james_nicoll ([info]james_nicoll) wrote,
@ 2008-05-15 14:41:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Procedural question for the Americans
Is it possible to impeach a president who has already left office?

(Post a new comment)


[info]cynthia1960
2008-05-15 06:48 pm UTC (link)
My admittedly fuzzy memory says we can't do that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]connactic
2008-05-15 06:57 pm UTC (link)
Impeachment allows the legislature to put an acting official on trial, and possibly to remove him from office. There is no point to impeaching someone who has left office- you would just bring criminal proceedings against him instead.

I think Nixon resigned in order to avoid being impeached/thrown out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]blpurdom
2008-05-15 08:08 pm UTC (link)
And then Ford gave him a general pardon, pre-emptively, so he wouldn't have criminal proceedings to worry about.

In the last week, more than one person has said to me that they wish Bush could get impeached before he leaves office AND have to forfeit all of the benefits of being an ex-president (pension, Secret Service agents, etc.). I think that would only be just for a president who stole the office in the first place by disenfranchising the voters of Florida, plunged us into interminable war, gave us possibly interminable debt and recession (after years of surpluses and economic expansion under Clinton) and who might as well have used the Constitution for toilet paper. I used to think that Nixon was the worst president in my lifetime; I now think it's Dubya. Even with Watergate and Vietnam Nixon would have had to try really, really hard to be worse than this idiot.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]thespian
2008-05-15 06:50 pm UTC (link)
Wikipedia: Congress traditionally regards impeachment as a power to use only in extreme cases; the House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789. Two cases did not come to trial because the individuals had left office.

Which would indicate no.

(Reply to this)


[info]sidhebaap
2008-05-15 06:51 pm UTC (link)
No, impeachment is only for officeholders. And really, the only result is that they don't hold the office anymore, if convicted.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]galbinus_caeli
2008-05-15 06:52 pm UTC (link)
I think they could be impeached and have their privileges as former president revoked, such as pension.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]sidhebaap
2008-05-15 07:14 pm UTC (link)
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

I can see your point, but I don't really know the precedents.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]galbinus_caeli
2008-05-15 07:26 pm UTC (link)
Exactly what I was thinking. "Former President" might or might not count as an "Office" for the purposes of this. I suspect that it would. If a former president were to take up a hobby of chainsawing nuns and orphans I suspect Congress and the Supreme Court would find a way to keep him from collecting his pension in prison.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mjlayman
2008-05-16 02:15 am UTC (link)
The pensions are nothing, they couldn't keep their DC-area houses on them. It's all the other things. I found the WashPost column that had the info, but the chart showing what the last three presidents got for each line item isn't with it. I took the newspapers out for recycling yesterday, so I can't scan it.

Okay, I emailed the author asking for the chart, but I've never corresponded with him before, so I don't know if he answers his mail.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mjlayman
2008-05-20 11:28 pm UTC (link)
[info]snippy was kind enough to receive the fax from the journalist and make it into a PDF. The fax looks like it's from the actual newpaper page and some elements didn't come through well. The numbers that look scribbled over are actually a gray highlight that showed which had the higher amount. In any case, this should bring some idea of the benefits former presidents get.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]greenmansgrove
2008-05-15 11:24 pm UTC (link)
Not in every case. Bill Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mmcirvin
2008-05-16 02:29 am UTC (link)
Right, sidhebaap said "if convicted"; Clinton wasn't convicted. (No President has ever been impeached and convicted. Andrew Johnson came very close. Nixon probably would have been, had he not preemptively resigned.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]galbinus_caeli
2008-05-15 06:51 pm UTC (link)
It isn't necessary as a former president can be prosecuted as a private citizen.

(Reply to this)


[info]sethb
2008-05-15 07:07 pm UTC (link)
Legally, yes it could be done. Practically and politically, it won't and can't.

(Reply to this)


[info]kate_nepveu
2008-05-15 07:18 pm UTC (link)
In addition to the Article I language cited by [info]sidhebaap, Article II, Section 4 says:

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section4

My reading is no, but I doubt there's any case law on the question.

Edited at 2008-05-15 07:20 pm UTC

(Reply to this)


[info]jamiam
2008-05-15 07:26 pm UTC (link)
With enough support, I'm sure Congress could amend the Constitution.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]woodardp
2008-05-15 08:05 pm UTC (link)
Assuming they could also find 38 states willing to agree to said amendment. Probably not likely.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jamiam
2008-05-15 08:24 pm UTC (link)
27% approval and dropping, baby!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]kightp
2008-05-15 07:28 pm UTC (link)
No, but you can prosecute. With the potential of rather stiffer penalties than mere removal from office.

(Reply to this)


[info]oldsma
2008-05-15 07:29 pm UTC (link)
I wonder if it is technically "assassination" if you kill a former POTUS.

MAO

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]dd_b
2008-05-15 07:36 pm UTC (link)
I don't think it's really a technical term. I don't believe it's used in any special way in the constitution (in fact, I don't believe it's used there at all). Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were generally said to have been assassinated.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]galbinus_caeli
2008-05-15 07:41 pm UTC (link)
I think if you kill someone because of the position that they hold it is "assassination". So if you kill a former POTUS because of things they did as POTUS, it would be assassination. If you killed them for cutting you off in traffic it would just be "murder". If you killed them by running them over on the street while drunk, not knowing who it was, it would just be "vehicular manslaughter".


(Not that I am suggesting any of these actions, of course. (and I am not asking anyone to deal with a troublesome priest either.))

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]oldsma
2008-05-15 10:18 pm UTC (link)
That's about how it seems to me.

I also wonder if a First Lady could be impeached. We pay for her staff and she typically carries out a share of the Head of State job, representing us internationally. Is there any case law on whether the job is an official post of some sort?

MAO

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mjlayman
2008-05-16 02:19 am UTC (link)
The position of First Lady is not necessarily given to the President's wife. It has been for quite a while, but the position is that of White House hostess and a number of early presidents hired ladies for that. I think it's more a service post than an impeachable post.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]galbinus_caeli
2008-05-16 04:23 am UTC (link)
First Lady is not an official position. No salary. There might be staff that is assigned to her, but she is not paying their paychecks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jamiam
2008-05-15 08:25 pm UTC (link)
Also, you sound the way the nutso Republicans sounded at the end of Bill Clinton's term. Which I find extremely disagreeable.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]roseembolism
2008-05-15 07:38 pm UTC (link)
I have to wonder what brought this question up? Have you been listening to the fervent types who still think we should begin impeachment proceedings on a president with less than a year left in office?

Not that I don't appreciate the sentiment, but really, what's the point?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]james_nicoll
2008-05-15 07:40 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, that was it. I don't see that there's enough lead time (or votes) to accomplish anything in the time Bush has left. Even criminal proceedings may not be on, if Presidents can self-pardon on their way out of office.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]keithmm
2008-05-15 08:40 pm UTC (link)
They can't self-pardon (which is why Ford had to pardon Nixon).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]drelmo
2008-05-15 08:42 pm UTC (link)
What is your justification for this claim?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]keithmm
2008-05-16 04:25 am UTC (link)
Looking into it, he perhaps could. The problem being for him is Burdick v. United States. The Supreme Court ruled that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. George Bush has a hard time admitting he's wrong, let alone guilty.

Further, presidential pardon power only extends to federal crimes. If those crimes which he'd be admitting guilt to were also crimes a state level, I don't see where he gets any protection. And it would be a very short trial since he by definition has admitted guilt. I suspect many a long court case would result over jurisdiction, however.

Even were that not to happen, I believe the issue would end up before the Supreme Court and I don't think it's clear that pre-emptive self-pardoning would win on the simple rationale that it would allow a sitting President to escape any consequences (except impeachment) for any crime he or she committed. "I've pardoned myself for any crimes I may have committed last year" would be an annual event if the other party didn't have a super-majority in the Senate.

The other thing, of course, is the small problem that it doesn't prevent other countries from exercising their laws. And since the case of United States vs Manuel Noriega (carried out during the administration of Bush, G.H.W.), trial of former heads of state by another country for crimes committed against the citizens of said country has precedent. Oh the irony.

I suspect that former President Bush might want to keep international travel to a minimum.


Edited at 2008-05-16 04:36 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]bschilli
2008-05-15 08:07 pm UTC (link)
There is the case of Secretary of War William Belknap. He was impeached but not convicted after he resigned. The impeachment occurred the same day as he resigned.

Ben

(Reply to this)


[info]jrittenhouse
2008-05-15 08:39 pm UTC (link)
The entire point of House impeachement is to send up a indictment for a Senate trial on charges. If a two-thirds majority of the Senate sitting as a court finds the official guilty, they can be removed from office.

If the person isn't in office, they're tried as a common criminal, and can lose their federal pension, be sent to jail, fined and even sent for execution depending on the offence.

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

Keep in mind that while three Presidents have been either impeached or quit in the middle of the impeachment process, none have ever been convicted in a Senate trial and removed from office because of the 2/3ds rule. The 2/3ds rule underlines that the process is, in reality, a political process. Nixon resigned because the party leaders explained to him that if the House and the Senate had to vote, he would only have a handful of votes in his support. He could go through the process and lose big time or he could quit now.

Clinton was impeached, and none of the charges got a majority vote, let alone a supermajority. Johnson missed being impeached by a single vote.

The reason that nobody's seriously gone towards an impeachment of Bush and / or Cheney isn't, IMAO, because they haven't warranted removal from office. It's because the Republicans in the House and Senate would absolutely vote en-bloc against it, which would mean a Senate Trial would never get 66 votes to convict, regardless of real guilt or innocence.

After they leave office, federal prosecutors could indeed tie them in knots over their performance in office. But unless they do something so awful that it could break that Republican solid front, I can't see any further action on this.

A House Impeachment vote could take place tomorrow, for all of that. See also the recent situation in Ohio over their Attorney General:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dann

(Reply to this)


[info]paraleipsis
2008-05-15 09:29 pm UTC (link)
No, but you can put them before a war crimes tribunal.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]wordweaverlynn
2008-05-15 10:18 pm UTC (link)
Or try them for treason. Or both!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]james_nicoll
2008-05-16 03:30 am UTC (link)
Isn't it next to impossible to get a treason conviction in the US?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]supergee
2008-05-15 09:30 pm UTC (link)
The imbecile Arlen Specter attempted to do that to Bill Clinton, but noithing came of it.

(Reply to this)


[info]redbird
2008-05-15 10:08 pm UTC (link)
No: it would be like calling for a vote of no confidence in someone who was no longer prime minister.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]james_nicoll
2008-05-16 03:32 am UTC (link)
Actually, Brian Mulroney keeps popping back up, trying to become an elder stateman like PET. Having Parliament come out with a vote of non-confidence for him could send an important message.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]keithmm
2008-05-16 04:39 am UTC (link)
I'm dying to see someone ask him if he still thinks Canada should have sent troops to Iraq because it would have been the right thing to do, like he was mouthing on about in 2003.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]asyouknow_bob
2008-05-15 11:56 pm UTC (link)
We get a new Congress on Jan. 1st. If they move VERY fast, there might be enough votes to impeach before Jan. 20th.

And it would be worth doing, if only to put it on the historical record that he had disgraced the office and amply deserved it.

(Reply to this)


[info]mjlayman
2008-05-16 01:43 am UTC (link)
Nope. Because they're not presidents once they leave office. Technically, they shouldn't be addressed as President once they're out -- just Mr. Carter, Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, etc.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mmcirvin
2008-05-16 02:59 am UTC (link)
I remember reading somewhere that other offices do not have this quality--governors (universally or typically?) retain the form of address of their office after leaving office but Presidents officially do not, so Bill Clinton should be addressed today as "Mr. Governor". Of course, nobody ever does this, probably because it makes no sense. And I may actually be wrong about the official protocol as well, because I don't remember where I read it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]austin_dern
2008-05-16 06:38 am UTC (link)

The first time I saw that assertion that Former Presidents aren't called President it was in the context of a Republican columnist whining that those pesky liberals are destroying the language and decency and precedent because they keep saying President Kennedy out of their obsessive irrational love for the dead president.

On reflection, and considering that I keep running across pre-Kennedy references to President (Ex-President), and that claims of Kennedy's Cult of Personality seem to be made mostly by people who've had little cartoon valentine hearts bubbling out of their heads since 1989 as they wistfully sigh, ``Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Reagan Mushroom Mushroom Reagan'', I've decided to file this ``You can't call ex-presidents President'' trivia in the same mental filing drawer as the George Will column that asserted an essential feature of liberalism was hating cool cars.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mjlayman
2008-05-17 12:13 am UTC (link)
I learned this in Officer's Wives School (my mother was too sick, so I took it) when my father was one of the last enlisted to move to officer. However, perhaps you'd take Miss Manners' word.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mishalak
2008-05-20 05:26 am UTC (link)
You are correct. However according to a number of sources including the US Department of State Office of the Chief of Protocol has this FAQ that states, "Q: Does a person retain the honorific title "The Honorable" after leaving the position for which they hold it?

A: Yes, a person who has been in a position that entitled them to "The Honorable" continues to retain that honorific title even after he or she leaves that position."

So the former Secretary of State would still be addressed formally as "The Honorable Dr. Albright". Because of his position the former president would also be properly addressed under such circumstances as "The Honorable William Clinton" as noted by the State of Virginia in this pdf on protocol. But it makes one sound like a stuffed shirt to do that. And all of this is etiquette and tradition type stuff that changes whenever the public is the mood to change it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]icedrake
2008-05-16 03:54 am UTC (link)
No, but perhaps we should follow the better traditions of the Catholic church and have the presidency annulled...

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…