Do you know what impeach means?
605452
To "impeach" means to bring to a tribunal, to try, on the grounds on improper conduct ("high crimes and misdemeanors"). Many people assume that when a politician is impeached he is actually removed from office. That is incorrect. Impeachment hearings merely allow accusations to be read and for a hearing to take place. Under the US Constitution, the House can bring forth articles of impeachment, but it is the Senate which actually votes to remove or not. So, the House impeached President Clinton but the Senate acquitted him. Same goes for President Andrew Johnson. Nixon surely would have been impeached and voted out of office had he not resigned, and his successor Ford gave him a full pardon so he would be immune from the possibility of serving prison time as a civilian. (Ford later paid for this- many say- by losing the 1976 election to Jimmy Carter).
906521
This site should help you:\n\nhttp://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html
747616
I am going to assume you mean the complete removal from office process.\n\nI make that note because impeachment is only the first of two stages in a specific process for the legislative body to remove a president from office.\n\nHere is how it works:\nThe impeachment procedure is in two steps.\n\n1. The House first passes what is called "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. This document contains the formal charges.\nNOTE: At this point, the president has technically been impeached.\n\n2. The Senate conducts a trial evaluating the charges where the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. A two-thirds Senate majority vote is required to convict at this point where a conviction automatically removes the president from office.\n\nAdditionally, the Senate has the authority to bar a president from holding any future federal office.\n\nIf a two-thirds Senate majority does not vote 'Guilty', the president is acquitted and remains in office. Note: not voting Guilty doesn't mean 2/3 must vote 'Not Guilty'. The burden lies on guilt whereas some senators may choose not to be present for the vote or can pass on the vote in order to not be on record one way or the other.
693638
you have an Awesome saying....  so you have an idea what i was going to say just by seeing my name... (Impeach Chimp-boy)~!
447912
You can't impeach me! The Christian Right is blindly following me. The Republicans do whatever I say. I'm catering to the Latino's, who are the fastest-growing voting demographic.\n\nYou'll never impeach me!
517176
This is about a step in the removal of a public official; for challenging a witness in a legal proceeding, see witness impeachment. \n Depiction of the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, then President of the United States, in 1868.In the constitutions of several countries, impeachment is the first of two stages in a specific process for a legislative body to remove a government official without that official's agreement.\n\nImpeachment occurs rarely enough for many in a country to misunderstand its nature. A typical misconception is to confuse it with involuntary removal from office; in fact it is only the legal statement of charges, parallelling an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict.\n\nOne tradition of impeachment has its origins in the law of England and Wales, where the procedure last took place in 1806. Impeachment exists under constitutional law in many nations around the world, including the United States, Brazil, Russia, the Philippines and the Republic of Ireland.\n\nEtymologically, the word "impeachment" derives from Latin roots expressing the idea of becoming caught or entrapped, and has analogues in the modern French verb empêcher (to prevent) and the modern English impede. Medieval popular etymology also associated it (wrongly) with derivations from the Latin impetere (to attack). (In its more frequent and more technical usage, impeachment of a person in the role of a witness is the act challenging the honesty or credibility of that person.)\n\nTRY THIS LINK http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
1014919
I care.  Unfortunately, the collective minds/brains of our country don't care ENOUGH to do anything about it, such as call for impeachment or similar actions.  Such is life.
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
1106927
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/pageserv...
795116
I say run the table and impeach the entire administration! I for one am glad we have taken back congress, maybe now we can get something done around here!\n\n\nWe hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
376637
I'm no professional. However.\n\nWell you should be concerned about impeachment. It is a serious matter. But I feel the real question should be the motives of those calling 'off with his head'.\n\nOf those many people you speak of how many are registered Democrat. I don't care for many of the things Bush has done or how they were done. But you won't hear me mention impeach as to what should be done.\n\nThe Democrats have not faired well in the past twelve years. The lost Congress and then the White House. And yet with all they complain about Bush has done wrong do you hear Democratic leaders talking impeachment?  When Russ Feingold talked censure recently the reaction from other Democrats wasn't support. They shunned him like the plague in the dark ages.\n\nDislike Bush as they do, Democrats are not about to try and impeach Bush. They would love to have his head on a platter. But they may be afraid of the outcome if they didn't succeed. After losing so many elections in a row, plus their failed opposition to the recent Supreme Court nominees. To even attempt an impeachment could spell the end of the Democrats. Democrats know it's not worth the gamble. \n\nBesides even if they win who do they get? Cheney. And they have to start all over again. And who do they get then? Hasert. It's a lose-lose sitation. \n\nAnd then there's the matter of is what Bush has done impeachable? It should be obvious to the spectator the Democratic leadership doesn't think so. \n\nIf they believed impeachment proceedings were really warrented, they would be pushing hard. Even though they could be shot down by the Republican majority. Because to do so would let them re-establish some moral principle capital. At the same time 'demonstrating' how morally bankrupt the Republicans are. That would be a win-win situatioon for the Democrats.\n\nWhat I've written is political common sense. Wait a minute. Is political common sense an oxymoron?\n\nYou have a good day. No have a FAANNNNNNTASTIC day!
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.
719376
From what source did you "hear" such outlandish gibberish? Clinton is likely to be listed in the ranks of Nixon. Both of who have been impeached.
988273
First off thank you very much for telling the truth on here.  Bush is a great president and there is no reason to impeach him.  Liberals are so unhappy that there is no decent liberal cadidate for president they have to rip apart ours in any way possible, sad huh.  It is worth it for the libs to lie about our country so it looks bad making our president look bad, pathetic.
757351
If he hasnt commited any crimes we cant impeach him. So, no, it wouldnt help. All it would do is make the democrats happy. That doesnt solve anything.
402682
Do you actually have any basis for what your say or just go along with the masses and try to sound intelligent?  Impeached for what?  Do you even know what the word means or why it is done?  Please, try looking into what you are talking about instead of just going along with what your friends at Berkley think is cool.
358999
No.  You can't impeach someone because you disagree with them or because they are unpopular.  The Constituion specifies impeachment only for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  Nixon's covering for the Watergate Break In probably counts, everything since (the Whitewater stuff is a stretch the evidence was a little thin) just lacks proper legal standing.  Congress needs to stop treating impeachment as a political toy and reserve it for what it is, a very serious proceding not to be undertaken lightly or in a partisan manner.