One of the more shrill and vociferous demands that floated
around during the presidency of Bush the Younger was that Bush should be
impeached for [fill in the blank]. Now,
as some people become a trifle disenchanted with President Obama, demands are
shifting from he prove that he wasn’t born outside the U.S. (it is logically
impossible to prove a negative in any event), to that he be impeached for [fill
in the blank].
Let’s start with a few facts. The misuse or even abuse of official powers
isn’t grounds for impeachment, although it may be grounds for removal from
office. The legal principle “the king
can do no wrong” has usually been interpreted to preclude prosecution for
official (as opposed to personal) acts.
Bad, incompetent, even evil decisions or acts made in an official
capacity are not ordinarily construed as “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The solution to a public official who screws
up is not impeachment, but a recall election.
An official is not personally liable for acts, however stupid or evil,
committed in an official capacity.
If, however, an official uses his or her office for personal
gain, or commits an act as a person (not as an official), such as theft or
murder or the ever-popular bribery or corruption (although corruption can be a
vague term), then the recourse is to strip the individual of his or her office,
and put him or her on trial for the personal, not official, offense.
Americans have been extremely reluctant to have recall
elections, as such things can turn into witch hunts, usually figuring that the
next regular election will take care of things . . . by which time tempers have
cooled or memories have dimmed sufficiently to get just about any incumbent reelected.
Improper talk of impeachment actually works in favor of the
incompetent or evil, because they can then claim they are being unjustly
persecuted and present themselves as martyrs to their own causes.
#30#
