Washington Post article analysing constitutional grounds for impeachment

[bdf]

A very interesting read, given all the wacko opinions from republicans in the Conyers hearing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

[liberalmuse]

1. Analyze? It's right there in black and white. Article II, Section 4.

Jaysus.

[bdf]

2. Yes, but the Republicans say Bush should be left alone because he acted in good faith

The Washington Post analysis goes through the debates of the founding fathers. Even if Bush acted in good faith (he didn't, but I'll pretend he did) his actions are still impeachable.

Despite what the Repubs say, the founders intended that a president could be impeached for incompetence. That word does not appear in Article II, Section 4. But what does appear is "high crimes and misdemeanours." The Washington Post analyses what the founding fathers actually meant by that phrase.

However, I believe that an amendment is needed to that clause: "...high crimes and misdemeanours, or having the surname 'Bush'." :)