Here's an Interesting Constitutional Question

[Geoff R. Casavant]

In brief, is it possible to impeach someone after he or she has left office?

At first blush, you might be inclined to say no, what's the point of impeaching someone who's not in office anymore?

But the Constitution says that one result of impeachment is that the impeached person is thereafter ineligible to serve in the government again, and I don't think even a Presidential pardon can overcome that.

It seems strange to put that provision in the Constitution, when it could so easily be circumvented by the simple expedient of resigning as soon as the handwriting is on the wall.

[uberllama42]

1. No,

the point of impeachment is to allow prosecution, which is understood to be off the table for public officials. Once an individual is impeached he or she can be prosecuted. As for being disqualified to ever hold public again, I've never heard that before and I doubt that that is the case.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

6. Prohibition of further office is in the Constitution

Check Article I, last paragraph of Section 3:

"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."

[uberllama42]

7. Ah, yes.

I remember that now. Thank you.

[Blue-Jay]

2. Here's another interesting question

Why did I just get a headache?

One can only be impeached while one is serving in office, unless I missed something.

[Hosnon]

3. I'm inclined to think it must be the current, sitting President:

Article II, §4:

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.

The individual must be the President. Once that is no longer the case, I do not think the impeachment clause can be applied to that individual.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

8. Other Federal officers have been impeached before

Mostly judges, and at least one Supreme Court justice, so it's not limited to the President.

[stevedeshazer]

4. To impeach means to accuse

Constitutionally, the House accuses (by resolving to accuse the President) and the Senate becomes the jury in a trial, with the Chief Justice presiding.

I can't see resignation as an avenue to avoid prosecution, unless you're able to designate your successor, as was the case with Nixon and Ford. Is that what you're suggesting?

[Geoff R. Casavant]

9. My question arose this way:

There has been some talk of the proper way to go about impeachment. I think H2OMan came up with the idea. Impeach Cheney first, then impeach all the other lower officers and cabinet members. The goal being, not only to get them out of office now, but to prevent them from ever coming back in a future administration. Hence the question, if these officers simply resign if they are impeached and the Senate is getting ready to convict, can the Senate still vote to convict to make sure they remain forever disqualified?

[Warpy]

5. After he's left office, why bother?

Charges and an ordinary criminal or civil trial are cheaper in that they won't put the government on hold while the scumbag's fate is decided.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

10. Well, not just the President, others in the Cabinet too.

See my supplement above in Response #9.

[magellan]

11. Yes, that's what I've read

Impeachment can occur after someone leaves office, the aim being to prevent them ever serving again in government. The problem is a lot of these rat bastards come from think tanks and other organizations that have strong influence on our policies, and would probably go back there -- and I don't believe that's covered.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

12. Any link perchance?

I'd never read anything saying it was possible, or anything specifically prohibiting. If you have a link or citation I'd be most obliged.

[magellan]

13. I'll see if I can dig it up...Yes, here's an opinion on it

...about Clinton!

"...And Stay Out!": The Constitutional Case for Post-Presidential Impeachment

snip...

"Article II specifies that sitting civil officers are to be removed upon conviction. It does not say, however, that the ability to impeach ends with an official's service. Given that executive officials have limited terms, there was debate at the Constitutional Convention over allowing an already-powerful Congress this weighty check on the executive. The Framers decided that Congress should have this power, and so specified the ability to remove sitting officials. Ex-officials? That went without saying, and nothing in Article II eliminates the possibility."

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonop3.htm

The other thing post-office impeachment stops is benefits and pensions, so there are good reasons to consider this as a possibility. But I really hope that whatever is keeping the Dems from starting impeachment investigations while Bush** is IN office gets overrun by public clamor. It's heading in that direction.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

14. Just what I was looking for!

Thanks!

[magellan]

15. You're welcome

:hi: