Pelosi as President in '07?

by Last Night in Little Rock

Assume, for the sake of argument, that the Democrats take the House on Tuesday. The new Congress is sworn in in early January.

Assume further that the House, finally exercising checks and balances, votes to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Assume further that the Senate actually convicts, a really big assumption, considering that a vote along party lines would not reach the required number of 67 (U.S. Const., Art. I, § 3, cl. 6).

If both the President and Vice President were convicted on an Article of Impeachment, the Speaker of the House would assume the Presidency.  Then, the new President would name a Vice President to be confirmed by the House under the Twenty-fifth Amendment.

The Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton impeachments failed because they were based on rank politics and the House acting politically in the vote. The Nixon impeachment would have succeeded, if it came to a full vote, because Nixon's "high crimes and misdemeanors" could no longer be ignored.

I was studying for the bar watching the Joint Committee hearings on the Nixon impeachment on PBS (no CNN back then). It was entralling. What we have on Bush pales by significance.

We can dream, can't we?  

< Haggard's Letter of Confession | Haggard Should Not Have Resigned >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Impeachment later. Win first. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by scribe on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    All great and wonderful.  But, none of this will come to pass if the Democrats don't win on Tuesday and prevent post-election chicanery from depriving them of their victories. (Think of the Bilbray middle-of-the-night swearing-in prior to completion of the recount in the CA-50 special election last spring, followed by the judge dismissing the incomplete recount because "the House is the sole judge of the qualifications of its members..." and Hastert's swearing in Bilbray meant they'd judged Bilbray the winner.  That's my personal nightmare.)

    The way to go on this, if this is the road to be chosen, is to go after Deadeye Cheney first.  He's surely more than culpable-enough, and removing him will hobble The Unit.

    Moreover, I'd argue his laying down the marker of refusal to testify in response to a Congressional subpoena would be enough to constitute a contempt of Congress.  Without even having to litigate it, that would be enough by itself for at least one article.

    Then, there's the oil task force, scheming for Iraq war, trying to take over the military on 9/11 (remember, he supposedly was screaming orders from the WH basement), and the list goes on.  And, in any list of his misdeeds, I haven't even gotten to Scooter and Plame.  No need to muss up the criminal proceeding with questions about that.  

    This is where I meant to be going last night when I posted the "It's not an election, it's an intervention" diary, but my keyboard seized up and I posted rather than lose what I'd already written.  

    Still, the only way to break this WH is to go about it in the way it was done in the Nixon-Agnew WH.  I speculate (I was a little young at the time) that one of the great rocks of support for Nixon was the realization that, if he were to go, the odious (and corrupt) Agnew would take over.  Agnew is remembered as pretty much of a thug - "nattering nabobs of negativism", effete Eastern liberal elite, and all that.  

    Once Agnew was gone, the next step was nominating a suitable replacement, and that took place with some substantial guidance given the WH - Ford was well-respected and worked well with others, on both sides of the aisle.  He was also seen as a grown-up and not a nut (I never thought the pratfalls were anything other than stagecraft;  few athletes are that clumsy that regularly).

    Once Agnew was gone and a grown-up in place, the fear of deposing Nixon had no more basis, and in that context the Republican elders in Congress had no problem pulling the plug on Tricky Dick.

    I don't think the same model will work this time, at least not in the same manner.  Any replacement who The Unit might choose is likely to be pretty odious, too.  Because he's really a pouting little boy who'll just do it to stick a thumb in the Democrats (and country's) eye.  Think "Vice President Giuliani" or "Vice President Lieberman".  Or even "Vice President Jeb Bush".  Anyone nominated would surely be looking toward taking over the Oval Office in the 2008 election (or even before, by implementing the section 4 of Amendment XXV I discussed in my diary).

    Beyond being odious, the history of the Republican congresses over the last decade plus indicates there would be no perceptible change in policy, attitude, or direction from anyone who might be nominated from the Republican (or conservative Democratic) ranks.  They've all been guzzling the kool-aid so long that, like a terminal alcoholic, their body rejects real food (or ideas) in favor of the alcohol (or crap ideas) they've consumed for so long.  In fine, there are no respectable grown-ups in the Republican ranks, contrasted to Gerry Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, and the combination of Hugh Scott, Barry Goldwater, et als. who got Nixon to walk.  And, if you're looking to screen the field for a respectable Republican, find the ones who voted "no" on the Torture Act;  there's what, a half-dozen or less?

    In this case, I think the way to go would be to so trash Deadeye through investigations that his impeachment would go forward, while using veto-proof budget bills to unman the Office of the Vice President, remove every objection Deadeye could raise to "opening the books", and deny him standing to challenge Congress' acts in Court.  That, and use the Rules of the House to make sure the Republicans have as limited a voice as they've allowed the Democrats.

    If, at some point, Deadeye leaves office for one reason or another, great.  That doesn't mean any replacement must be considered - Amendment XXV requires a majority vote of both houses to approve a nominee, and the hearings on the nominee can be delayed or drawn out for a very long time, and any too-odious nominee can be rejected by the House, leaving Pelosi next in line.

    Siezure of power (1.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 06:43:07 AM EST
    Ah, so now we know what the election is really about.

    The siezure of power without winning a national election.

    Way to go guys. See if you can destroy the country and empower the terrorists.


    lol (none / 0) (#1)
    by jarober on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 01:05:10 PM EST
    I'll make the obvious prediction: If the house goes Democrat, and is stupid enough to send up articles of impeachment, it will work out just as well for Democrats as the 1998 thing worked out for Republicans.  

    Translated into big gains for the Republicans in 1998 due to the "outrage", right?  Well, you can dream all you want, but the non-partisan middle will see a Democrat move that way as being the same thing.  

    Here's a thought: why don't you actually try to win an election?

    The video version (none / 0) (#3)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 03:07:44 PM EST
    Here's the video version of this post.

    Andrew JOHNSON (none / 0) (#4)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 03:39:35 PM EST
    ..was impeached, not Andrew Jackson.

    trolling (none / 0) (#5)
    by AmericanDrugStorm on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:44:06 PM EST
    what is trolling?

    what is (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 08:55:14 PM EST
    Trolling (none / 0) (#7)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:13:55 PM EST
    See Jarober's comment. Yeah, impeachment really set the Republicans back. As in victory in 2000 and 2004, and all the damage done in the interim. In fact, the impeachment preceded the exact opposite of Jarobers observation. The neocons took power in the executive and legislative branches, and shifted the judicial to the right.

    ty che............................. (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 01:55:35 AM EST
    i wondered, for just the briefest of moments, if i had slipped off the space-time continuem, and the last 8 years hadn't happened.

    of course, let's not forget to thank our friends in the "liberal" media for all their help, in electing both pres. bush, and a republican dominated congress. without them, it couldn't have happened.

    Win by Impeachment... (none / 0) (#9)
    by CausalCrunch on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 02:06:15 AM EST
    The best way to win the election is to discuss impeachment.  This energizes our base.  And the discussion of impeachment de-energizes their base.  Why?  Because it includes the discussion of Bush's crimes, and the Republican's complicity in it.

    Do-It-Yourself Impeachment, no joke.
    The Citizens' movement.

    The day the nation demands impeachment is upon us.  Sacks and sacks of mail are arriving in congress demanding impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules.  This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635).  

    There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.

    That's where we come in. In addition to the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org, part of the movement to impeach the president, has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.


    You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in.  Be a part of history.


    Six o'clock (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 06:45:07 AM EST
    I would love to see these thread on tonight's 6'o clock news....

    to be blunt, impeachment is a waste of time.. (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 07:53:29 AM EST
    at first. there are bigger issues to be taken on. first and foremost among them is the horrowshow that is iraq. mr. bush has to be pressured into realizing that an actual plan needs to be drawn up, a realistic one, not some flight of neocon fantasy. clearly, we can't just up and leave, but an indefinite stay isn't going to help us, or iraq, either.

    obviously, this should have been done well before the invasion, not nearly 4 years later, but nothing can be done about that now.

    as well, impeaching, without a snowball's chance of conviction, is a true waste of scarce, allocable congressional resources. and he won't be convicted; johnson wasn't, clinton wasn't, bush won't be.

    better to just let him go down in history as our worst president, ever, and be done with it. impeachment will make a republican martyr of him, a status he doesn't deserve.

    But Nancy Pelosi said... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Patrick on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 10:10:43 AM EST
    On 60 Minutes that impeachment was off the table.  Are you folks suggesting that she was lying?