Easy Answers

A John Nichols article in The Nation is teased on the home page thusly:

Is the Bush Administration's deliberate inaction and delusional denial of global warming an impeachable offense? John Nichols reports on the Green Party's efforts to call the President to account.

The answer is no, it is not.

Indeed, this is part of the problem with impeachment as it's set up. If you could prove that Bush had taken a $5,000 bribe in order to appoint someone's son ambassador to Portugal, that would be impeachable offense even though it also wouldn't be a big deal in the scheme of things. Conversely, the Bush administration's stance on climate change is incredibly harmful, and quite corrupt in its own way, but by no means impeachable.

Comments

It seems like the "let's just ignore FISA and wiretap whoever we feel like wiretapping" stuff is impeachable, at least to me, although I'm not a lawyer.

Posted by Julian Elson | February 7, 2007 12:46 AM

Surely you're enough of a realist to understand that an impeachable offense is anything that could get one impeached -- the rationale for it is something different. Dereliction of duty? Kowtowing to oil industry sponsors? When the political reality is there to impeach Bush over his handling of global warming, something like that will be offered in support. If the Clinton impeachment taught us anything it's that what is and is not impeachable depends on what "is" means.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | February 7, 2007 12:50 AM

Simply being George W. Bush ought to be an impeachable offense.

Posted by global yokel | February 7, 2007 2:12 AM

Can we somehow retroactively impeach Barbara Bush?

Posted by Reality Man | February 7, 2007 2:29 AM

In 1974, the two primary impeachment charges against Nixon passed by the House Judiciary Committee were (1) obsruction of justice, and (2) abuse of power.

The latter charge, unlike the former, did not involve the commission of any crime. It was also the charge that got the most votes, passing by a 28-10 margin on a committee with a 21D, 17R breakdown.

Can't see why we can't say it's an Executive abuse of power to block good-faith attempts to deal with the most dangerous threat of our generation, without offering any respectable alternative. But first Congress would have to pass legislation to deal with global warming.

If they did, and Bush either vetoed it, or gutted it by inaction, then you'd have an impeachable abuse of power, IMHO.

Posted by RT | February 7, 2007 6:13 AM

Addendum: you work with the Constitution you've got, rather than the Constitution you'd like to have. Our Constitution has no recall provision, no 'no-confidence' vote. But if the President blocks Congress' attempts to deal with major problems where time is of the essence, or tries to get us into catastrophic wars over Congress' opposition, then I think we have to go the abuse-of-power route, and impeach.

Posted by RT | February 7, 2007 6:18 AM

As St. Gerald Ford once pointed out, an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is.

If a supermajority of Congress loses confidence in the President, he can, should, and will be impeached. We haven't yet reached that point, but it is not out of the question.

Posted by Josh G. | February 7, 2007 6:31 AM

With regard to Iran there is path that I think leads in this direction.

Obscure Congressperson X makes a name for himself by suggesting that Bush and Cheney must resign because they do not have the credibility to attack Iran on classified evidence, and that for the security of the American people it is absolutely essential that the Commander in Cheif possess that credibility. Because of the administrations conduct on the war, they no longer have. If Bush believes Iran is a serious threat, he is honor bound for the good of the country to resign.

It is inflammatory enough that I think the press would cover it, and it has its own logic to it. At a bare minimum it lays down a marker that prohibits Bush from attacking Iran without consensus.

I am not naive to think this would actually go very far into getting President Pelosi (frankly it may be more trouble than it is worth with how little time would actually be left before anything could actually happen).

However, I am a little suprised at how week the attack has been on perhaps the least popular President in the modern era. And someone should be pointing out that this President has lost the trust of the American people on national security, and as such is unable to ably perform his job if there were a serious crisis.

Posted by theCoach | February 7, 2007 6:43 AM

Echoing the above comments, impeachment is, ultimately, a political judgment. If there's enough popular political will against an official policy or behavior pattern, it's impeachable.

Posted by kid_rocka | February 7, 2007 7:09 AM

As far as I know, the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" has no real legal definition at all. If Congress impeached and convicted the President for failing to deal with a grave crisis, or for invading Iraq without obtaining congressional approval, for example, who would stop them? The Supreme Court? I don't think even the present Court would take that political risk.

Posted by SqueakyRat | February 7, 2007 7:27 AM

Is lying about Bush's position on global warming an impeachable offense? It should be.

In any case, if the Democrats think global warming is so important, why don't they just ratify Kyoto? They control the Senate. And Bill Clitnn already signed Kyoto. All the Democrats have to do is ratify it! But they are hypocrites, s they won't.

Posted by Al | February 7, 2007 8:24 AM

An "impeachable offense" is whatever a majority of the house and two-thirds of the Senate says it is.

Posted by Thinker | February 7, 2007 9:12 AM

As far as I know, the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" has no real legal definition at all. If Congress impeached and convicted the President for failing to deal with a grave crisis, or for invading Iraq without obtaining congressional approval, for example, who would stop them? The Supreme Court? I don't think even the present Court would take that political risk.

That is the point. Does anyone deny that POTUS would be out if the Congress impeached the President for failing on global warming or the Iraq war or indeed more or less anything? It goes to show that the meaning of the constitution is defined more by popular habit and convention than the text itself.

Posted by otto | February 7, 2007 9:55 AM

If a supermajority of Congress loses confidence in the President, he can, should, and will be impeached. We haven't yet reached that point, but it is not out of the question.

Agreed. Of course, given that VPs are usually no better options (particularly in the current case), it's more worthwhile as a deterrent than an actual step.

Posted by right | February 7, 2007 10:43 AM

Is anyone anywhere of the impression that there's a shortage of crimes to impeach Bush over? They're nuts.

It's strictly fetid cadaverous Republican hypocrisy that keeps that smirker in power.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 7, 2007 10:49 AM

"However, I am a little suprised at how week the attack has been on perhaps the least popular President in the modern era."

I think part of the reason is even impeaching Bush would accomplish a bit, fat, President Cheney, nothing.

Remember when people expected Bush to replace Cheney on the ticket? Maybe Cheney's not the puppetmaster, but more akin to a bulletproof vest. Having a bullet proof vest with a bad ticker has got to be an interesting experiences. (That's a Friedman level metaphor I just made up, huh?)

Posted by witless chum | February 7, 2007 12:59 PM

I think part of the reason is even impeaching Bush would accomplish a bit, fat, President Cheney, nothing.

This is why my preferred scenario is one that includes a double-impeachment, with a promise by Nancy Pelosi not to run for a full term in 2008 (to avoid the appearance of a coup).

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | February 7, 2007 1:38 PM

"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" does have a constitutional meaning, it's just that there's no remedy if the Senate convicts on charges which don't meet it.

Posted by washerdreyer | February 8, 2007 2:16 AM

Yeah, f*** Bush for starting the industrial revolution and inventing the Hummer. What a jerk. If impeaching him for that won't work, we should impeach that windbag for creating Hurricane Katrina with a chemistry set in his basement.

Don't you think it SHOULD be difficult to impeach a president for a condition that existed before he took office? Julian Elson has a point. At least impeach the guy for heinous stuff that he's directly responsible for, like the unwarranted wire-tapping, blatantly lying about things, then calling it "intelligence failures," stuff like that. Actually, "intelligence failures" might be something we can impeach him for.

Posted by Mike | February 8, 2007 9:12 AM