Skip to main content
Politics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

10
  • 3
    Your first paragraph isn't wrong, per se, that is certainly how impeachment is perceived today; but in my opinion none of those are inevitable consequences of how impeachment was defined in the constitution (nor, in some cases, how it was viewed by the founders). I do think your last paragraph is key, though; changing the US Speaker of the House in the US might be a newsworthy event to politics junkies, but absolutely of a different scale than removing a president. Commented Dec 4, 2018 at 15:53
  • 4
    You appear to believe the government needs to run a deficit. Commented Dec 4, 2018 at 18:52
  • 4
    I'd suggest this answer replace "failure to raise the debt ceiling" with "failure to pass a budget or continuing resolution," since that's closer to the "loss of supply" that happens in Parliamentary systems. The debt ceiling is an entirely different brand of silliness. Commented Dec 4, 2018 at 19:17
  • 8
    @Joshua the government can run what ever kind of budget it wants, but it should be by a process which produces a budget and not just arbitrarily failing to pay the salaries of its staff for a few months. Commented Dec 4, 2018 at 20:25
  • 6
    @BradC The Constitution literally defines an impeachment as a trial. "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments." "No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two third of members present." "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office..." (excerpts from Article I, Section 3, paragraphs 6 and 7.) Commented Dec 6, 2018 at 16:53