Just Say No to the Urge to Impeach

57
rate or flag this page

By William F. Torpey


The impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presiding. The House managers are seated beside the quarter-circular tables on the left and the president's personal counsel on the right, much in the fashion
The impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presiding. The House managers are seated beside the quarter-circular tables on the left and the president's personal counsel on the right, much in the fashion
Thaddeus Stevens closing the debate on impeachment in the House, 1868 CREDIT: Davis, Theodore R., artist. "The Last Speech on Impeachment--Thaddeus Stevens Closing the Debate in the House, March 2." Harper's Weekly, March 21, 1868.
Thaddeus Stevens closing the debate on impeachment in the House, 1868 CREDIT: Davis, Theodore R., artist. "The Last Speech on Impeachment--Thaddeus Stevens Closing the Debate in the House, March 2." Harper's Weekly, March 21, 1868.
Just the Facts: Understanding Government Just the Facts: Understanding Government
Price: $20.88
List Price: $34.98
How the U.S. Government Works How the U.S. Government Works
Price: $1.68
List Price: $6.95
Keys To Good Government Keys To Good Government
Price: $13.99
List Price: $14.99
The Complete Idiot's Guide to American Government, Second Edition The Complete Idiot's Guide to American Government, Second Edition
Price: $8.48
List Price: $18.95
President Gerald R. Ford Jr.
President Gerald R. Ford Jr.
President Clinton Impeached
President Clinton Impeached

President Ford is right: Impeachment is whatever Congress says it is!

Our founding fathers were uncommonly wise. They knew it would be folly to be too specific when outlining in Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution the grounds for impeachment of the president and others. They cited only "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

These grounds were intentionally vague, signifying that removal would be considered only under the gravest of circumstances. They looked into their crystal ball and were confident that succeeding generations could determine "high crimes" for themselves.

Even if impeachment were to be brought against a president for something as absurd as failure to pay a traffic ticket, for example, impeachment would be successful if the House simply voted for it. And the president would be removed if the Senate were to vote for conviction. That's the way it works!

The founders surmised that frivolous charges would create a powerful backlash, as it has done in President Clinton's case.

While Article II, Section I, limits the presidency to natural born citizens 35 or older and requires U.S. residency for 14 years, there's only one practical prerequisite for becoming president: You have to muster enough (electoral) votes.

As President Ford notes, if the House votes for impeachment -- whatever the grounds -- the president is impeached; it would work in a similar way if you wanted to become governor of a state, say Minnesota. If the people vote you in, you are the governor!

Even after the GOP election disaster and Newt Gingrich's withdrawal from the scene some diehards continue to say the impeachment "process" must be carried to its conclusion. Nonsense! There is no such requirement.

Neither the Constitution nor common sense dictate that a frivolous attempt to bring impeachment charges against a president must be continued once started. The wiser move would be to vote it down in the House Judiciary Committee.

It wouldn't be easy, I imagine, for Republicans to concede that the charges against Clinton are frivolous and come nowhere near the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Conservatives are just looking for a way out -- to save their own skins and the election of 2000.

Rather than admit their mistakes and drop the matter, some will press for censure or some other inappropriate way to signal to the electorate that they were right all along.

Censure would only be appropriate if a president were derelict in his duties, not in his personal behavior.

Some will maintain the anti-Clinton enthusiasts simply overextended themselves, or, worse, that they were right all along, but just couldn't come up with the evidence because of Clinton's evasive action.

For these conservatives, I offer this advice: Drop the impeachment effort now! And to the Judiciary Committee: Vote against any further proceedings and get on with the country's business.

I wrote this column as a "My View" for The Hour newspaper of Norwalk, Conn., on Nov. 21, 1998. I now write my views on a wide variety of topics on HubPages. You can, too. It's easy, and free! Get paid for writing about what you love, or whatever interests you!. HubPages makes the technical part easy. Make friends and get help on its active forum. Take a quick tour to see how easy it is to get started today Click Here -- To view my HubPages Profile Click Here

Impeachment


  • Impeachment inquiry against Justice Sen may face further delayThe Times of India17 hours ago

    The impeachment motion against Justice Soumitra Sen, pending in the Rajya Sabha for nine months, will be further delayed as the panel appointed by Chairperson Hamid Ansari to inquire into the charges against the Calcutta HC judge is short of a member it is mandated to have.

  • Drop impeachment effort for South Carolina's sakeIsland Packet20 hours ago

    To overturn the will of the voters -- and that's what impeachment is -- something very egregiou

  • Impeachment not top priority for local legislatorsThe Index-Journal33 hours ago

    The idea of impeaching Gov. Mark Sanford is not a popular one among certain members of the Greenwood area legislative delegation. Last week, a panel of seven members of the state House of Representatives met for the first time to consider a resolution that would call for Sanford’s impeachment.

Comments

RSS for comments on this Hub

Curdman profile image

Curdman  says:
17 months ago

hey look, a sane mind from the actual time of the events!

I was living overseas when this was going down, and I was not particularly old, but even I know what a zoo looks like, especially with animals running around nipping at each other!

William F. Torpey profile image

William F. Torpey  says:
17 months ago

Thanks for commenting, Curdman. There wasn't a lot of sanity around Washington back in the '90s, and there's not a lot today, either. I hope sanity prevails in November!

sschilke profile image

sschilke  says:
17 months ago

William F. Torpey,

If you have to argue over what is an impeachable offence, then that offence probably doesn't pass the litmus test.

I don't think too many people will try it again, you burn to much political capital when you do.

Thanks for the retro hub on Clinton. I enjoyed it.

sschilke

William F. Torpey profile image

William F. Torpey  says:
17 months ago

I appreciate your comment, sschilke, and I'm glad you enjoyed the column. Clinton's impeachment was 100 percent political, but I've since learned that sometimes impeachment isn't such a bad thing (when you look at the way George W. Bush has trashed our Constitution.) Thanks.

Submit a Comment

Members and Guests

Sign in or sign up and post using a hubpages account.


optional


  • No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked
  • Comments are not for promoting your hubs or other sites

working