I don't agree with the OP as stated. What I do agree with is a reduction in Presidential power, especially in terms of spying on American citizens. That crap needs to stop.

__________________
“Share everything with your brother. Do not say, ‘It is private property.’ If you share what is everlasting, you should be that much more willing to share things which do not last.”
~ The Didache

"Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs."
~St. John Chrysostom

I voted YES, on CONDITION that they cite reasons for putting the expulsion of the president to a vote; that show he's in violation of laws governing office; as Kucinich has done.

__________________

And now the truth comes out.
A patriotic shout.
To the brave men who died for scum like you.
Don't mean to be crass.
But here's a boot in your ass.
If you don't salute the red, white, n' blue.


Sarah Palin For President! http://www.palinaspresident.us/
Bill Ayers for Secretary of Education!

Not if members of Congress actually took their oath seriously.

The violations of the US Constitution by the Bush adminstration are very easy to prove and there would be no doubt about his guilt. The problem would be the same as with Clinton except it would be the Republicans this time violating the oath they take to judge the evidence of the case as opposed to voting based upon political agendas.

When will our elected members of Congress take their oath to defend and uphold the Constitution seriously?

__________________
Soldiers swear to protect and defend the Constitution with their lives.

Politicians swear to protect and defend the Constitution with someone else's life.

Let me try to frame this another way. Let's say Bill Clinton was your average Joe instead. Hillary takes him to divorce court and accuses him of having an affair. Bill naturally lies and commits perjury. It is later proven in court that Bill lied. Let's say that the jury gives the proper verdict and punishment on the divorce issues, but for some reason the penalty for perjury is life in prison. Bill is technically guilty, but is the original crime he committed worthy of a life sentence? As a member of the jury I would vote him "not guilty" of perjury, even though he clearly was. Or suggest a much lighter sentence for the perjury charge if that is an option.

Bill having to go home to Hillary would have been punishment enough in my opinion, find something more worthy to impeach him on than lying about an affair.

Finally, who determines whether an offense is impeachable or not? According to Wikipedia, it's Congress:

"In the United States, impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may only be impeached and removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." [2]. Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense."

Though if the President was discovered to be a sexual predator I would hope that Congress would remove him, regardless of party affiliation.

Shiva, don't hold your breath.

As to what constitutes an impeachable-offense: imho, it is the Congress that determines what's impeachable.
The constitution says that the president MUST be removed if convicted of high-crimes. It doesn't say a president can't be removed for lesser crimes.

The Constitution really doesn't allow the president to defy a 2/3 Senate vote for removal, regardless of the reasons -though in-theory, I suppose, the Supreme Court could rule a removal unconstitutional. The case would have to be extremely frivolous for that to happen, though, and the president very popular -in which case you wouldn't get the 2/3 majority anyway, so that would never happen.

Btw, concerning the cost of Impeachment: I've heard it's costly, but I don't think it is, really -unless you mean costly in time and labor.
You'd have to gather the evidence, and present it, and while hearings continue it detracts from the time Congress has for passing legislation, which (though it might be costly to some people) I wouldn't consider a drawback.

There woulde be no reason for "Joe" (Bill) to lie in court. There wasn't a mandatory requirement for any testimony and, of course, if "Joe" was an attorney I would say that it is a very serious offense worthy of criminal penalties and being dis-barred. While an average Joe may not understand the seriousness of perjury that cannot be said of an attorney. Certainly the President of the United States should also be held to a higher standard than the average Joe.

Of course a divorce is not heard by a jury

Impeachment happens in the House of Representatives and it is the House which determines whether there is evidence that a crime was committed and if it meets the requirements for removal from office. The Senate hears the case, acts as the jury, and determines if the crime was committed by the person. The Senate does not determine whether the crime meets the criteria as being an impeachable offense because that has already been determined by the House.

I believe that commiting a felony, any felony, is justification for removal from office. If the President can commit a felony and get away with then what happens to the 14th Amendment that requires equal protection under the law. Can anyone now commit perjury and obstruction of justice without fear of prosecution? Why should an average Joe be convicted while a President goes free of any punishment?

__________________
Soldiers swear to protect and defend the Constitution with their lives.

Politicians swear to protect and defend the Constitution with someone else's life.

This is so flawed I'm shocked that it has gotten as many votes in the poll as it has. I could see reducing the President's power, but giving congress the ability to remove him through majority vote is a dumb idea plan and simple. It might actually work too well and render the presidency nearly powerless to congressional whims.

The Lewinski scandal is proof of that this wouldn't work. Clinton had a 60% approval rating or higher at the time and only 1/3 of Americans supported the impeachment measure. Nonetheless due to partisanship the Republicans still went on with the impeachment.

Clearly partisan politics have gotten to the point where at least one party is more then willing to remove a president of the opposite party over even the smallest of transgressions for shear partisan reasons. This would not work.

All I'm saying is the crime should fit the punishment. If you believe that Clinton's offense was worthy of impeachment, that's your opinion. I personally don't.

As for the part in red I know that, I was just trying to frame the situation so you could see my point of view. Can't have Bill committing murder because then the jury would have had a valid reason to sentence him to life in prison regardless of the perjury charge.

Your are correct,thanks for catching my typo. As far as line-item veto,the current court would find differently ,I'm sure.
In any case,in this age of hidden agendas (and PORK), latched onto the bellies of otherwise good legislation like leeches, the LINE ITEM VETO is a valuable tool that our elected Chief Executive could use to protect our interests from the Games on the Hill.

__________________
" That government governs best, which governs least." - Thomas Jefferson...maybe.

You'd still need 60 Senate votes because of the filibuster, so I don't think it would work TOO well.