A Report Card on the Impeachment: Judging the Institutions That Judged President Clinton

Reflecting on the impeachment and trial of Pres Bill Clinton, Bloch considers how well the impeachment process worked and what was learned from the experience that might be a guide in the event of another impeachment in the future. Any critique of the impeachment process should begin with the independent counsel statute

Assessing the Impeachment of President Bill Clinton from a Post 9/11 Perspective

The impeachment of President Clinton was more a circus than a serious effort to remove the President of the United States. The reason is simple: Few people--in the Congress or the country--wanted to remove him or believed the impeachment effort would actually result in his removal. Instead, it was a partisan political effort to embarrass Clinton and send a message of disapproval. Congress was attaching a scarlet letter. But this was an indulgence that posed considerable danger that few in Congress considered. In particular, few tried to assess the potential impact this use of the process would have on the President\u27s ability to govern and be Commander in Chief. This article will argue that such a frivolous use of the impeachment process is inappropriate and dangerous, especially in a post 9/11 world. The framers of the Constitution had it right; impeachment is a drastic remedy to be invoked only as last resort. This article will compare the Clinton impeachment with the two prior efforts to impeach a president: Andrew Johnson in the 1860\u27s and Richard Nixon in the 1970\u27s. In that comparison, it will note that, unlike the Clinton impeachment, those were serious efforts to remove a president from office, not merely attach a scarlet letter. Finally, it will assess what factors allowed this misuse of the impeachment process and how we can avoid it in the future. It will suggest that the exuberance of the 1990s, the apparent absence of outside enemies at the time, and the security of seats in the House of Representatives (so-called safe legislative seats ) contributed to this nonchalant--and dangerous--attitude toward impeachment. September 11, 2001 changed some of those factors, but not all

Can We Indict a Sitting President?

This symposium addresses the difficult question of whether a President can be criminally prosecuted while still in office or whether indictment and prosecution must await his leaving. The question is difficult because the text of the Constitution gives us some hints but no dispositive answers. At first reading, Section 3 of Article I seems to suggest that impeachment must precede any criminal prosecution: 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; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. Thus, the provision suggests it may be prescribing a temporal order - impeachment and then prosecution. However, closer analysis reveals that the provision may simply be defining and limiting the effects of impeachment and making clear that other punishments can be still imposed by the criminal process without violating any prohibitions against double jeopardy; it may not be addressing the issue of order at all

Impeachment Presiden Dan/atau Wakil Presiden (Studi Perbandingan antara Indonesia, Amerika Serikat, dan Filipina)

Impeachment di Indonesia hanya dapat dilakukan terhadap Presiden dan/atau Wakil Presiden. Sedangan di Amerika Serikat dan Filipina, impeachment dapat dilakukan tidak hanya pada Presiden dan Wakil Presiden, tetapi juga pada pejabat publik lainnya. Impeachment di Indonesia, Amerika Serikat dan Filipina dilakukan dengan alasan-alasan tertentu, diantaranya melanggar hukum seperti pengkhianatan dan korupsi. Proses impeachment di Indonesia diawali dari hak menyatakan pendapat, kemudian dinilai oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Apabila terbukti, maka impeachment diputus oleh Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat. Sedangkan di Amerika Serikat dan Filipina, proses impeachment diawali dengan penyampaian Article of Impeachment oleh House of Representative kepada Senate. Senate berwenang mengadili dan memutus. Khusus untuk impeachment yang diajukan kepada Presiden, maka Senate dipimpin oleh Chief of Justice of Supreme Court

Quantifying echo chamber effects in information spreading over political communication networks

Echo chambers in online social networks, in which users prefer to interact only with ideologically-aligned peers, are believed to facilitate misinformation spreading and contribute to radicalize political discourse. In this paper, we gauge the effects of echo chambers in information spreading phenomena over political communication networks. Mining 12 million Twitter messages, we reconstruct a network in which users interchange opinions related to the impeachment of the former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. We define a continuous {political position} parameter, independent of the network's structure, that allows to quantify the presence of echo chambers in the strongly connected component of the network, reflected in two well-separated communities of similar sizes with opposite views of the impeachment process. By means of simple spreading models, we show that the capability of users in propagating the content they produce, measured by the associated spreadability, strongly depends on their attitude. Users expressing pro-impeachment sentiments are capable to transmit information, on average, to a larger audience than users expressing anti-impeachment sentiments. Furthermore, the users' spreadability is correlated to the diversity, in terms of political position, of the audience reached. Our method can be exploited to identify the presence of echo chambers and their effects across different contexts and shed light upon the mechanisms allowing to break echo chambers.Comment: 9 pages, 4 figures. Supplementary Information available as ancillary fil

The constitutional court function of the Indonesian state concerning system for the implementation impeachment of the president and/or vice president

Impeachment is an accusation or indictment of the President or another country's high officials from his position. Impeachment is not new in the history of Indonesian constitution, but the change in the Constitution has caused a change in the constitutional system as well as related to the mechanism of the dismissal of the President and / or Vice President. how is the Impeachment reviewed globally, the history of impeachment in Indonesia and the implementation of impeachment in other countries, the impeachment process of the president according to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The process of impeachment in Indonesia after changing the constitution goes through three stages, namely impeachment in the House of Representatives, the Court The Constitution, and the People's Consultative Assembly. Keywords: Impeachment, Constitutional Court, Governmen

Impeachment in the State System

Impeachment In Constitutional System. This paper aims: To know and analyze how the impeachment arrangements in the Indonesian state administration system; To know and analyze how the legal process in impeachment mechanism before amendment and after an amendment of 1945 Constitution; by using Normative Method The study conducted in this research is the literature. Impeachment of the President and Vice President of his / her position is not new in the Indonesian state administration system. Both before the amendment and after the amendment of the 1945 Constitution. The 1945 Constitution of the amendment result has specified the provisions concerning the Impeachment of the President and Vice President as head of state. However, the mechanism of the impeachment process is determined in a constitutionally eliminative manner even though these reasons have a very broad interpretation and may be subjective, especially in a political institution of the DPR, by which there are several things to be considered in the impeachment process in Indonesia, such as the impeachment process in the House of Representatives Regional and process of Impeachment in the Constitutional Court. There is a need for the provision of legal products or the making of procedural law which regulates the impeachment of the President and Vice President

PROSES PEMAKZULAN (IMPEACHMENT) PRESIDEN MENURUT UUD NEGARA REPUBLIK INDONESIA TAHUN 1945 DIHUBUNGKAN DENGAN HAK UNTUK MENYATAKAN PENDAPAT DPR-RI

Abstrak Impeachment merupakan tuduhan atau dakwaan terhadap presiden atau pejabat tinggi negara lain dari jabatannya. Adapun permasalahan yang akan dibahas dalam jurnal ini adalah bagaimana Impeachment ditinjau secara global, sejarah Impeachment di Indonesia dan penerapan Impeachment dinegara lain, proses pemakzulan (Impeachment) Presiden menurut UUD Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945, serta apakah proses Impeachment tunduk pada asas-asas hukum dan bagaimana keterkaitan proses Impeachment dengan beberapa asas hukum. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif yakni merupakan penelitian yang dilakukan dan ditujukan pada berbagai peraturan perundang-undangan tertulis dan berbagai literatur yang berkaitan dengan permasalahan dalam jurnal ini. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pelanggaran yang dapat menurunkan presiden berdasar pada UUD Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 sebagai alasan Impeachment presiden dan/atau wakil presiden adalah makar, korupuatan tercela, dan bila presiden/dan atau wakil presiden tidak lagi memenuhi syarat sebagai presiden dan atau wakil presiden. Proses Impeachment di Indonesia pasca perubahan konstitusi melewati tiga tahap, yaitu Impeachment di Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Mahkamah Konstitusi, dan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat. Ini jauh lebih rumit jika dibandingkan dengan proses Impeachment seperti di negara-negara Amerika Serikat (dari DPR langsung ke Senat), Korea Selatan, dan Thailand dimana Mahkamah Konstitusi Setempat bisa langsung menjatuhkan sanksi pemberhentian kepada presiden/dan atau wakil presiden.Kata Kunci : Pemakzulan, Presiden, hak untuk menyatakan pendapat

Politicizing Presidential Impeachment in the Contemporary World

The role and importance of the president is growing in contemporary society; therefore, more is demanded of him. A request for the responsibility of the president in the form of impeachment has appeared in society. Usually impeachment is mainly considered a legal procedure with purely legal causes - the commission of a crime or a serious offense. However, in many countries today, we can observe the politicization of impeachment. This article deals with the problem of the politicization of impeachment, which is poorly addressed in scientific literature. The author provides arguments in defense of this thesis: the politicization of articles of impeachment and their broader interpretation, which allows finding the corpus delicti in almost any action of the president; politicization of the impeachment procedure; and the dependence of the beginning, course and outcome of impeachment on the alignment of party forces. The author concludes that modern impeachment is actually a vote of no confidence in the legal shell: legal aspects of impeachment are replaced by political ones. In this regard, the issue of simplifying the impeachment procedure and turning it into the routine way of terminating presidential powers is relevant