Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

The Impeachment Process--A Modest Proposal

Author:Eric J. Bowersox
Posted:12/22/1998; 3:09:41 PM
Topic:DaveNet comments
Msg #:1660 (In response to 1607)
Prev/Next:1657 / 1661

In response to Dave's call for thoughtful responses...

You know, ever since the House voted to impeach President Clinton, I've been kicking something around in my own mind: The impeachment process, as it stands right now, is in need of reform. It's too easy to hijack the process for political purposes, which is what I see happening right now. (OK, Clinton *did* screw up pretty badly. But the Republicans, by their actions, have now equated his offenses with those of Richard Nixon during Watergate, and elevated them *above* those of Ronald Reagan and George Bush in the Iran-contra affair. To quote Johnnie Cochran in the South Park "Chef Aid" episode, "This does not make sense.")

As it stands right now, a President can be impeached by a simple majority vote in the House, but then a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required to convict and remove him from office. Compare this to the process of overriding a Presidential veto, which requires a two-thirds majority in *both* houses of Congress. In my opinion, it should be *at least* as difficult to impeach and remove a President--a decision with great consequences for the government and the nation as a whole--as it is to override a Presidential veto. So, leave the requirement of a simple majority in the House to impeach other federal officials, but require a two-thirds majority in the House to impeach a President or Vice-President. (These, after all, are the only two impeachable individuals outside the legislative branch who are elected, rather than appointed.) The requirement for the Senate to convict and remove would stay the same.

Second, we have seen that the Republicans, faced with the prospect of a new Congress convening on January 6 with a diminished majority for their party in the House, did everything they could to ram the impeachment through the House before that happened--and succeeded. This means that the Senate will be considering articles of impeachment passed by a House that, strictly speaking, no longer exists. Clinton's lawyers plan to challenge the articles of impeachment on this basis; I'd like to see this loophole closed once and for all, by specifying that any bill of impeachment that has not been tried by the Senate before the adjournment of one Congress and the convening of the next shall be rendered null and void.

Third, I'd like to see some explicit language that stated something to the effect that "all persons impeached by the House and standing trial in the Senate shall be afforded the same rights as defendants in a trial in any Federal court." This may not be strictly necessary, but, given some of the things I've been hearing about the possible nature of a Senate trial of President Clinton, would seem to me to be important.

Of course, all this would have to be packaged as a Constitutional amendment; one of these days, I may have to sit down and write up what the actual language would look like. I would also include a clause that the amendment, or the provisions of it that apply to Presidential impeachment, would not take effect until a new President's term in office begins. (So, if this amendment were to be magically passed tomorrow, Clinton would not be affected by it, but whoever takes office in 2001 would be--or, if Clinton were removed from office, Gore would be protected by these provisions.)

Anyway, I fully expect some heated comments in response to this proposal, so feel free. Let me make one thing clear, though: I'm not so much concerned about what happens to Clinton. Right now, that's up to the Senate, not to me. I'd just like to be sure that this kind of mess never happens again, no matter who the President is, or which party he/she belongs to.

Eric

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:46:56 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.