Does this 3% difference matter so much that it is should be treated in the special fashion that you proposed, Don? No.

The system is what is special. How the system works and maintains itself is what is special. Not any single “element” to it, because that one element is nothing without the other parts of the system.

The percentages have never mattered. The absolute number of supporters for any one candidate has never mattered to maintaining America. What does matter is maintaining a balance, to ensure that it doesn’t tilt one way or another into a permanent crash dive.

What matters is that the 51% is of moderates and people in the middle. If 25% Left plus 25% right combined to make 50% and the moderate faction combined to make 49%, the 49% should win, even if you have to rig the system to make sure that happens.

And that’s how the US Constitution is rigged, as opposed to Parliamentary systems where two extreme factions can combine and outnumber the moderates.

And any process that removes the one leader voted into office by all of the voters, should be used only if the continued existence of our nation is threatened.

And who decides when the nation is threatened? The Congress and the President.

Maintaining the balance between the federal branches of government will always be more important than appealing to popular sentiment one way or another.

Impeachment is the ability of Congress to balance the powers of the Executive branch. Remove that for your popularity contest, Don, and bad things are going to happen in the coming centuries.

Like the veto? Like the pardon? Like the ability to elect judges until they die?

There is no “process” that is so fundamentally “just or virtuous” that it cannot be corrupted, which is why the basic assumption of the US Constitution was that it would be corrupted. So if it is going to corrupted, we might as well make another process counter the corruption and have two sides battle tings out until the truth and right comes out. Like a court.

What does the veto actually do except the deny the will of the American people in getting the laws that they themselves elected their representatives to make?

What does the pardon do except nullify the decisions of citizens and the law the citizens made themselves?

There is no process so sacred that it should be left unbalanced and used as a Sword of Damocles. Cause if you try to treat the right of the people to vote in a leader as sacred and something that can’t be used right often, then you’re just setting it up to fall from the pedestal and be corrupted, so that when it is used, it will be used without any counter-balance to it.

Then are you saying the Constitution strictly forbade Congress from balancing the powers of the Presidency via impeachment votes?

If they did, fine, then your position about people votes would be backed up. But it’s unlikely that they did, given the focus on limiting the “Corrupt King” issue and also how impeachments were historically used.

The bottom line is that I don’t trust Congress not to play politics with impeachment (or anything else, for that matter).

What do you think impeachment is designed to do? It’s not designed to favor Congress or the Presidency, it’s solely designed to balance the powers. To allow Congress to do something about a President they don’t like. And if the President wants to reciprocate, he can veto and refuse to enforce laws via Executive Orders.

Impeachment, at its base, was designed as a political tool. You cannot erase its fundamental nature simply because you don’t like how Congress might use it, Don. That’s not what the Constitution is about.

In Great Britain, where the prime minister can call for an election at any time on very short notice, the quick elections seem to work pretty well.

No, they don’t. Prime Ministers have held back such votes in war and peace times solely to stack the deck for their party later on. You think being able to call for elections when things favor you isn’t a political circus in the end?

Think again. And the PM’s ability to do that is exercised far more than impeachment. Which means “balance of powers” is literally challenged every time it is used, and if they use it too many times, it obviously will unbalance the balance of powers. As it already has in Britain.

Therefore, I believe that Congress should only preempt the voter’s right to hire and fire their presidents

In case you hadn’t noticed, a Republic’s President is not elected by the popular vote. At least, this Republic’s President isn’t.

Not practical, as I’m sure you know, but at least theoretically acceptable. Remembering that we are a democratic _republic_, however, I really don’t have a problem with Congress making the decision. Obviously Clinton was impeached, but not found guilty, so your preference was observed, as was mine. What more can you ask for? He was reprimanded, but stayed in office. Best of both worlds, so to speak.

But I’m telling you - “Do as I say, not as I do” never worked. If our leaders aren’t held to a standard that reflects their positions of governance, the people sure aren’t going to reflect the higher standards you might wish for. If you want higher standards for the people, you have to set the example.

As for Spitzer, he resigned because he could see the writing on the wall. Had he not, he _would_ have been impeached. And I’m fine with that…corruption should not wait till the next election. If the penalties are stiff and certain, corruption is much less likely to occur. I just wish there was a way to get Congress critters out of office without waiting until the next election. I’m not sure if it’s the same in all the states, but in Calif. at least, there is no method available to recall members of either house.

Spitzer resigned. If he had not, it would have been up to the voters to fire him.

I do hope you will quit saying that calling for Clinton to be tried for perjury is “giving him a pass” but other than that I think we will end up having to agree to disagree. You trust Congress to kick Presidents out of office in a far wider variety of circumstances that I do. I believe that the voters elect presidents and the voters should be the ones to fire presidents, unless the very continuation of America as we know it is so imminently threatened that the matter simply cannot wait for the next election.

The bottom line is that I don’t trust Congress not to play politics with impeachment (or anything else, for that matter). Therefore, I believe that Congress should only preempt the voter’s right to hire and fire their presidents when there well may not be another election at which the voters can decide to fire the president if Congress does not act.

By the way, let me suggest an alternative. What if the result of an impeachment and conviction wasn’t that the president was thrown out of office, but that the matter was put to a vote of the voters? In Great Britain, where the prime minister can call for an election at any time on very short notice, the quick elections seem to work pretty well. Maybe in really questionable circumstances, like the ones we are disagreeing on here, we should have an election on similar short notice. At least then the voters, not the Congress, would do the firing, which I’d be a whole lot more comfortable with.

What’s the difference (anticipating that you wouldn’t)?

Because you don’t think he should be kicked out of office for it. Look…here’s a possibly poor example of what I mean. Let’s say your birthday is a big day for you. In fact, you have a sign in your office saying “Today’s my birthday!” One of your co-workers walks by the sign, looks at you and says nothing. How upset do you get? Ok…now you’re at home, and your dear sweet sainted mother never calls. You call her, but in the conversation, she never says word one about your birthday. Are you upset? I’d bet you would be. (Ok…I’m not big on birthdays, so I understand if you say this is a lousy example). The idea is that the offense is in proportion to the signifigance of the offender. If this had been Joe Blow, I’d agree with you. I might not fire him. But this is _the President_. The man whose primary responsibility is to uphold the law of the land. That’s his _job_. And he gave himself a pass, so that a person who had a claim against him wouldn’t win her case. That is the soul of corruption. You would give him a pass. I wouldn’t. If Paula Jones doesn’t have the same rights in a court of law that the President has, then the system is corrupt.

You say it was “just about sex”…well, then, if it’s just a small thing, why did he perjure himself? Obviously because it _wasn’t_ a small thing to him. He knew there was a lot on the line, and he wasn’t willing to risk it - so he lied.

If he’s unfaithful in the small things, how can you assume he’ll be faithful in the big things?

For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of government.“Corruption” not in the sense that representatives are bribed.
Rather, “corruption” in the sense that the system induces the beneficiaries of Congress’s acts to raise and give money to Congress to induce it to act. There’s only so much time; there’s only so much Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must do—and those things that pay? - Lessig, Free Culture

This is the corruption that John McCain was hoping to contain with the campaign finance reform act. I would submit there is another form of bribery and its a bribery that is bankrupting America. It is the briberly of politician buying votes from the American people.
Politicians promise this program, or that program– spending money for this group or that group and it has produced an American that is on the take.

Sleazy politicians are returned to office because they “bring home the bacon”.

I was just listening to an C. McCaskill, representing Obama’s campaign, saying that the standard achievement test of the no child left behind act have failed. She says Obama would change the standards, allowing many ways to measure progress. I thought we measured progress of a child by grades, and the problem with grades is that they are subjective– in fact I heard about a district in the Carolina’s that plans on limiting the lowest grade a student can receive to 60. The standard achievement tests show that teachers are doing a poor job teaching.
Now the corruption in this– politicians are buying the votes of the NEA.

As long as Americans are on the take the cost of government will rise,
and politicians will continue to steal money from one group of Americans to give to another group, from the producer class to the consumer class until enough Americans have a sense of honor to resist these dishonest attempts to buy our vote.

The most important right we have in America is the right to vote for our leaders. That vote should be respected and not lightly overturned. Any process that removes from office a leader voted into office by the people should be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances. And any process that removes the one leader voted into office by all of the voters, should be used only if the continued existence of our nation is threatened. Anything else, including perjury, can wait for the next election, at which time the voters can remove the persident from office.