Talk:Impeachment

Articles of Impeachment for President George W. Bush

"Rep. McKinney Files Articles of Impeachment" Outgoing lawmaker cites numerous abuses of the Constitution by President Bush.

[Text has been moved to Talk:Impeachment/Bush Articles.]

added paragraph on Jefferson's rules

I'm a complete newbie to wikipedia editing, but I just added a short paragraph as there was nothing about the (U.S.) impeachment initiation process. The paragraph is halfway down the article and begins 'Jefferson's Manual'. Apologies if I've violated etiquette!

Current efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney

I just added 2 wikipedia links to the 'see also' section.

Impeachment in Canada

I read this interesting line in Senator Anne Cools' speech about Brian Mulroney and the Airbus Affair. http://sen.parl.gc.ca/acools/english/Speeches/1996/speeches_march19.htm

"Honourable senators, I ask Parliament to take cognizance of this matter and to engage the full range of its inquisitorial, judicial and legislative powers. Parliament must vigorously repudiate these allegations as a wanton, reckless and malicious attack on former Prime Minister Mulroney or, in the alternative, Parliament must give them credence and pursue him to destruction by issuing articles of impeachment; but Parliament must act decisively."

I'd guess they'd get the impeachment power from the line in the BNA Act that says the Canadian parliament inherits all powers of the British parliament? (pgh 12) Or they might have to pass an Impeachment Act? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.173.200 (talk) 10:20, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Topic requires valid links, disruptive users rollback when large improvements are made. How to stop disruptive editing?

After substantial improvements by adding primary source links, and explaining detailed processes, a user rolled back the 8,000 character edit on an assumption that some partisan element was contained. Recommend the users discuss specific problems before reverting to an edition which was clearly a single person's opinion, and contained no verifiable links.

Specific issues:

• Impeachment is a political process, my links confirmed this. The rollback falsely promotes it as a legal process, and provides no links.

• United States entry lacked any links to explain the disqualification process and law which dictates it. I incorporated those, they were rolled back to vague, unverifiable, and flatly wrong information.

• The rollback deleted a definition directly from an English language dictionary in the first paragraph. It left the article in a far worse state, and included no sources.

• The rollback reversed the specific date of "January 13, 2021" as Trump's impeachment date, and replaced it with "a week before leaving office." A clear degredation in quality, and lazy attempt at editing.

• The edit removed verified court decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States, with attached quotations, which help the audience understand what the term "officer" means in the context of this article. It replaced it with an unlinked "public office" term having no context.

The bulk rollback needs to discuss individual points, it greatly degraded this article. Please moderate this disruption. --- PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH I CREATED BELOW, WITH CITATIONS:

Impeachment is a process by which a legally constituted tribunal challenges or discredits the honesty or validity of a public official serving a government position. This process most frequently addresses charges of misconduct against a high level official who, through the unique nature of their positions may be beyond the reach of the law to prosecute, or whose misconduct is not codified into law as an offense except through the unique expectations of their high office. In nearly all uses the process is outside the legal system of the government. Frobozz1 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

As this editor has queried the revert on my talk page, I gave my reasons there. After the editor's initial changes to the lead were removed by GreenFrogsGoRibbit with the comment "Reverting before page was filled with extremely partisan and poorly worded legal arguments involving the previous American president." the editor simply put them back again, and re-reverted a second time without making the least effort to discuss here. I agree with GreenFrogsGoRibbit's comments, but am happy that the issue has at last been brought to to this page for wider discussion. As I said on my talk page, if reasonable improvements to the article are proposed, I will support them. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph above relies on what you refer to as “well formatted” citations from extremely reliable sources. (Do you realize you literally deleted a dictionary definition?) I intend to fix the opening paragraph with the above, which is more accurate in the “broad scope” of impeachment. It is patently untrue that impeachment “decides upon legal charges.” That is what the Judiciary is for. United States does not “indict” anyone in the House. Indictment, again, is for criminal proceedings.

Now instead of explaining this all to you, please try not to own the article, and if my sources are invalid —- try to find BETTER ones instead of leaving the article full of incited opinions. The goal SHOULD be improvement rather than fast-pressing the Undo button for every citation that disagrees with the owner.

Please talk BEFORE destroying massive improvement you may disagree with. Strive for consensus, please, so we both can get on with life.

Regards

Frobozz1 (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to assume WP:GOODFAITH, but you unironically inserted this into an article: "Aside from being a clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine to permit the Legislature to manipulate the placement of the Executive, on it's face any act by Congress which even suggests that voters can not elect Donald Trump violates the Voter Intimidation law in 18 U.S.C. § 594" GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Frobozz1, for all your high-sounding talk of "strive for consensus, please" and "800 characters of improvement" it's almost impossible to believe you are here to help create a neutral encyclopedia when the bulk of your edits are so obviously politically partisan. I wonder why you have found it necessary to set up for yourself an entirely new username specially to make these edits, and why you evidently can't or don't want to make them under your old (or existing) username. Perhaps you could explain.

Many of your most problematic edits are on Impeachment in the United States, and I'll leave that page for others to deal with. You have gone to extraordinary lengths to carefully pick your citations to construct a narrative that minimises the gravity of the current Trump proceedings, that paints them as being merely party-political not legal proceedings, and which attempts to throws doubt on their applicability to a former president.

Turning specifically to your proposals for the lead in this article:

1. Contrary to your bald assertion, impeachment most certainly is a legal process. Even your own dictionary definition says “To charge (a high public official) before a legally constituted tribunal” (my italics). Impeachment is a legal process that is built in to the constitution of many countries where the allegations and trial are handled by the legislature rather than - as is more usual - the courts. It is absolutely incorrect to equate ‘legal’ as you seem to do with ‘the courts’ and ‘political’ with ‘the legislature’. A ‘political act’ of the legislature would in many countries be something akin to a party-political resolution, not a formal trial mandated by the constitution. That appears to be how you would like the current US proceedings to be presented.
2. You wrongly state that no citation is provided. See the existing citation at the end of the first sentence, which you deleted.
3. The wording “In nearly all uses the process is outside the legal system of the government” makes no sense unless you think that the courts are there to operate at the behest of government. Which they may in some countries, but not in democratic ones.
4. Your second added citation is to a page on the UK parliamentary website. You have quoted the text correctly, but failed to mention what would appear to be the rather important point that in the UK the procedure ‘is considered obsolete’ and was last used in 1806. The lead could usefully include some commentary on the history of the process, and its early development from English medieval practice, but implying that this represents current practice (by implication in all of the listed countries) is of no help whatsoever to a reader of the article.

You say “I intend to fix the opening paragraph with the above”. No. Do not do that. Discuss your ideas here and see if you can get consensus agreement for them. So far nobody has supported you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Impeachment is a very strictly political process in democracies. Yes, the tribunal is constituted under law (as opposed to illegally constituted [kangaroo courts]). But I won’t battle your wits: Here is the fact:

“ Impeachment Is a Political Process, Not a Judicial One

Each act that a president takes provides him some political gain. But 'How much is too much?' is a quintessentially political question.

By Alan B. Morrison | December 10, 2019 ”

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/12/10/impeachment-is-a-political-process-not-a-judicial-one/

I am an American. Legal process respect the rights of the accused, impeachment does not, in any way, care about the rights of the impeached party. It’s purpose is to inform the public of misdeeds in their government, not to punish any wrongdoer. They have no right to appeal an impeachment or trial. They have no right to due process. There is no consideration or care at all for the individual being impeached because it is not about that person, it is about protecting the Constitutional form of the government.

Please change it to a political process, which it is. Legal processes - in all nations - are the role of the judiciary, not the legislature.

Frobozz1 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I could use help wording the portion about disqualification from elected positions better, i.e.; "Aside from being a clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine to permit the Legislature to manipulate the placement of the Executive, on it's face any act by Congress which even suggests that voters can not elect Donald Trump violates the Voter Intimidation law in 18 U.S.C. § 594"

However the reality is that there exists no process within the American Constitution which allows any body except the Constitution itself to abridge the free and indefeasible right to make a free and pure choice for the American President and Vice President. Headlines to the contrary are merely politicizing the process and do not belong in a Wikipedia article which is the subject of educational assignments.

I am striving for accuracy, and well-credentialed references. Allowing headlines to govern the direction of this article is irresponsible.

I look forward to your suggestions on improving objectivity in the matter of usurping the sovereign right of United States citizens to choose their leader freely. It is the equivocation of plain language "office" with the well-defined term, "office under the United States" (equivalent to the British term, "officer under the Crown") which is being opportunistically driving media hyperbole.

(Sample usage from Parliment, 1804: "The Works of J. W. Published Under the Direction of B. Wilson", p. 447)

Link: Google Books: The Works of J. W. Published Under the Direction of B. Wilson

Please do not simply delete and roll back to bald statement of opinion. How can this article properly convey that the US congress has power only to limit appointees of the President under the Disqualification Clause, and no power at all to abridge the choices of the electorate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

After substantial improvements by adding primary source links Without examining your edits in too much detail, let me just say, please be careful using primary sources. They are rarely appropriate. If you are using primary sources and coming to your own conclusions, that is original research. Instead, reliable secondary sources should be used. This avoids original research, helps Wikipedia to reflect mainstream consensus, and avoids WP:FRINGE viewpoints. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, in no context can a supreme court ruling be constryed as "primary source" information. And in any case, the citation alone, in its existence, is superior to a bald statement with no citation at all, which is what the disruptive rollbacks are replacing my secondary source citations which have been analyzed and processed through the most strict court.

Your opinion is noted and documented, thank you. Embarassingly, I need to remind you what the terms mean: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

This is what is preferred. This is what I posted. Find something better, or leave the article alone. Frobozz1 (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Do not amend the article when the issues are under active discussion on the talk page. You have made your points above, but have dealt with hardly any of the counter-arguments. Kindly do so, starting with “Perhaps you could explain”. Nobody has yet agreed with your view, and your latest edits in the total absence of consensus are wholly disruptive. And it is not for me or anyone else to pick through your wholesale changes to try to see if there may or more likely may not be a good point in amongst all the bad. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Frobozz1, you cited several court cases. Court cases are primary sources. Also, so far, I am "leaving the article alone". I haven't touched any of your edits. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am in no hurry to try to gain consensus with things like court rulings and dictionary definitions unless I have cited them incorrectly, which Michael clearly said I did not. Then the argument is not between Frobozz1 and MichaelMags, it is between MichaelMags and Funk & Wagnell’s Dictionary, whose definition he replaced with an uncited and flatly incorrect opinion. That is an argument which should properly be treated with a better dictionary or encyclopedia article, rather than rollbacks.

Response to NL Frobozz1 (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope this is to everyone's liking. It certainly meets all the terms. Frobozz1 (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

My question if this conversion should be closed , because of the behavior from op who recently broke sanction rules. Kent Bargo (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't really close this type of conversation. Frobozz1 is still editing impeachment articles, and myself and other editors have concerns. Best to give us a place to discuss our concerns. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Edit made from incorrect context - Impeachment USA is not intended as punishment. Opening is now contradictory.

The word punishment occurs in the reference text, thereby causing @Novum Linguae to remove text indicating that it is not. I agree a cursory review seems to create a contradiction; however the intent was clearly stated on Page 8, exactly as my entry stated. It is a remedy with no intent to runish the individual. I suggest relying on the intent of the process for the article rather than an incidental consequence mentioned cursorily. The exact quote from page 8 of the citation is below:

The purpose of impeachment is not to inflict personal punishment for criminal activity. In fact, the Constitution explicitly makes clear that impeached individuals are not immunized from criminal liability once they are impeached for particular activity. Instead, impeachment is a “remedial” tool; it serves to effectively “maintain constitutional government” by removing individuals unfit for office.

The text which was presumed to be misquouted is below:

Most developed countries involve the courts in some way, but in the United States impeachment is a remedy to correct the office rather than a punishment of the officer or official. This arrangement places it outside the legal system and the impeached official is given no due process of law as the official can suffer no civil injury from the process.

I can add more sources if needed, but the current paragraph is contradictory and grammatically weird. Maybe a slight rewording would be better than block deleting references? --Frobozz1 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Frobozz1, you are right. I went ahead and re-added the text. I apologize for my revert. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you however the revision was confusing and did not feel like an NPOV, I rephrased it to more closely reflect the source text: The intent is maintaining the government; removal may or may not be incidental to that process (it most often is not), but neither punishment nor removal are the end goal of the lower house process referred to as 'impeachment' in this country in any case. --Frobozz1 (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Impeachment

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body or other legally constituted tribunal initiates charges against a public official for misconduct.[1][2] It may be understood as a unique process involving both political and legal elements. 49.244.131.150 (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)