Impeachment is the process by which the legislature formally filed a lawsuit against a high-ranking government official. Impeachment does not mean removal from the office; this is just an official statement about the indictment, similar to the indictment in criminal law, and hence only the first step towards the abolition. After an individual is dismissed, he then has to face the possibility of confidence through the legislative vote, which then involves the removal of individuals from the office.
Because the impeachment and confidence of the officials involves reversing the normal constitutional procedures by which individuals achieve high office (elections, ratification or appointment) and because generally require supermajority, they are usually reserved for those who are considered to have committed serious offenses against the office. In the United States, for example, impeachment at the federal level is limited to those who may have committed "high crime and minor crimes".
Impeachment has its origins in English law but was not used in the 18th century. It is under constitutional law in many countries around the world, including Brazil, the Republic of Ireland, India, the Philippines, Russia, South Korea, and the United States.
Video Impeachment
Etymology and history
The word "impeachment" comes from the ancient French empeechier of Latin impedicare which states the idea to be caught or trapped, and has an analogue in modern French verb empiÆ'ªªcher i i> (to prevent) and modern English blocking . The medieval popular etymology also connects it (wrongly) with the derivation of the Latin impetere <(i)). (In its more frequent and more technical use, impeachment of a witness means challenging the person's honesty or credibility.)
Impeachment was first used in the British political system. In particular, this process was first used by the British "Good Parliament" against Baron Latimer in the second half of the 14th century. Following the British example, the Virginia constitution (1776), Massachusetts (1780) and other countries thereafter adopted the impeachment mechanism, but they limited the penalty for the removal of officials from the office. In addition, in private organizations, accused movements can be used to select fees.
Maps Impeachment
In various jurisdictions
Austria
The Austrian Federal President may be dismissed by the Federal Assembly ( Bundesversammlung ) before the Constitutional Court. The Constitution also provides a presidential withdrawal through a referendum. None of this course has ever been taken. This may be because while the President is given considerable power on paper, they act as ceremonial puppet heads in practice, and thus are barely in a position to abuse their power.
Brazil
The President of the Federal Republic of Brazil, the state governor and mayor of the city may be dismissed by the Chamber of Deputies and tried and deleted by the Federal Senate. After confidence, his political rights office officer was deprived for eight years - which had the effect of blocking him from running for any job.
Fernando Collor de Mello, the 32nd Brazilian President, resigned in 1992 amidst the impeachment process. Despite his resignation, the Senate still chose to punish him and forbade him to hold office for eight years, due to evidence of bribery and misappropriation.
In 2016, the Deputy Chamber started an impeachment case against President Dilma Rousseff for alleged mismanagement of the budget. After his conviction, he was replaced by Vice President Michel Temer, who had served as acting president while the Rousseff case was delayed.
Bulgarian
Bulgarian President can be removed only because of high treason or constitutional violation. This process begins with a two-thirds majority vote of Parliament to indict the President, where the Constitutional Court decides whether the President is guilty of the crimes charged to him. If he is found guilty, he is expelled from power. No Bulgarian President ever dismissed. The same procedure can be used to remove the Bulgarian Vice President, which also never happened.
Croatian
The process of impeaching the President of Croatia may begin with a two-thirds majority vote in favor of Sabor and then referred to the Constitutional Court, which must accept such a proposal by a two-thirds majority in favor of the President being removed from office. But this has never happened in the history of the Croatian Republic. However, if there is a successful impeachment, the president's five-year term of office will be terminated and a so-called election within 60 days of the vacancy. During the period of power vacuum and the duties of the president will be implemented by the Chairman of the Croatian Parliament in his capacity as Acting President of the Republic.
Czech Republic
The President of the Czech Republic may be dismissed only for high treason actions (which are not defined in the Constitution of the Czech Republic themselves). The process should start in the Czech Republic Senate which has only the right to indict the president, this passes the case to the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic who must decide whether the President is guilty or not. If the Court decides that the President is guilty then the President loses his position and the ability to be elected President of the Czech Republic again. No Czech president ever dismissed, though, Senate members tried to indict President Vaclav Klaus in 2013. The case was rejected by the court for the reason that his mandate was over.
In 2013 the constitution changes; now the process can be started by at least three fifths of current senators and must be approved by at least three fifths of all members of Parliament. Also, the President may be dismissed not only for high treason (newly defined in the Constitution) but also for serious offenses against the Constitution.
German
The Federal President of Germany may be dismissed either by the Bundestag or by the Bundesrat for deliberately violating Federal law. After the Bundestag or Bundesrat accused the president, the Federal Constitutional Court decides whether the President is guilty as charged and, if that is the case, whether to remove him from office. The Federal Constitutional Court also has the authority to remove federal judges from the office for deliberately violating the core principles of the federal constitution or the state constitution. The impeachment procedure is provided for in Article 61 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Hong Kong
The Chief Executive of Hong Kong may be dismissed by the Legislative Council. A motion for investigation, jointly initiated by at least one-quarter of all legislators who demand the Chief Executive with "serious law offenses or neglect of duty" and refused to resign, will first be ratified by the Council. An independent investigative committee, chaired by the President of the Court of Appeal, will then investigate and report back to the Council. If the Board finds sufficient evidence to justify the allegations, the Council may submit an impeachment motion by a two-thirds majority.
However, the Legislative Council does not actually have the power to issue the Chief Executive of his post, since the Chief Executive is appointed by the Central Government of the People. The Board can only report the results to the Central Government for its decision.
India
The President, the judge including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the High Court may be dismissed by Parliament before the expiration of the period for violating the Constitution. In addition to impeachment, no other penalty may be granted to a president in a position to breach the Constitution under Article 361 of the constitution. But a president after his term of imprisonment/dismissal may be punished for his activities that have been proven to be unlawful under a disrespectable constitution, etc. No president faces impeachment. Therefore, the provision for impeachment has never been tested. The President is in a position of uncollect and must resign to make that happen.
Iran
Expert Assembly may prosecute Iran's Supreme Leader and appoint new ones.
The Iranian president can be buried jointly by the members of the Assembly (Majlis) and the Supreme Leader. New presidential elections are then triggered. Abolhassan Banisadr, Iran's first president, was dismissed in June 1981 and dismissed from office. Mohammad-Ali Rajai was elected as the new president.
Cabinet ministers may be dismissed by members of the Assembly. The appointment of the president of a new minister is subject to a vote of confidence in parliament. Impeachment of minister has been a fairly common tactic used in power struggles between presidents and assemblies over the last few governments.
ireland
In the official impeachment of the Republic of Ireland only applies to the Irish presidency. Article 12 of the Irish Constitution stipulates that, unless considered "permanent defect" by the Supreme Court, the presidency may be excluded from office by Oireachtas (parliament) houses and only for the commission "declaring misconduct". Either Oireachtas' house may indict the president, but only by a resolution approved by a majority of at least two-thirds of the total number of its members; and a house may not consider proposals for impeachment unless asked to do so at least with thirty numbers.
Where one house beats the president, the remaining house either investigates the charge or commission of another body or committee to do so. Investigation houses can move the president if it is decided, at least by two-thirds of the majority of its members, either that the president is guilty of the charge, and that the allegations are serious enough to guarantee the president's dismissal. Until now there is no impeachment of an Irish president that ever happened. The President holds a very ceremonial position, his dignity is considered important, so the possibility of a president will resign from office long before undergoing formal belief or impeachment.
The Constitution and the Republic's law also state that only the joint resolutions of both houses of Oireachtas can remove the judge. Although often referred to as a judge's "impeachment", this procedure technically does not involve impeachment.
Italy
In Italy, according to Article 90 of the Constitution, the President of the Republic may be dismissed by a majority vote of Parliament in joint sessions for high treason and to try to overthrow the Constitution. If terminated, the President of the Republic is then tried by an Integrated Constitutional Court with sixteen citizens older than forty elected by lots of lists compiled by Parliament every nine years.
The Italian press and political forces exploit the term "impeachment" for attempts by some members of the parliamentary opposition to initiate the procedures set out in Article 90 against President Francesco Cossiga (1991), Giorgio Napolitano (2014) and Sergio Mattarella (2018).
Liechtenstein
Members of the Liechtenstein Government may be dismissed before the District Court for violations of the Constitution or other laws. As a hereditary monarch, the Sovereign Prince can not be dismissed because he is "not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and has no legal responsibility". The same applies to every member of the Forced House who performs the function of head of state if the Prince should be temporarily prevented or in preparation for Succession.
Lithuania
In the Republic of Lithuania, the President may be dismissed by three-fifths of the majority in Seimas. President Rolandas Paksas was removed from office by impeachment on April 6, 2004 after the Lithuanian Constitutional Court found him guilty of violating the oath and constitution. He was the first European head of state to have been dismissed.
Norwegian
Members of the government, deputy national assemblies (Stortinget) and Supreme Court judges may be dismissed for criminal offenses related to their duties and committed in the office, in accordance with the Constitution 1814, Ã, §§§§ 86 and 87. The procedural rules are modeled after US rules and very similar to them. Impeachment has been used eight times since 1814, most recently in 1927. Many argue that impeachment has fallen into desuetude. In cases of impeachment, the designated courts (Riksrett) apply.
Pakistan
The country's ruling coalition said on August 7, 2008 it would seek impeachment of President Pervez Musharraf, alleging that the former US-backed general had "eroded the nation's trust" and increased pressure on him to resign. He resigned on August 18, 2008. Another type of impeachment in Pakistan is known as a vote of unbelief or misunderstanding and has been practiced by provincial assemblies to weaken the national assembly.
Dumping a president requires the support of a two-thirds majority of parliamentarians in a joint session of the two Parliamentary assemblies.
Philippines
Impeachment in the Philippines follows a procedure similar to that of the United States. Under Sections 2 and 3, Article XI, the Philippine Constitution, the Philippine Representative Council has the exclusive power to initiate all impeachment cases against the President, Vice President, Supreme Court members, members of the Constitutional Commission (General Election Commission, Civil Service Commission and Audit Commission), and Ombudsman. When a third of his membership has authorized impeachment articles, it is then forwarded to the Philippine Senate who tried and decided, as an impeachment court, a case of impeachment.
The main difference from US trials is that only a third of House members are required to approve a motion to accuse the President (as opposed to a modest majority of those present and vote on their US partners). In the Senate, elected members of the House of Representatives act as prosecutors and the Senator acts as a judge with the Senate President who presides over the trial (Chief Justice jointly leads the President of the Senate if the President is on trial). Like the United States, to punish the official concerned requires that at least two-thirds (ie 16 of 24 members) of all Members of the Senate vote support the belief. If the impeachment effort is unsuccessful or the official is released, no new case may be filed against the non-compliance officer for at least one full year.
Unreliable offenses and officials
The 1987 Philippine Constitution says the grounds for impeachment include violations of the Constitution, bribery, corruption and corruption, and treason of public trust. This offense is considered "high crime and minor offenses" under the Philippine Constitution.
The President, Vice President, Supreme Court judges, and members of the Constitutional Commission and the Ombudsman are all regarded as officials who can not be obeyed under the Constitution.
Impeachment process and effort
President Joseph Estrada was the first official dismissed by the House of Representatives in 2000, but the trial ended prematurely due to anger over votes to open an envelope in which the movement was defeated by its allies. Estrada was ousted a few days later during the 2001 EDSA Revolution.
In 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, impeachment complaints were filed against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, but no cases reached support needed by 1/3 members to be sent to, and tried by, the Senate.
In March 2011, the House of Representatives dismissed the Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, being the second conqueror. In April, Gutierrez resigned before the Senate meeting as an impeachment court.
In December 2011, in what was described as "blitzkrieg mode", 188 of the 285 members of the House of Representatives voted to send a 56-page Article on Impeachment to Supreme Court Supreme Court Renato Corona.
To date, three officials have been successfully dismissed by the House of Representatives, and two people are not punished. Finally, Supreme Court Justice Renato C. Corona, on May 29, 2012 has been convicted by the Senate guilty under Article II of the Impeachment Articles (betraying public trust), with 20-3 votes from the Senator Judge.
Peru
Polish
In Polish law no impeachment procedure is established, as it exists in other countries. Violations of the law may be investigated only by the special Parliamentary Committee or (if the allegation involves the person holding the highest state office) by the State Court. The State Courts are empowered to decide on the removal of individuals from public office but this is not a common practice.
Romanian
The President may be dismissed by Parliament and then suspended. The referendum then follows to determine whether a deferred President should be removed from office. President of Traian B? Sescu was fired twice by Parliament: in 2007 and more recently in July 2012. The referendum was held on May 19, 2007 and most voters chose not to move the president from his post. For the latest suspension, a referendum was held on July 29, 2012, but was canceled due to low voter turnout, but the result was very much against the president ()
Russian
The President of Russia may be dismissed if both the State Duma (which initiates the impeachment process through the establishment of a special investigation committee) and the Russian Federation of Council voted by a two-thirds majority in favor of impeachment and, in addition, the Supreme Court found that the President was guilty of similar treason or similar crimes against the state and the Constitutional Court affirms that the constitutional procedure of the impeachment process has been properly observed. In 1995-1999, the Duma made several attempts to indict President Boris Yeltsin, but they never had enough votes for the process to reach the Federation Council.
South Korea (Republic of Korea)
According to Article 65 Paragraph 1 of the South Korean Constitution, if the President, Prime Minister, or other state council members including the Supreme Court and members of the Constitutional Court, violate the Constitution or any other law of official duty, the National Assembly may indict them. Clause 2 states that the impeachment bill may be filed by one-third or more of the total members of the National Assembly, and will require a majority vote and be approved by two-thirds or more of the total members of the National Assembly. The article also states that everyone who is subjected to an impeachment motion has been suspended from exercising his power until impeachment has been decided and will not extend further than being excluded from public office. Provided that it will not relieve the dismissed person from civil or criminal liability.
Two presidents have been dismissed since the founding of the Sixth Republic of Korea and the adoption of the new South Korean Constitution in 1987. Roh Moo-hyun in 2004 was dismissed by the National Assembly but annulled by the Constitutional Court. Park Geun-hye in 2016 was dismissed by the National Assembly, and the impeachment was confirmed by the Constitutional Court on March 10, 2017.
Taiwan
In Taiwan, according to the Supplementary Section of the Constitution of the Republic of China, the impeachment of the president or vice president by Legislative Yuan will begin on the proposal of more than half of the total members of the Legislative Yuan and ratified by more than two thirds of the total members of Legislative Yuan, which will be presented to the judge of Judicial Yuan for adjudication.
Ukraine
During the crisis that began in November 2013, increased political pressure from face to face between protesters occupying the Independence Square in Kiev and the State Security forces under the control of President Yanukovych caused the deadly armed forces to be used on the demonstrators. After the negotiated refund of Kiev City Hall on February 16, 2014, occupied by the demonstrators since November 2013, security forces think they can also retake the "Maidan", Independence Square. The ensuing battles on 17 to 21 February 2014 resulted in a greater number of deaths and more general population exiles, and the withdrawal of President Yanukovych to his support areas in Eastern Ukraine.
After the departure of the President, Parliament meets on February 22; he restored the 2004 Constitution, which reduced the power of the President, and chose the impeachment of President Yanukovych as the de facto recognition of his departure from his post as President of the integrated Ukraine. The President denies that Parliament's actions are illegal because they can pass laws only with the signature of the President.
United Kingdom
In England, at least in theory, everyone, whether peers or commoners, can be prosecuted and tried by two Houses of Parliament for any crime. The first recorded impeachment was William Latimer, 4 Baron Latimer during the Good Parliament of 1376. The last was Henry Dundas, the first Viscount Melville in 1806.
Procedures
In England, it is the House of Commons that has the power to start an impeachment. Any member may make any criminal allegations. Members must support allegations with evidence and move for impeachment. If the Commons carries a motion, the mover receives orders to go to the bar in the House of Lords and to indict the defendant "on behalf of the House of Commons, and all commons of the United Kingdom."
The mover must notify the Lords that the House of Commons will, in time, showcase certain articles against the defendant, and make the same. The Commons then usually elect the committee to draw up the allegations and make "Article Impeachment" for each. (But in the case of Warren Hastings, the arrangement of those passages precedes formal impeachment.) Once the committee has submitted the articles to the Lords, replies are filed between the accused and the Commons through the Lords. If the Commons had buried a colleague, the Lords took custody of the accused; if not, prisoners go to Black Rod. The defendant remains in custody unless the Lords permit a guarantee. The Lords set a date for the trial while Commons appoints the manager, who acts as the prosecutor in the hearing. The defendant can defend with the lawyer.
House of Lords heard of this case. The procedure used is that the Chancellor Chief leads (or High Officer Mr. if the defendant is a colleague); but this was when Lord Chancellor was the chairman of the Lords and the head of the English and Welsh judiciary. Since these two roles were removed from the office by the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act, which created the Lord Chief to lead the Lords and make the head of God's Judicial Chief, it is not known who will lead the impeachment trial today. If Parliament is not in session, then the trial is conducted by the "Lord's High Court" instead of the House of Lords (even if the defendant is not a colleague). The difference between this court and the House of Lords is that in the Parliament all colleagues are judges of both law and fact, whereas in Court of Appeal Lord Steward is the only judge of the law and colleagues decide the facts alone; and the bishops have no right to sit and vote in the Court. Traditionally, friends will wear their parliamentary robes during the trial.
Trials resemble ordinary courts: both parties may summon witnesses and provide evidence. At the end of the session, the rulers voted on the verdict, which was decided by a simple majority, one charge at a time. Once called, a colleague must rise up and declare "guilty, for my honor" or "not guilty, for my honor". After a vote on all the articles has occurred, and if the Lords feels defendant guilty, Commons may move for judgment; The gentlemen can not declare punishment until the Commons have moved. The Lords can then decide on whatever penalties they deem fit, in law. A loyal forgiveness can not free the defendant from court, but forgiveness can sue a convicted convicted person. However, pardons can not rule out the decision to issue the defendant from the public office they hold.
History
Parliament has held the power of impeachment since medieval times. Initially, the House of Lords states that impeachment can only apply to members of the nobility, because the nobility (the nobles) will try their own colleagues, while the commoners should try their colleagues (other commoners) in the jury. However, in 1681, the Commons declared that they had the right to indict whomever they pleased, and the Lords had respected this resolution. Offices that are held "during good conduct" may end in writing either quo warranto or facias scire , which has even been employed by and against well-placed judges.
After the reign of Edward IV, impeachment became unused, the bill of attainder being the preferred form of dealing with unwanted subjects of Crown. However, during the reign of James I and thereafter, impeachments became more popular, as they did not require the approval of Crown, while bills of the attainder, thus allowing Parliament to deny the royal attempt to dominate Parliament. The latest impeachment cases were handled by Warren Hastings, Governor-General of India between 1773 and 1786 (dismissed in 1788; Lords found him innocent in 1795), and Henry Dundas, Viscount Melville, First Lord of the Admiralty, in 1806 (released). The last attempt was made in 1848, when David Urquhart accused Lord Palmerston of signing a secret treaty with the Russian Empire and receiving money from the Tsar. Palmerston survived the vote in the Commons; Gentlemen did not hear the case.
Queen Caroline
Queen Caroline, the consort of King George IV, was tried by the House of Commons and released. It begins as an impeachment process, but then becomes a different procedure as a bill of pain and punishment.
modern politics
This procedure, from time to time, becomes rarely used and some legal authorities (such as Halsbury's Laws of England) think it may be outdated. The principle of "responsible government" requires the Prime Minister and other executive officers to be accountable to Parliament, rather than to the Sovereign. Thus Commons can move the officer through a no-confidence motion without long and protracted impeachment. However, some argue that impeachment efforts remain part of British constitutional law, and that legislation will be required to remove them. Furthermore, impeachment as a means of punishment for error, which is different from the way a minister is wiped out, remains a legitimate reason to accept that it continues to be available, at least in theory.
The Select Committee on the Privileges of Parliament in 1967 recommended "that the right to interpret, which has long been discarded, is now officially abandoned". Their recommendations have not been implemented in the meantime, the Select Privileged Select Committee in 1977 declared it "to be a sustainable validity" and once again urged that it be adopted. Shortly before this report was released, in April 1977 the Young Liberals annual conference unanimously endorsed a motion calling on Liberal Party leader David Steel to move to Ronald King Murray QC impeachment Lord Advocate for his handling of Patrick Meehan's failure. affairs of justice. Steel did not move such a movement but Murray (now Lord Murray, a former Senator from the College of Justice of Scotland) agrees that the power is still there.
The Joint Committee on the Privileges of Parliament in 1999 noted the previous recommendation to formally abandon the impeachment of power, stating that "The circumstances under which impeachment has occurred are now so far from the present that such procedures may be deemed obsolete". Nevertheless, on August 25, 2004, Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price announced its intention to move to impeachment Tony Blair for his role in engaging Britain in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He asks the Leader of the House of Representatives, Peter Hain, whether he will affirm that the power to impeach is still available, reminding Hain that as the Young Liberal President, he has supported Murray's impeachment efforts. Hain responded by quoting the report of the Joint Committee of 1999, and the advice of the House of Representatives Assembly that the impeachment "effectively died with the emergence of a fully responsible Parliament government".
Electoral courts have several powers associated with impeachment cases in other countries, and may remove elected officials from the office in cases of electoral fraud. Lutfur Rahman was the elected mayor directly from Tower Hamlets, in London until he was expelled from office for violating electoral rules.
United States
Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of the only impeachment power and the Senate is the only force to try impeachments officers from the US federal government. (Different state constitutions include the same act, allowing state legislatures to indict governors or other officials of the state government.) Unlike the British system, in the United States impeachment is only the first of two stages, and beliefs during both stages require "two- of the members present. " Impeachment does not always result in removal from the office; it's just a legal statement about the indictment, parallel to the indictment in criminal law. A dismissed official faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same or other body), which determines the belief, or failure to punish, on charges impeached by the impeachment. Most constitutions require the majority to punish. Although the subject of the allegation is a criminal act, it is not a criminal court; the only questions to consider are the dismissal of an individual from the office, and the possibility of subsequent votes that prevented officials who were removed from political office who once again held power in the jurisdiction where he was dismissed. Impeachment with regard to political office should not be misinterpreted by witness impeachment.
Unbreakable Violations
The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "the President, Vice President, and all US civilian officials" who may be dismissed and removed only for "betrayal, bribery, or other high crimes and minor offenses". Some commentators have argued that Congress itself can decide for itself what is "a high crime or minor crime", especially since Nixon v. The United States declared that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate actually "tried" the defendant. In 1970, Minority Leader then-Gerald R. Ford's House defines the criteria when he sees it: "An inseparable offense is whatever the majority of the House considers it at a given moment in history."
Officials subject to impeachment
The central question of the Constitutional dispute concerning the impeachment of legislators is whether members of Congress are US officials. The Constitution gives Parliament the power to indict "President, Vice President, and all US Civil Officials." It has been suggested that members of Congress are not US officials. However, others believe that members are civil servants and subject to impeachment.
The House of Representatives tolerated Sen. William Blount in 1798, which resulted in his expulsion. However, after initially hearing of his impeachment, the allegations were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Leaving uneasy is the question of whether Congress members are civilian officials of the United States. The House of Representatives does not recognize Members of Congress since Blount. Since every House has the authority to expel its own members without involving other rooms, expulsion has become the method used to remove Members of Congress.
The Jefferson Guide, which is an integral part of the Rules of the House of Representatives, states that impeachment is driven by allegations made on the floor, the indictment is punishable by warnings, member resolutions referring to committees, messages from presidents, or from facts developed and reported by the investigative committee of the DPR. It further states that the proposition for indictment is a matter of high privilege in the House and at the same time replacing other businesses in order under the rules governing the order of business.
Process
At the federal level, the impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first graduate, with a simple majority of those present and voting, impeachment articles, which are official accusations or allegations. Upon passing, the defendant has been "dismissed". Furthermore, the Senate tried to accuse. In the case of impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States leads the process. For the impeachment of other officials, the Constitution is silent on who will lead, indicating that this role falls to the regular Senate chairman, the Senate President who is also the Vice President of the United States.
In theory at least, as the President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States can lead his own impeachment, although legal theory suggests that allowing the defendant to be a judge in his own case would be a conflict of interest. If the Vice President does not lead impeachment (from anyone other than the President), the duty will fall to the President of the Senate pro tempore.
To punish the accused, "two-thirds of the members' consent" is required. Conviction of getting rid of defendant from office. Following the conviction, the Senate may elect to further punish the individual by prohibiting him from holding a future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not preclude criminal prosecution. Even after a defendant leaves the office, it is possible to disqualify the person from a future position or from a certain honorarium from his previous post (such as retirement). If there is no charge that two-thirds majority of the senators vote "guilty", the defendant is released and no penalty is imposed.
History of the federal impeachment process in the United States
Congress considers impeachment a force only used in extreme cases; House of Representatives has started the impeachment process only 64 times since 1789 (most recently impeachment 2010, later removed from office, Judge Thomas Porteous of United States District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana) with only the following 19 of these processes actually producing article on Impeachment passed by Parliament:
- Two presidents:
- Andrew Johnson, Democrat/National Union, was impeached on 24 February 1868 by the House of Representatives after violating the newly created 126 to 47 House Office Ownership Act. President Johnson was released by the Senate, who voted 35-19 in favor of a guilty verdict, but dropped a vote of less than two-thirds needed to remove him from office. The Tenure of Office Act will be found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in dicta. Bill Clinton, Democrat, was dismissed on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on articles containing perjury (in particular, lying to federal jurors) by voting 228-206 and a barrier of justice by 221-212 voted. The House of Representatives rejects another article: one is the number of perjury in a civil deposition in the sexual assault lawsuit Paula Jones against Clinton (by 205-229 votes), the second accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by 148-285 votes). President Clinton was released by the Senate. The voice to remove it from office is less than two-thirds needed: 45-55 on the barrier of justice and 50-50 on perjury.
There have been unsuccessful attempts to start the impeachment process against Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump.
State governor
Three state governors have been dismissed and removed from office:
- Jack C. Walton, Oklahoma's Democratic Governor, was dismissed for various crimes including illegal campaign fundraising, public payroll, habeas corpus suspension, excessive use of gratuity, and general disability. In November 1923, Walton was convicted and expelled from office.
- Evan Mecham, Governor of the Republic of Arizona, was dismissed for impeding justice and abusing government funds and was removed from office in April 1988.
- Rod Blagojevich, the Illinois Democratic Governor, was dismissed for abuse of power and corruption, including an attempt to sell the appointment to the seat of the United States Senate vacated by Barack Obama's resignation. He was expelled from office in January 2009.
See also
- List of presidents impeach
References
Further reading
- Gerhardt, Michael J. Federal impeachment process .
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments