« Someone Needs to Write This Guy | Main | Oh, HELL, Yes! »
January 30, 2009
Blago's Impeached
I'm certainly not crying any tears for him, but it always makes me a little nervous when elections can be so easily overturned. The man certainly seems to be a coarse, er, punk, but the Good People of Illinois twice elected him, and they certainly have had more exposure to him than any of us. The Illinois Constitution is to my reading way too vague on impeachment
SECTION 14. IMPEACHMENT The House of Representatives has the sole power to conduct legislative investigations to determine the existence of cause for impeachment and, by the vote of a majority of the members elected, to impeach Executive and Judicial officers. Impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. When sitting for that purpose, Senators shall be upon oath, or affirmation, to do justice according to law. If the Governor is tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators elected. Judgment shall not extend beyond removal from office and disqualification to hold any public office of this State. An impeached officer, whether convicted or acquitted, shall be liable to prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.
It seems to me a majority of members can impeach someone for anything if they feel like it, as there's no "high crimes and misdemeanors" guidance.
That's a pretty low and arbitrary bar; hell, there is no bar; and that just doesn't seem right.
Posted by Mr. Bingley at January 30, 2009 08:49 AM
Comments
If "cause for impeachment" isn't defined elsewhere in the state constitution, I agree that it doesn't say much for the concept of co-equal branches of government in Illinois.
Posted by: Jim - PRS at January 30, 2009 09:16 AM
Yeah, it may in fact be, Jim; I just haven't had a chance to dig around and find out.
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at January 30, 2009 09:27 AM
It's a feature, not a bug. Impeachment and conviction are decidedly part of a political process. There really isn't any other way to do it. If you make more specific requirements, then that would only result in pointless arguments over whether the requirements are met. The way it's set up, the only pertinent issue is whether there are enough votes.
Posted by: Skyler at January 30, 2009 05:15 PM
That's Illinois politics for you. Rotten right to the very foundation.
Posted by: Gunslinger at January 30, 2009 05:21 PM
To elaborate, using a Rehnquistian argument, if there is more to the impeachment and conviction process, how is it to be regulated?
Let's say that there are some rules as to what is impeachable or not. If so, now Blagoj would be able to argue that his impeachment was improper by some means of logic. There's always a way to make that argument. So now, who is governor while he argues or appeals? If the lieutenant governor is an inter-regnum governor, how do you make him effective during his inter-regnum? The government will be kept in limbo for even longer.
If Blagoj is as corrupt as he is convicted of being, he is left with even more opportunity for mischief.
At some point you have to accept a democratic process and not submit everything to judicial review. There's no reason to think that a handful of judges would be less capable of conspiracy against justice than a dozens of legislators.
Posted by: Skyler at January 30, 2009 07:12 PM
Of course it's arbitrary and left in the hands of individual legislators to decide. As Skyler properly, it's a self-consciously political process. Any definition of what impeachment can and can't be for would open the door to getting the courts involved and undermining the idea of a non-justiciable "political question."
Posted by: Dave J at January 30, 2009 07:12 PM