Should Congress have the power to vote no-confidence and remove a US president from office?

No

1 of 17

by Bud McBride

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

The answer is no aside from the unquestionable fact that it is unconstitutional. Thanks in large part to President Clinton many more Americans are familiar with the process and procedure of impeachment. As per the Constitution "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." Article II 4, U.S. Constitution. That standard has served this country well for over 200 years and it should not change. The suggestion of changing that standard is a perfect example of be careful of what you wish for. Essentially, Presidential standing would be determined by the God awful public opinion polls. Thus you would have a President that would be in office doing that which was popular and not that which he/she believes in right. Presidents would only look at what is popular in the short term and not what effect their policies would have for the next generation.

The history of this country is replete with numerous examples of Presidents doing what they thought was right, but not necessarily correct with the political thinking of the day. For illustrative purposes let me provide some examples. FDR institutes a draft about a year before the break out of WWII and also enacts the Lend Lease Act, to provide aid to England. Harry Truman fires Douglas MacArthur. JFK fails to provide air support for the Bay of Pigs invasion. Nixon opens the door to China and signs arms limitation treaties with the Soviet Union. Gerald Ford pardons Nixon. Jimmy Carter turns the Panama Canal back over to Panama and bars U.S. Olympic athletes from going to the Moscow Olympics. Ronald Reagan out spends the Soviet Union in Defense spending which leads to it's eventual collapse. Bill Clinton signs welfare reform. President Bush stays the course in Iraq. Many if not all of these examples were seriously challenged or were very unpopular, but in many cases history has judged what they decided as correct. In my mind the perfect example is Ford pardoning Nixon. History has judged that this action was generally correct to be able for the country to get past Watergate, but it is also seen as making President Ford to lose to Jimmy Carter. Equally vilified was Ronald Reagan's approach to the Soviet Union. To those old enough to remember Reagan was seen as a cowboy and reckless in his approach. But because he held firm to a not so popular view point, eastern Europe is free.

Another problem with providing a no confidence voting power to congress aside from the obvious politics that entails, is that this standard is a alimentary methodology. In case you have not noticed we do not have that system. Our system is three co-equal branches of government. In Parliament there is just that a Parliament. All power evolves from that body. If this change were to take place there would no longer be three co-equal branches of government. Congress would be the power. Five Hundred and Sixty Five, members of the house and senate would be center of political power. If you think that ear marking is bad now, you haven't seen anything yet.

Again going in the vein of be careful what you wish for aspect, let us say that congress votes no confidence and removes a sitting President. Who takes the Presidency. Presumably the Vice President, through the bloodless coup. Doesn't that change the whole notion of the Vice President. Given the right circumstances doesn't change the whole dynamic of the position. Take the instance with President Clinton. If the vote on the matter is just an issue of no confidence as opposed to the standard of impeachment, is it not in the best interest of Al Gore to not support President Clinton. Al Gore would be referred to as former President Gore and not a Nobel Laurette.

Further is the problem of making the Veep the President by a vote of congress and not by popular election. The American public has and is willing to accept a new President mid stream when things happen out of happenstance and has generally rallied around that new President. But what if any confidence will the American public have in gaining a new President because of a vote of the congress, especially in a circumstance when the congress is of the opposite party.

It seems that the motivation of the proponents of this change in how our government works is based on a desire to make things happen quickly to in essence change or fix a mistake made by the voters. In essence, the people got it wrong so the smarter guys in congress need to fix it and not be bothered by such trivial notions as due process.

Alexander Hamilton got it right in Federalist Paper 70 when he wrote:

Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of
good government. It is essential to the protection of the community
against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady
administration of the laws; to the protection of property against
those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt
the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against
the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy.
Every man the least conversant in Roman story, knows how often that
republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single
man, under the formidable title of Dictator, as well against the
intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to the tyranny, and
the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct
threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions
of external enemies who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome.

There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or
examples on this head. A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution
of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a
bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in
theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.

Taking it for granted, therefore, that all men of sense will
agree in the necessity of an energetic Executive, it will only
remain to inquire, what are the ingredients which constitute
this energy? How far can they be combined with those other
ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense?
And how far does this combination characterize the plan which
has been reported by the convention?

The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive
are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision
for its support; fourthly, competent powers.

While there are some parts of the constitution that I would like to change, this is one area where I cannot agree. The whole balance of power in how our government works would be changed too drastically in favor of the congress.

Learn more about this author, Bud McBride.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.