If Blagojevich Is Impeached And Thrown Out Of Office...

[Lee]

Without having been convicted of any actual crimes, does that mean that government will be able to be judge, jury and executioner of anyone they want without any actual 'proof'?

Regards,

Lee

[chadknowslaw]

The simple answer is "No"

Impeachment is not criminal. Holding office is not a right and the process to remove someone from office is not a criminal proceeding and not subject to the Constitutional protections that are afforded to criminal defendants.

The result is removing the governor from public office; it is not taking away a liberty, not taking away property so it is not considered "judicial". Blago's claim that the proceedings were unconstitutional were baseless and made only for media.

[TropixxxStudios]

Chad is right, but so are you Lee...

The Government can, and always has, been able to do whatever they want.

If you do not believe me, ask the guys at Gitmo, or the Asian Americans tossed into concentration (sorry, internment) camps during WWII.

[Lee]

I guess i have an issue with impeaching a guy even though he hasnt been found guilty of actually doing anything, i always thought it was innocent until proven guilty in the US, of course i realize we're dealing with politicians and to some extent i do beleive they should be held guilty until proven innocent but something just seems very wrong about this whole mess.

They basically 'made up' the rules on impeaching the guy as they went, im suprised he hasnt already filed a lawsuit against the state for some reason.

Regards,

Lee

[chadknowslaw]

The elected legislators determined that he had abused his office to the point that he should be removed. It is not the same as a finding of guilt in a criminal court and the only consequence of impeachment is removal from office. The consequence of a finding of guilt in a criminal court is loss of liberty (jail) or loss of property (fines).

He still must face the criminal charges where he must be proven guilty of the charges. In a criminal trial the government seeks to take away liberty or property and the "innocent until proven guilty" standard does apply; however holding an elected office is not a Constitutional right. The former governor took an oath to uphold the laws of the State of Illinois and the state legislature used that law to remove him from office. Basically, when he took the oath of office (the office being a privilege) he agreed to be subject to the procedures that today removed him from office.

I assume you are aware of the "implied consent" laws that say when you get a driver's license that, as part of the privilege of using that license is that you agree to submit to a breath test if under suspicion of drunk driving. You can refuse to submit to a breath test but then you give up the privilege of driving, even though you are not convicted of any crime. The former governor agreed to the possibility of impeachment and its consequences when he took the oath of office. Holding office is a privilege and not a right which makes the streamlined process, without having to find criminal guilt, perfectly constitutional.

[Rich]

i am with lee on this

i dont think he should have been removed without any actual proove of doing anything wrong

he was taken out of office because of an allegation and nothing else and i think that is wrong

[chadknowslaw]

i am with lee on this

i dont think he should have been removed without any actual proove of doing anything wrong

he was taken out of office because of an allegation and nothing else and i think that is wrong

Each and every one of the 59 Illinois State Senators agreed that the evidence presented _proved_ that the governor had abused his office.

A lot of evidence was presented. A huge jury-- 59 people -- all agreed that the accusations had been proven. It was more than just an accusation -- 114 elected representatives in the Illinois House agreed that there was sufficient evidence to subject the governor to the impeachment process.
The Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court presided over the process, evidence was presented and sent to the jury of all 59 Senators. If the evidence had not been sufficient to support the impeachment, you would think that at least _one_ of those Senators would have not voted for impeachment. The evidence was so overwhelming that the Senate voted unanimously to remove him from office.
The only member of the House of Representatives that voted NOT to subject the governor to impeachment was his sister in law.

Blago was not railroaded or treated unfairly. He was not impeached on the basis of the accusations of trying to sell Obama's seat alone-- the evidence presented showed a pattern of abuse of the office throughout the governor's time in office. Impeachment of this man had already been considered long before November's election and his December arrest.

There was no travesty of justice. Accusations of abuse of office were made, those accusations WERE proven to the satisfaction of every member of the Illinois Senate.

[TropixxxStudios]

I am with Chad. You would have to think that at least one person (other than his sister in law) on either side of the table (Demotard or Retardican) would have not voted for impeachment if there was any chance he was even remotely innocent.

Besides, as pointed out, impeachment is not the same as criminal.

If you do not want to be subject to impeachment, do not run for public office.

Same advice I give people that think the UCMJ is insane.

If you do not want to be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, do not enlist.

[Matt 26z]

It's not like the money from "selling the seat" was going under his mattress.

Does anyone really care that he tried to make it a requirement that the future senator do fund raising? I understand there is a fine line here, but there is no doubt false outrage by his fellow politicians over this.

His approval rating was terrible and Illinois residents were wishing they could recall a governor like California can. Had he been more well liked, this investigation wouldn't have even happened.

[maxx68]

Politicians SHOULD be held at a higher standard. I think we can all safely say that the current crop of politicians running this country are ALL a bunch of unethical immoral bastards and bitches.

There should be MORE impeachments and more criminal proceedings, but until Americans get off their fat collective asses and start acting like they really care about this country, it will be business as usual!

Americans have sat back and allowed the politicians in this country to do whatever they want without any recourse. Being a part of a democracy means we ALL have to do our share and if that means yanking some asshole out of office then that's what we should do.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

That means we need to do whatever it takes to insure that democracy, truth, liberty and justice remain in the hands of ALL Americans.

We have allowed ourselves to become complacent and now we want to whine cause we can't buy all of the toys we want. We as Americans did this to ourselves.

I hope that the impeachment of Bloggo is just the beginning. If not...watch out!