Can a president be impeached for giving a person on his cabinet more power? Please give evidence.?
337587
Why would you want to raise a cabinet member up to that status? Cabinet members tend to have more loyalties to their departments than they do to the President. I don't know that there are any legal grounds for impeachment though.
89656
The Constitution says, "high crimes or misdemeanors". But, basically, if he does something slightly wrong and Congress is against him, he can get impeached (like Clinton). Conversely, if he's commited several high crimes but Congress is with him, he won't be (like now).
597624
Actually, you may not have to wait, with about 1/2 of the Republicans against George W. Bush now,     1ST Stage: the House of representatives can vote to impeach, "articles of impeachment", 2ND Stage: the Senate actually tries the case, with a two-thirds vote required for conviction.\nThe Vice President can be impeached as well. \nBill Clinton was impeached, but not convicted.
64371
Simply put, enough people (myself included) don't feel that he has broken the law. If enough members of congress feel that the president has committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" they can begin impeachment proceedings.\n\nA lot of people talk about this, but my opinion is that even among the president's most ardent opponents in the congress, I don't think there are many that wish to see an impeachment proceeding based upon the actions the president has taken with regards to anti-terrorism measures and/or the war in Iraq.
1055037
Andrew Johnson was impeached on several articles, notably of violating the Tenure of Office Act, which stated that Senate confirmation was required to remove an appointee as well as to install one.  The person in question was Secretary of War Stanton, who however was appointed by Lincoln; the law should not have applied in his case as this would have violated the Constitutional prohibition against ex-post-facto legislation.  (Years later the entire law was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court).  Johnson was acquitted of this charge when the Senate failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority for conviction.  The key vote came from Senator Edmund G. Ross of Kansas, one of the Radical Republicans who despised Johnson but who decided that the case had to be judged on its merits.  A second article was voted on a few days later, with the same result.\n\nBIll Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury about a minor matter (the Monica Lewinsky affair), and thus forswearing his oath of office to uphold the law and the Constitution.  He could have been legitimately convicted on this charge, but the vote went along party lines and the Senate clearly could not achieve a two-thirds majority for conviction.\n\nRichard Nixon was not impeached because he resigned before the House could vote on the four articles of impeachment passed by the House Judiciary Committee.  [One principal reason he did so was because conviction in the Senate was certain.  A delegation of Republican senators led by Barry Goldwater of Arizona and Jacob Javits of New York - thus covering the entire political spectrum - called on Nixon at the White House the night before Nixon resigned to tell him this.]  The articles mentioned violations of law and abuse of both presidential powers and government agencies such as the CIA.\n\nAlthough articles of impeachment have been filed against other presidents, these did not make it out of committee.  Articles of impeachment have not been filed against George W. Bush - yet.
377977
Sure. They are his advisers and they serve at his pleasure. When he "hires" them, the Senate has the power to reject his nominees and force him to nominate others. But once they are confirmed, only the president can ask them to resign. One exception is the vice president, who is considered a member of the Cabinet but who is elected with the president and serves the same term as the president. In order for him to be "fired" he would have to be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed by the Senate. But if the president and the vice president have a falling out, the president always has the option of excluding the vice president from his meetings.
959067
Prime Minister does not have the overwhelming power that the president does.. the prime minister can be kicked out anytime by a simply majority vote of non confidence.. the president is there for the length of his term, no matter what.. \nAlso, prime minister is  responsible to his parliament and can't get away with things like.." I am the decider and I will do what I please"  President can work separately of congress and pretty much anyone if he takes it into his beady little head.. speaking of Bush here!  Not a shining example of president by any means.
379126
Yes, Clinton was impeached.  Most people do not understand the defininition of impeachment.  Impeachment means to bring charges against a public official while they are in office.  Clinton was, however, found not guilty.
401090
Depending on the laws of your particular nation (assuming you do not wish to participate in a coup d'etat) it can differ.  \n\nIn the United States once elected the President has to be impeached by the House of Representatives, and then tried in front of the Senate and found guilty of "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors" (Article II; Section 4 - US Constitution).\n\nWhile possible to remove a sitting President in the US, it has never happened.  Clinton and Jackson were impeached, but not removed from office.\n\nParlimentary democracies are different, though most always they require a "vote of no confidence" from the legislature.  That in essence dissovles the government and establishes a new one.  Germany has a law stating that before a vote of no confidence can be taken a replacement government has to already be established.\n\nThe best way to force someone from their seat in office is to use your vote.  Get out there, organize, get out the vote and make your voice heard.
625465
For the charges that were brought against him? No, absolutely not.  Impeachment is the most serious of procedures against a President and represent a Constitutional crisis.  I believe only in very extreme measures would this be applicable, like leading a country into war based on intentional mis-information, disregarding the constitution and misuse of public funds.
452501
No he should be tried in impeachment.\nthen convicted by the senate \nthen kicked out!!!
883451
Bush needs to be impeached, as does Cheney and the majority of the Bush cabinet. He should resign in disgrace and let a more competent centrist person take office.
887670
Impeachment is permitted by the Constitution for high crimes or misdemeanors.  So in order to impeach them both, the House would have to find that each has engaged in a high crime or misdemeanor in order to impeach both.  Then they have to be tried by the Senate in order to be removed (of course the Senate would have to find that each had committed a high crime or misdemeanor in order to do this).  If both are removed from office, the next in the line of succession is the Speaker of the House.  At this moment Dennis Hastert, after January, Nancy Pelosi.
191712
Here are some options:\nImpeachment power - this is definately a big one.  If the president or any elected official commits a crime, they can be impeached.\n\nPower of the purse - Congress controls the salaries of elected officials.  More pertinantly, congress controls how federal money is spent - the president can effectively declare war by ordering troops to attack, but he needs congress to finance that war.\n\nAll federal appointments (Federal Judges, Cabinet mambers, etc.) are subject to the review of the senate.  I don't remember what this one is called.  \n\nI hope this helps.
23894
No, this would lead to abuse of power.  If the president thinks a Federal Law is restraining him in the duties of his office, then he should talk with congress about this and have the law changed.\n\nThere are arguments for not being able to sue a sitting president, becuase then the opposition could file lawsuits to distract the president.  This arugement does not really stand today due to the fact that lawyers would handel that and the president would have minimual involment with the case itself, so little distraction would take place.
675
yes, being impeached just means that they are going to vote to throw you out of office.  They impeached him, but then they congress voted to keep him.  that's the simple version.
68427
I would like you to post references to the evidence you have that would warrant impeachment. I'm not a Bush supporter, but I'm also not a Bush basher. I will judge him on the fact, not speculations. Some people say he lied, others say he had incorrect information. Some people say his domestic spying program is illegal, others say it was all done within the law. I'm waiting for the facts to come out before I make up my mind.