Where impeachment might lead
Some of our letter writers are promoting the I word.
I don't know where the idea came from that impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney has any chance of happening. It doesn't. Republicans, of course, would resist such a move in Congress. And reasonable Democrats wouldn't want to get bogged down in that kind of bitter distraction. There aren't enough Dennis Kuciniches on Capitol Hill to go anywhere with such an initiative.
But what if it were possible? What if Democrats could pull it off? You might have the makings of a David Balducci political thriller, but in real life.
Of course the Democrats have to start with Cheney. If they got rid of Bush first, Cheney would become president -- the last thing Dems want.
But a vacancy in the vice presidency just allows the president to nominate a replacement. What would be gained? Ah, but the nominated vice presidenet could not take office until confirmation by a majority vote in both the House and Senate -- and no one nominated by Bush would get that vote. Dems could move on to their real target: the president.
Suppose they succeeded, and Bush was impeached by the House, convicted by the Senate and removed from office. Who becomes president? The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
That's assuming all this could be accomplished before Jan. 20, 2009, when the next president takes the oath of office. Everything would have to move very fast.
Let's say it happens and Pelosi becomes president on July 4, 2008. She will just be a caretaker president because, meanwhile, both parties have been holding their presidential primaries. By next July 4, the delegates have all been apportioned and the winner determined -- although not officially nominated.
At this point, something odd begins to happen within the Democratic party. The liberal wing, not entirely happy that, say, Hillary Clinton has amassed the greatest share of delegates awarded during the primary process, begins to clamor for Pelosi. Until the Democratic National Convention officially crowns its nominee, the outcome is not truly set in stone. If Pelosi's name is placed into nomination, and, say, Barack Obama and John Edwards throw their delegates to her, and a few of Clinton's defect, the convention could swing to Pelosi -- who is, after all, the sitting president eligible to run for two full terms.
Imagine the behind-the-scenes maneuvering required to pull that off. If it works, Obama is promised he'll be secretary of state in a Pelosi administration. Edwards will be attorney general.
OK, that's crazy. But even if that doesn't occur, Pelosi's political life is complicated. She had to resign her seat in Congress when she assumed the presidency but she remains a candidate for election in her San Francisco district. Granted, it's odd for the president of the United States to run for Congress at the same time, but Pelosi has to keep her options open.
The trouble is, if she is elected to her former House seat, she would be required to take office in early January. But, her caretaker role as president doesn't end until Jan. 20. She cannot hold both offices at once, which means she would have to resign from one or the other. Which would it be?
Of course, it would make much more sense to resign the presidency, which she would hold only for two more weeks anyway. The question is, who's her vice president? If she'd never gotten around to filling that office, or if Republicans had blocked her choice out of spite (a filibuster in the Senate?), the next in line would be the Senate's president pro tem -- 90-year-old Robert Byrd.
Wow. That is some crazy idea.
Comments (10)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Okay - that hurt my head to just read!! Imagine the pain we'd feel if it actually happened?
Great post!!
Posted on May 7, 2007 8:49 AM
The biggest reason that this scenario would not happen is the Iraq War. No Democrat wants to inherit it and have to own it. They'll let Bush continue to twist in the wind and be a pinata for the left to beat with a stick. They need Bush to be the whipping boy for a little longer to ensure that their nominee is swept into office on a wave of anti-war, anti Bush. However, they want it to end just before their candidate gets into office, so they don't take ownership.
When did politics begin to trump everything else in our society? When did gaining political power become more important than our national interests?
Posted on May 7, 2007 12:07 PM
Wow. That is some crazy idea.*Doug
Sure is! But this crazy law really confirms what most folks are thinking. But Bush and Halliburton wouldn't let it happen! Right Doug?
Blueprint for Dictatorship
Recent legislation sets us up for tyranny
America is headed for a military dictatorship – and recent legislation makes this all but inevitable. Last September, Congress passed the Defense Authorization Act, which empowered the president to declare martial law with very little provocation, namely in the aftermath of a "terrorist attack or incident." Having determined that "the execution of the laws" is hampered by the "incident," the president can unilaterally impose martial law – without the consent of Congress, which need only be informed of the event "as soon as practicable." The only condition attached instructs the president to report to Congress after 14 days, and every 14 days thereafter.
This use of the military to enforce domestic order is a new development in American history, one that augurs a turning point not only in terms of law, but also in our evolving political culture. Such a measure would once have provoked an outcry – on both sides of the aisle. When the measure passed, there was hardly a ripple of protest: the Senate approved it unanimously, and there were only thirty-something dissenting votes in the House. Added to the Military Commissions Act [.pdf], this new brick in the wall of domestic repression creates the structure of a new imperial system on the ruins of the old constitutional order. George W. Bush and his hard-core neoconservative henchmen may have lost the war in Iraq, but they have won a virtually uncontested victory at home: the conquest of the old republic by an emerging imperial order.
Posted on May 7, 2007 12:15 PM
Connie, would you like to tell us who wrote that?
Stormy, I agree that many Dems want to keep Bush twisting until Election Day 2008, and also that politics drive policy. What gives the impeachment argument credence within some Democratic circles, it seems to me, is that if you really believe Bush has acted illegally, how can you not initiative impeachment proceedings? I have to assume that most Democrats don't think there are any legal grounds for impeachment.
Posted on May 7, 2007 1:06 PM
I honestly think that the calls for trials at the Hague for high crimes and misdemeanors and the calls for impeachment are really from the extreme left wingers, and the nut cases out there.
I find it impossible to believe that if there were ANY grounds, charges would have been brought already; and they haven't. Just like the failed attempts to bring Rumsfeld up on charges of war crimes has failed. Notice, we don't hear much about that anymore?
Posted on May 7, 2007 4:06 PM
Robert Byrd is currently President Pro Tem, but I think, following what the Republicans did with Strom Thurmond, he would not take office. I understand there was an understanding that, were the scenario to arise, the Republican Caucus would elect a President Pro Tem from among their members. Tradition has it that President Pro Tem is the most senior member of the majority. But it doesn't have to be that way.
I think the Dems would follow suit with the still feisty, but obviously infirm Senator Byrd.
So you can add a whole new level of complexity. 50 Democratic senators (plus Lieberman, who I am sure would come knocking to be let back into the fold in such a circumstance) all choosing among themselves for who would get to be President for a few weeks.
The old saw goes that every Senator looks in the mirror every morning and sees the next President of the United States. But in this case, you might have a circumstance were NOBODY would want it. They would have to give up their senate seat for what, a two week caretaker stint as President?
More likely in this very unlikely scenario, Madame Pelosi would step down as Congresswoman, and her seat would be filled by special election, scheduled for after the new President takes office. A special election in which she would, of course, be a candidate.
Posted on May 7, 2007 5:54 PM
That would be a smart move for Pelosi.
If she gave up her congressional seat (until the special election), there wouldn't be a need to draft a senator.
Posted on May 7, 2007 6:17 PM
Connie, would you like to tell us who wrote that?*Doug
Justis Rambo at http://www.antiwar.com
What is scary about this law is that it slipped though Congress and the Senate without a story from the media and is the first law in the history of the Republic that completly surrender our constitutional rights for a peoples government.
Even during the cold war, Congress never surrender their rights or the people rights to one authority as supreme ruler. In fact, Congress and government even build nuke proof capital centers [ Greenbriar Resort] to conduct the issues and business of government should there be total destruction by MADD.
Which brings this question to front of the impeachment issue. Do you really believe a dictator like George Bush would solve a mass terrorist attack in this country without locking up half of his political American enemies? Remember he is the President that solve Katrina and won the war in Iraq without any trace of corruption in our government.
Posted on May 7, 2007 7:32 PM
I have to assume that most Democrats don't think there are any legal grounds for impeachment.* Doug
That is what some Republicans said about low sexual oral unconstitutional crimes in the White House during the Slick Willie era.
I am still convince that Hillary was right! It was a vast undershorts conspiracy that led it's tracks back to her husband.
Posted on May 7, 2007 7:44 PM
I honestly think that the calls for trials at the Hague for high crimes and misdemeanors and the calls for impeachment are really from the extreme left wingers, and the nut cases out there.
I find it impossible to believe that if there were ANY grounds, charges would have been brought already* Vince
So you are saying so-called nuts like constitutional patriots don't have any rights to have treason trials, since George did lie to the American people about the war. Now what is so hard to understand about legal grounds for impeachment and of course having enough rope to complete the due process of the trial.
You see Vince,there is no foreign secret interests or those dang liberal socialist communists or green party freaks to confuse the loyalty issue about good old USA constitutional citizens patriots who love their country too.
Posted on May 7, 2007 7:59 PM