NationStates Jolt Archive

The founding fathers gave congress the power to impeach cabinet members along with the two heads of the executive branch. The question is should this power be used in this case. My opinion is that Alberto very well has committed perjury in the case of the fired attorneys. He did this also in his recollection of his visit to Ashcroft's bedside This editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19sun4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)is interesting in how it lays out the precedent for such action.

Yes please.

That would be rather nice.

Impeach his ass!

Impeachment FTW.

Unfortunately, Bush'll probably commute or pardon him -- just like he did for Scooter Libby ;(

That would be rather nice.

un.der.state.ment.

This is the appropriate use of Congress' power. If Gonzales committed perjury about something of import, he should be impeached.

In a true democracy recallable delegates would be a thing of the norm, the people could simply ostracize the person the day the scandal happened. Politicians in liberal democracies have grown fat and corrupt from the apathy public indifference in liberal democracies inevitably breeds.

Unfortunately, Bush'll probably commute or pardon him -- just like he did for Scooter Libby ;(

except that he can't. Presidents have pardon power over federal crimes since it is the executive branch, through the department of justice, that prosecutes them.

An impeachment is a wholey legislative act. The chief executive has no power or authority over acts of congress

except that he can't. Presidents have pardon power over federal crimes since it is the executive branch, through the department of justice, that prosecutes them.

An impeachment is a wholey legislative act. The chief executive has no power or authority over acts of congress

Then how did Ford pardon Nixon?

Then how did Ford pardon Nixon?

Because Nixon was not impeached. He was probably going to be charged with several Federal crimes, and those were covered by the pardon.

Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment, and Congress permitted this.

Because Nixon was not impeached. He was probably going to be charged with several Federal crimes, and those were covered by the pardon.

Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment, and Congress permitted this.


What specifically was Nixon pardoned for? Dont you have to be formally charged with something before you can be pardoned for it?

What specifically was Nixon pardoned for? Dont you have to be formally charged with something before you can be pardoned for it?

No. The President can issue a blanket pardon covering all crimes over a period, or relating to a specific subject/crime. The person then cannot be charged over ANYTHING to do with the specific subject.

IIRC, the Attorney General was still deciding exactly what Nixon was to be charged with when the pardon came down. After that, it was out of his hands.

Well having an political figure who is both head of state and government is woefully undemocratic, it's just too much power for one person to hold, and the power of recall is too long, and impeachment not used enough.

...but since when has Bush paid attention to the constitution? -_-

Well having an political figure who is both head of state and government is woefully undemocratic, it's just too much power for one person to hold, and the power of recall is too long, and impeachment not used enough.

The problem is, in governments where the two roles are split (such as Westminster style governments, or Ireland) one ends up with all the power and the other becomes redundant. By explicitly combining the two, we can explicitly limit the damage, as opposed to, say, England, where the power imbalance has resulted in a unicameral system with an appointed dictator.

In a true democracy recallable delegates would be a thing of the norm, the people could simply ostracize the person the day the scandal happened. Politicians in liberal democracies have grown fat and corrupt from the apathy public indifference in liberal democracies inevitably breeds.

Maybe if politicians caught in scandals were automatically forced to participate in real life survivor TV on a banana republic island while trying to avoid being killed by the junta military.

I guarantee that there wouldn't be a shortage of American's demanding new entrants to the survive or die contests.

I'd just deport the bastard.

I'd just deport the bastard.

Nah, we have to deal with him here - we caused the problem, we have to fix it. Wouldn't be very nice of us to foist him on some other country now, would it? :D

Nah, we have to deal with him here - we caused the problem, we have to fix it. Wouldn't be very nice of us to foist him on some other country now, would it? :D

Hmmm, this is a good point.

How does the moon sound to you? :p

Personally I'd impeach everyone and hold an impromptu election to replace them all immediately following after.

The founding fathers gave congress the power to impeach cabinet members along with the two heads of the executive branch. The question is should this power be used in this case. My opinion is that Alberto very well has committed perjury in the case of the fired attorneys. He did this also in his recollection of his visit to Ashcroft's bedside This editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19sun4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)is interesting in how it lays out the precedent for such action.

Nice idea. So was Cold Fusion and the notion that solar power would run everything.....

Nice idea. So was Cold Fusion and the notion that solar power would run everything.....

Yes but we'll have mastered the science of both before impeaching anyone in this administration becomes possible.

Anyone with a memory as bad as the members of that administration keep saying they have shouldn't be allowed to drive, much less administer the Justice Department.

The founding fathers gave congress the power to impeach cabinet members along with the two heads of the executive branch. The question is should this power be used in this case. My opinion is that Alberto very well has committed perjury in the case of the fired attorneys. He did this also in his recollection of his visit to Ashcroft's bedside This editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19sun4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)is interesting in how it lays out the precedent for such action.

A few kicks in the ass should jog his memory.

Nice idea. So was Cold Fusion and the notion that solar power would run everything.....

This is a bit easier than those troubling scientific issues. One need not discover any way to do something that is not already there's to be done. It only requires some backbone, wait maybe you're right with the Democrats.

The problem is, in governments where the two roles are split (such as Westminster style governments, or Ireland) one ends up with all the power and the other becomes redundant. By explicitly combining the two, we can explicitly limit the damage, as opposed to, say, England, where the power imbalance has resulted in a unicameral system with an appointed dictator.

"...as long as I'm the dictator" GWB

"...as long as I'm the dictator" GWB

Its a commonly used phrase.

This is a bit easier than those troubling scientific issues. One need not discover any way to do something that is not already there's to be done. It only requires some backbone, wait maybe you're right with the Democrats.

Well, my quite possibly scant knowledge of the thing doesn't have within it anyone getting impeached for various debacles in and around Vietnam, or Iran-Contra, but does recall a Klin-ton getting done over for a blow job. Of course if a blow job was had by Gonazlez on "company time" he may well get his comeuppance, but otherwise I think hes good to go...

The problem is, in governments where the two roles are split (such as Westminster style governments, or Ireland) one ends up with all the power and the other becomes redundant. By explicitly combining the two, we can explicitly limit the damage, as opposed to, say, England, where the power imbalance has resulted in a unicameral system with an appointed dictator.

Well I would be the first to point out the flaws in the system of my country, but having an apolitical and removed head of state while having a head of govt which must debate in parliament and explain himself on a daily basis. I just find it annoying that US Presidents can simply veto legislation and have other massive powers and never have to turn up in parliament every day and explain themselves, it makes me uncomfortable that Americans put up with it, it's almost oligarchic.

Well I would be the first to point out the flaws in the system of my country, but having an apolitical and removed head of state while having a head of govt which must debate in parliament and explain himself on a daily basis. I just find it annoying that US Presidents can simply veto legislation and have other massive powers and never have to turn up in parliament every day and explain themselves, it makes me uncomfortable that Americans put up with it, it's almost oligarchic.

Actually, since it's only one guy, it's more Monarchic. However, the powers of the president and the powers of congress work out pretty well when the president is competent and congress has a spine. unfortunately, we're lacking rather dramatically in both right now.

Also, Bush has taken liberties with the authority given to him constitutionally, and done things he legally shouldn't be able to do. We haven't been able to stop him because of the aforementioned spinelessness of congress.

Also: 200th post with the new nation. W00T!

Well I would be the first to point out the flaws in the system of my country, but having an apolitical and removed head of state while having a head of govt which must debate in parliament and explain himself on a daily basis. I just find it annoying that US Presidents can simply veto legislation and have other massive powers and never have to turn up in parliament every day and explain themselves, it makes me uncomfortable that Americans put up with it, it's almost oligarchic.

I just don't see the point of your "apolitical" head of state. I live in Australia, so I probably know a bit more about how the Westminster System works than most Americans do, and I freely agree that it functions, and usually well. If your royalty actually served a purpose, like reviewing bills or calling new elections, I might be able to see it.
Heck, a Monarchy with some teeth would serve well. It could serve as the "corporate memory" of government, mitigating one of democracy's greatest shortcomings, the inability for elected officials to look past the next election.
But currently your head of state has no powers at all. It's simply a parasite on the body politic.

I don't get it.. In Britain, anybody who'd appeared to be so incompetent would be thrown out on his arse! I mean, what the hell is wrong with your politicians!? When something like this happens the guys at the top are supposed to cut the chord and distance themselves especially when the person in question as shown themselves to be an appalling liar. I mean, seriously! How can anybody who holds an office as high is this fellow does be so bad at faking it!? Doesn't he practise in the mirror at home? And for gods sake, where is this guys party loyalty? He's been caught out and he doesn't resign to save face for his party!? What the hell is wrong with your politicians!? They fail at lying and they fail at cheating. They're the worst crooked politicians I've ever seen. They've no style, no grace and I'm very dissappointed.