NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/bit/listserv/politics/20816

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 1.6 KB | 36 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!SAIL.STANFORD.EDU!ANDY
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:46:18 -0800
Sender:       Forum for the Discussion of Politics <[e-mail]>
From:         Andy Freeman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5
In-Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>
Lines: 23

>I think that the answer is to assume that the Senate did its job when it
>confirmed the Justice Dept. officials, and thus we have Justice people who
>would do their job.

After I read that, I asked myself "While the Senate does confirm folk,
what does it have to do to remove them?"  I then picked up a copy of the
Constitution and found:
   "Article II, Section 4 has "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."

Is that enough, or should Congress be able to remove people from
office for other reasons?  Should impeachment be easier to pull off?
(The House indicts and the Senate runs the trial.)

Given the above, I think that the Congress should run its own
investigations, that the special prosecutor is a big mistake and that
we should use the impeachment procedure instead of the criminal
justice system for crimes committed by high-level govt officials.

-andy
--