johnson won that round.
November 18, 2015 at 2:43 pm (This post was last modified: November 18, 2015 at 2:45 pm by vorlon13.)
(November 18, 2015 at 1:23 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I'm not aware of any impeachment besides Watergate and the blowjob either. Now that they know it's possible, though, everyone who hates the current president is going to call for impeachment. Why wait 4-8 years for the guy you didn't vote for to leave?
With Nancy and her court astrologer controlling President Reagan's schedule, an impeachment would have been redundant.
And recall General "I'm in charge here" Haig as a puppeteer along with Don Regan, and Meese, and Deaver and Oliver North pulling strings too, and you essentially have a figure head president who was overthrown in a coup d'etat and no one noticed.
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
