Does anyone know how presidential impeachment proceeings can be started?
461707
First the president would have to committ a crime, as he can only be tried by the senate (the house draws the articles).  There's no precedent for a coup without fault.  As many people would like to think, Bush has broken no laws.  Lying isn't against the law, unless it's under oath, and he never was.  Deal with it.  If he breaks the law, then we'll talk
403121
Actually, that is not correct. Impeachment is an act by Congress by which the House of Representatives formally requests the Senate to hold a trial of the President for high crimes or misdemeanors. In the case of President Nixon the crime was Obstruction of Justice for destroying evidence after it had been subpoenaed; in the case of President Clinton the crime was perjury for lying under oath during his sexual harrassment trial, not for lies he may have uttered in a press conference.\n\nAfter the House Judiciary Committee had voted to send the request for impeach to the full House for a vote, President Nixon resigned before the House could actually vote on it. Therefor, he was technically not impeached  1973. In the case of President Clinton, the House passed the resolution requesting the trial by the Senate, the Senate held the trial, and the Senate voted to acquit the President. Therefor President Clinton, just like President Andrew Johnson, was impeached but not convicted.\n\nSorry to rain on your parade!
906521
This site should help you:\n\nhttp://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html
952942
Too late kids. It amazes me how so many people are clueless to how impeachment works. There's not enough time to impeach Bush plus he hasn't done anything you can impeach him for.\n\nDon't give me some whiney hack rhetoric about "starting an illegal war". The Gulf War that started in 1991 legally speaking never ended. Saddam signed a cease fire agreement UNSCR 657 and in short order violated it. Under cease fire terms the nations are still at war they just aren't fighting. Saddam also violated UN Charter 51 by authorizing assassination attempts on US diplomats and on former President Bush. You'd have a hard time making a case based on that because by right the US could have invaded Iraq at anytime. Saddam has only himself to blame.\n\nCongress gave Bush approval for war even if the evidence had been tainted Bush could just invoke UN Charters and security council resolutions plus the fact we were already at war with Iraq. Bush is not as stupid as you would like him to be the only thing they can get him for would be falsefying a document submitted to Congress.\n\nWiretapping?? So? There were already wiretap laws in effect approved in the 70's the new laws approved by congress just shortened the time frame and remember these were not domestic calls they were international. A call from Syria to the US is not a domestic call. \n\nIt took Kenneth Starr 5 years to impeach Clinton for perjury...let me repeat that. Clinton was NOT impeached for having oral sex he was impeached for perjury and even though he was impeached he was not evicted. \n\nThe numbers aren't there. You need 2/3rd majority to impeach Bush and remove him from office and the numbers just aren't there. The democrats have a tiny majority and not all of them are willing to impeach.\n\nBush will not be impeached so put it out of your mind hippies have been calling for it since he won back in 2000 and 6 years later he's still here until 2008 when his term ends and John McCain becomes the next president.
578637
Start with Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution:\n"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."\n\nIf Congress feels the need under that Section, the the House first brings the charges.  There are various things like an independent counsel and so forth.  The general gist is that they eventually vote.  If there's a majority for, then the impeachment happens.  This is what happened with Clinton.  He got impeached, but that isn't enough.  It's similar to a grand jury deciding if there is enough evidence.\n\nIf there is, the case moves to the Senate.  There, it's like a typical trial with witnesses, cross examinations, etc.  If the Senate has a 2/3rd vote for, then it's a conviction and the person is removed from office.
53780
Only the US House of Representatives can impeach the President. The Republicans hold a majority in the House, so it's not very likely.
907435
Andrew Johnson faced impeachment charges twice from the radical Republican congresses in 1867 and 1868.  On the second attempt, Johnson came within one vote of being removed from office.  He was saved by a young Republican senator from Kansas named Edmund Ross.  Ross' opposition to the somewhat illegitimate proceedings essentially ended his political career.\n\nAlthough Nixon likewise faced impeachment, and might well have been removed from office has the proceedings gone forward, he resigned before the House could proceed.  Clinton likewise faced impeachment, though there was never any likelihood that the proceedings would go significantly forward.\n\nEssentially, no president has ever successfully been brought up on charges through the impeachment process.
148863
Impeached for what?\n\nOh, and the answer is slim to none.  He has to do something wrong first.
186357
Once elected and after Congress has certified the Electoral votes, a President of The United States may only be removed from office by Impeachment. The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: "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." Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The vice president presides over the Senate proceedings in the case of all officials except the president, whose trial is presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Only two U.S. presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson, the seventeenth chief executive, and your favorite, William J. Clinton, the forty-second.
656141
"Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."\n. . -- 25th Amendment, Section 2.\n\nThat has already happened, but not due to impeachment. Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon's Veep, was connected to crimes he committed while in state politics. If he had not resigned, he surely would have been impeached, so this is almost, but not quite, the same as your scenario.\n\nOf course, Nixon himself resigned later to prevent HIS OWN impeachment over the Watergate scandal. Thus, Gerald Ford became the only person ever to hold the office of President without facing a nationwide election.
9123
Can he?  Sure.  All it takes is a majority vote of the House of Representatives.\n\nWill he?  Probably not - the Republicans control the House and Senate at the moment.  Clinton was impeached when the opposition party controlled Congress.\n\nKeep in mind that impeachment does not mean removal from office.  Impeachment is simply the process of charging the President (or other positions like Vice-President or judges) with high crimes or misdemeanors.  Then the Senate acts as judge and jury to try the person.  If they are convicted by the Senate, they are removed from office.  Any criminal charges would then involve another trial after the person is out of office.
668692
Instead of impeaching them, I'd get more satisfaction at throwing peaches at them. But, I don't see how we can try to impeach Clinton because he lied about his personal life (something the press should've never gotten into), but impeachment is impossible for a man who is ruining the country. What a place!
25181
Unfortunately, since both houses of the legislature are controlled by Republicans, the liklihood of President Bush being impeached is virtually nil.\n\nIn order for him to be impeached, the House of Representatives would need to file articles of impeachment, which are passed by a simple majority. In order for this to occur, some Republican representatives would have to cross the aisle and vote with the Democratic minority. In the remote chance that this would happen, the case would be forwarded to the Senate for trial.\n\nOnce in the Senate, two thirds of the present Senators would be required. Once again, since the Republicans control this part of the House, the liklihood of an actual impeachment occuring is remote at best.\n\nAnd on another note, punishment is determined by the Senate. They can choose to remove him from office, or do nothing should he be impeached. Again, the odds of anything happening are slim and none.\n\nWhile it's nice to dream, we're going to have to wait for President Bush to leave office in eary 2009, unless the political landscape shifts drastically between now and then.\n\nRead the Wiki below for more info.
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.
453745
As to date only 2 presidents have been impeached. Johnson and Clinton. \nTo make an accusation against. \nTo charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal. \nTo challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility. \nWhen an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of "throw out" (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted. The vaguer use of impeach reflects disgruntled citizens' indifference to whether the official is forced from office by legal means or chooses to resign to avoid further disgrace.
837415
What would 'timing' have to do with this process?\nEither he is practicing impeachable behaviors, or not. . .\nThis action is not brought about, like a personality contest (voting)!!!
661148
We probablu have to wait until January. You can't impeach without a majority vote, and the new Democratic congress won't be sworn in until January