From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: or.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in Oregon
Keywords: law, Constitution, Supreme Court
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:02:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1992Nov5.100236.15843
Distribution: na
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <1992Nov4.215627.17200@informix.com> davek@informix.com (David Kosenko) writes:
>Bil Snodgrass writes:
>[in reply to the statement:
>>>What has this to do with the subject?  In any case, you might want to
>>>re-read your Constitution.  The House has the sole power of impeachment.
>>>The Senate tries impeachments. ]
>>
>>U.S. Constitution... Aritcle I sec. 3 (6)....
>>
>>The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.....
>>
>>Just like I said.  The house can call on an impeachment to take place.
>>The House can Charge impeachment, but it won't be until the Senate actually
>>impeaches the person brought up on charges by the house.  So again as I stated
>>above, ..."the Senate can impeach a Supreme Court Justice...." My point was
>>that everyone goes around like we have to live with the Supreme Court 
>>Justices, when we do have an avenue to get them the heck out if we don't like
>>them.  Just like you keep saying that the President has the right to 
>>interpret the U.S. Constitution and I say bull hucky....


Yes, I was wrong.  The house can Impeach. The Senate then sits as court to
hear charges against the impeached official.  A two thirds vote of the
Senate is required for conviction.  

The Constitution specifies tht officials shall be removed from office
after impeachment for, and conviction of...

My point in bringing this up was that of Checks and Balances.  I was
trying to explain the basics and even I came up short on the basics.

>
>As far as getting rid of Supreme Court Justices "if we don't like them," this
>is, of course, not true.  We can get rid of them if they break the law (or more
>technically, if the commit any of the offences listed in the Constitution as
>"impeachable", for example committing treason).  While
>the House is certainly free to impeach them, it is presumed that the Senate
>has a sufficient sense of justice to not convict them if they have not
>committed such an offense (in their interpretation of the events).

Some people argue that these words mean an official may be discharged only
for criminal conduct.  Others claims that an official may be dismissed if
he or she has displeased most ot the Congress or most of the People.  Congress
has rejected both views.  It has refused to limit the grounds for 
impeachment to criminal acts. Congress considers impeachable offenses to 
include criminal actions, serious abuse of power, and grave misconduct
in office.  Remember judges are appointed for as long as they maintain
"good behavior".


>
>You are correct that the President does not have the authority to interpret
>the Constitution, at least according to the Constitution itself.  Deciding
>whether or not a given law is Constitutional or not is the sole authority
>of the Supreme Court.  The President can lobby to get a bill enacted into
>law that represents his/her interpretation of the Constitution, but the
>Supreme Court makes the final call, and can declare that law Unconstitutional.
>
>There, wasn't that fun and easy?  Now, back to your usual argument.
>
>Dave
>-- 
>Disclaimer: These opinions are not those of Informix Software, Inc.
>**************************************************************************
>"I look back with some satisfaction on what an idiot I was when I was 25,
> but when I do that, I'm assuming I'm no longer an idiot." - Andy Rooney


Thanks Dave!!!