Hagel Threatens Political Impeachment
by Richard Okelberry
|
March 28th, 2007 - On ABC's This Week, Senator Hagel outwardly threatened the President of the United States with impeachment if he didn't bend to the political will of Congress and for suggesting that only the President has the authority to command the military. While doing so he suggested that the President's advisors "go back and reread the Constitution." Perhaps Senator Hagel should take his own advice and reread Article II section 4 which states:
Hagel pointed out in his televised interview that our government is a constitutional government made of three equal branches of government. Now, if he had read the very article that he wishes to employ he would have found that the framers of our Constitution ensured that no sitting president would be removed from office for political reasons. This is why section 4 specifically mentions conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors as the only valid reason for impeachment. Senator Hagel also seems to have overlooked that, even if formal charges were brought against the president that ultimately lead to his impeachment, the president would still have the option of asking the Supreme Court to rule on whether those charges meet the lofty bar of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The authors of our great country understood something that Hagel seems to have a difficult time getting his head around. It would be very damaging to our system of government if congress could simply remove a president for disagreeing with him. At this point Senator Hagel is distressed by the fact that President Bush basically reminded Congress, in his weekly radio address, that they are not in charge of the military. This is a duty given specifically to the office of the President by Article II, Section 2. In fact, most constitutional |
scholars are in agreement that the Iraq troop withdrawal that would be mandated by a House of Representatives' bill is in direct contradiction of the constitution because it assumes that Congress, not the President, has the authority to legislate troop movements and actions. Senator Hagel should ask himself what he would have done if during his tour in Vietnam he received conflicting orders from say the Senate and his Commander in Chief the President of the United States. In fact, the president can constitutionally continue the War in Iraq to the end of his term even without the much needed funding that is being held up in Congress. He even has the authority to suspend the pay of every serviceman if necessary. Now, if Senator Hagel knows of a high crime or misdemeanor that the President is guilty of then he should come forward with the evidence. To not do so would be a violation of his Senatorial Oath of office. I believe that his appearance on ABC was nothing more than an attempt by a Senator who has made himself and his state the laughing stock of the country to somehow redeem himself in the eyes of his beloved national news media by once again criticizing a fellow Republican on national TV. Senator Hagel should take to heart that it's much easier to remove a sitting senator than it is to remove a sitting president. This is only compounded by the fact that he MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be running for reelection. - Richard Okelberry, Managing Editor |
To understand how unlikely it is that President Bush will be impeached I have included the following analysis of the impeachment process.
| 1. The process begins when formal charges are brought against the official in question. These are examined by an independent prosecutor designated by a House judiciary committee and the Attorney General of the United States. They are then presented to the House of Representatives in a report. If the impeachment process continues to a hearing then this evidence is then called "The Articles of Impeachment". | First things first, there must be at least a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed by the president. Because it is not a crime for the president to disagree with Senator Hagel over who is the Commander in Chief of the US Military, Hagel will need to present charges and evidence of some other crime. If Senator Hagel knows of such a crime he has been unwilling to present it publicly. Perhaps he is holding some "secret" evidence of a crime and is keeping it to himself for the time being for his own political gain. |
| 2. An impeachment proceeding can begin with a direct impeachment resolution or an inquiry of impeachment resolution. An inquiry of impeachment resolution differs from a direct impeachment resolution in that an inquiry constitutes a preliminary investigation. While a direct impeachment resolution simply calls for a vote to impeach the official, an inquiry resolution commences an inquiry into whether an impeachment resolution would be appropriate. It is a prudent first step in the impeachment process. | |
| 3. If the Judiciary Committee finds the grounds for resolution if impeachment exists, it may then submit the articles of impeachment to the House for a vote. The House votes on each article separately and any articles that pass by a majority vote are sent to the Senate for trial. | Again, the likelihood that even one article of impeachment, based on Senator Hegel's charges, would be brought before the House for a vote is extremely slim. However, given the current make up of the House, it is very conceivable that the House would vote to advance articles of impeachment to the Senate just out of spite and hatred of President Bush. |
| 4. The Constitution gives to the Senate "the sole power to try impeachment." Like the House, the Senate has also adopted rules for its impeachment proceedings. Once the House has approved the articles, it requests that the Senate "order the appearance of the accused to answer the charges and demands a conviction and appropriate judgment, and presents the articles of impeachment." The Senators then try the case according to the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials. A conviction requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate to find that the accused official committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution also prescribes the consequences for an impeachment conviction, including removal from office and the possible disqualification to hold and enjoy any office, trust or profit under the United States. | Now, Hagel must convince at least two-thirds of the Senate that the president is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors because Hagel believes that the President has an "I don't care what the people are saying about Iraq," mentality. This is highly unlikely and sounds more and more like a joke if you read it aloud. Let's say, for argument's sake, that Hegel is able to convince enough Senators to throw out this high bar set by the constitution for their own political gains. We must now remember that, even if impeached, the President still has the right under the constitution to appeal his conviction to the US Supreme Court who must then go along with Congress' flimsy interpretation of Section II Article 4. This entire scenario is very unlikely. |
