In March, Filipino Congressman Gary Alejano filed an impeachment complaint against President Rodrigo Duterte, accusing him of being responsible for the mass killings of civilians in the country. But on Monday, lawmakers dismissed the complaint, claiming that Alejano could have no “personal knowledge” about these allegations.

Duterte has, in an attempt to crack down on drug trafficking, presided over a campaign of extrajudicial killings. Police statistics show that more than 4,000 people have been killed by police in drug raids, or during drug-related conflicts, since he came to power last June. But even so, agencies and institutions are hesitant to do anything.

“Institutions are just unwilling and are unable to prosecute the president. What is the people’s recourse? Where will you complain? We will look for other ways to seek justice,” Alejano said. A majority in the country’s House of Representatives favors Duterte and this decision blocks additional impeachment cases until next March.

Philippine lawmakers struck down an impeachment complaint filed by Rep. Gary Alejano against President Duterte for crimes against humanity. pic.twitter.com/nqL0rzTrcK

— AJ+ (@ajplus) May 15, 2017

In April, a Filipino lawyer filed a complaint against Duterte in The Hague’s International Criminal Court in the Netherlands. Jude Josue Sabio alleged the same crimes as Alejano but went further back in time. More than 9,400 people have allegedly been killed since Duterte became the mayor of Davao City in 1988. He wrote:

The situation in the Philippines reveals a terrifying, gruesome and disastrous continuing commission of extrajudicial executions or mass murder from the time President Duterte was the mayor of Davao City.

Sabio represents two Filipino men who claim they were part of Duterte’s so-called Davao Death Squad. The group set out to kill drug dealers and criminals guilty of minor crimes. The president and his spokespeople deny all wrongdoings and called the reports “false news.”

Duterte’s many contentious statements include comparing himself–favorably–to Hitler, calling then-president Barack Obama a “son of a whore” and calling United Nations experts “stupid.” He regularly curses or uses profanities in public and has been aggressively resistant to criticism. But despite those comments, he was elected in a landslide victory precisely because of his promise to crack down on drug users and his constituents don’t seem to be complaining. An independent poll from late March showed that three-quarters of respondents still believe Duterte to be trustworthy, while 78 percent approved of his performance as president.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Philippine Lawmakers Dismiss Impeachment Complaint Against President Duterte appeared first on Law Street.

Since almost the moment that President Donald Trump took office, there have been calls to impeach him. Cities have passed resolutions calling for Trump’s impeachment, some Democratic politicians have indicated that they believe he should be impeached, and a late-March survey by Public Policy Polling reports that 44 percent of Americans support impeaching the president. Regardless of many unprecedented actions on Trump’s part, this isn’t really anything new–comments about impeachment consistently dogged President Barack Obama’s presidency as well.

But an impeachment is much easier said than done. Over the course of American history, only two presidents have ever been impeached–President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton, but neither president was removed from office as a result. Impeachment proceedings against a third president, Richard Nixon, began, but he resigned before much progress was made. Read on to learn about the impeachment process and the history of impeachments in the United States.

How Does Impeachment Work?

The U.S. Constitution lays out a procedure for impeaching the president (and vice president, and other officials).

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 makes it clear that the House of Representatives has the ability to “impeach” a president, essentially meaning that the House is in charge of bringing impeachment charges. Although there are a few different things that can lead to a House impeachment, usually it begins with some sort of allegations being made against an official. The House Judiciary Committee is then tasked with investigating those allegations. If so, the entire House then votes on whether or not to impeach the official–majority rules–by adopting articles of impeachment. Although not a perfect metaphor, it might be helpful to think of an impeachment like an indictment.

As Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 state, the Senate actually tries an official. Members of the House of Representatives are appointed to act as sort-of prosecutors of the official who is being tried. While usually the senators themselves serve as both judge and jury, in the case of a presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. Two-thirds of Senators are required to convict, and as a penalty for being convicted, the official must be removed from office. There is no way to appeal.

Impeachments Throughout History

The two most notorious impeachments are obviously President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton. But impeachment isn’t just reserved for presidents. The House of Representatives has actually initiated impeachment proceedings for over 60 individuals since America’s independence. The House issued articles of impeachment for 15 other individuals. Of those 15, eight were found guilty by the Senate. The majority were judges. Here are the American officials who have been impeached:

• In 1797, Senator William Blount was impeached on charges that he tried to help England seize Spanish-controlled territory in North America. He was expelled from the Senate before he was actually tried.
• In 1803, Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire was impeached for being drunk on the bench and acting inappropriately. He was found guilty and removed from office.
• In 1804, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for “arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials.” He was acquitted.
• In 1830, James H. Peck, a judge from Tennessee, was accused of abuse of power. He was acquitted.
• In 1862, West H. Humphreys, also a Tennessee judge, was impeached on charges that he “refused to hold court” and was acting against the U.S. government. He was found guilty, removed from office, and prevented from holding office in the future.
• In 1873 a Kansas judge, Mark H. Delahay, was impeached for being intoxicated while on the bench. He resigned before a trial began.
• In 1876, William W. Belknap, the Secretary of War, was impeached on various corruption charges. He was acquitted by the Senate.
• In 1904, Charles Swayne, a Florida judge, was impeached on charges that he misused his office. He was acquitted.
• In 1912, Robert W. Archbald, an Associate Judge of the U.S. Commerce Court, was impeached based on allegations that he had inappropriate business relationships with some litigants. He was found guilty, lost his job, and prevented from holding office moving forward.
• In 1926, George W. English, a judge from Illinois, was accused of abusing his power. He resigned and the charges were dismissed.
• In 1933, Harold Louderback, a California judge, was accused of “favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers.” He was acquitted.
• In 1936, Halsted L. Ritter, a judge from Florida, was impeached on a few charges, including that he was practicing law as a sitting judge. He was found guilty and removed from office.
• In 1986, Harry E. Claiborne, a Nevada judge, was accused of tax evasion, and staying on the bench despite having been convicted of a crime. He was found guilty, and lost his position.
• In 1988 Alcee L. Hastings, a Florida judge, was impeached on charges that he perjured himself and conspired to solicit a bribe. He was found guilty and removed from office. (If the name sounds familiar, it’s because Hastings is now a congressman.)
• In 1989, Walter L. Nixon, a Mississippi judge, was impeached on various charges, including that he lied under oath. He was found guilty and removed from his post.
• In 2009, Samuel B. Kent, a Texas judge, was impeached on a number of charges, including sexual assault. He resigned before the proceedings were completed.
• In 2010, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a Louisiana judge, was impeached on charges that included perjury and accepting bribes. He was found guilty, lost his position, and cannot hold office in the future.

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

President Andrew Johnson assumed office after his predecessor, President Abraham Lincoln, was assassinated in April 1865. However, the Lincoln-Johnson ticket was unusual. While Lincoln was a Republican, Johnson was a Democrat from the South. He had remained in the Senate even after his home state of Tennessee seceded, which endeared him to the Republicans. In 1964, Lincoln chose Johnson for his ticket, which was under the “National Unity Party,” in an attempt to appeal to the entire country in the context of the Civil War.

But when Lincoln was assassinated, and Johnson was left in charge, he disagreed with the Republicans who held the majority in Congress. He famously declared: “This is a country for white men, and as long as I am president, it shall be a government for white men.” He stood against the enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts, passed by Congress. In 1867, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, despite Johnson’s veto. This stopped the president from dismissing any government officials without the Senate’s approval.

Regardless of the bill, Johnson dismissed Edwin M. Stanton, his Secretary of War, who supported the Republicans in Congress. In response, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Johnson, 126-47. The charges were that he violated the Tenure of Office Act and brought “disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach” into Congress. As Johnson was being tried by the Senate, he took actions that were seen as concessions to the Republicans in Congress. He ended up being acquitted, by just one vote.

Richard Nixon’s Narrow Miss 

President Richard Nixon resigned after the fallout from the Watergate Scandal and his administration’s subsequent coverup. But had he not resigned, he certainly risked impeachment. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee passed one article of impeachment–had Nixon not resigned, that vote would have made it to the full House of Representatives.

President Bill Clinton’s Impeachment 

While in office, President Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern. Ken Starr, an independent investigator who had been originally tasked with looking into the Whitewater scandal but ended up investigating a wider range of controversies, submitted a report to the House Judiciary Committee. The report alleged that Clinton lied about his affair with Lewinsky during various testimony, including some regarding a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a woman named Paula Jones. The Starr Report contained 11 possible grounds for Clinton’s impeachment.

While the report was controversial, and Starr was accused of attacking Clinton for political motives, on December 19, 1998, the House approved two articles of impeachment against the president–one for obstruction of justice with a vote of 221-212, and one for lying under oath to a grand jury by a vote of 228-206.

On February 12, 1998, the Senate acquitted Clinton on both charges. In order to convict Clinton, the Senate would have needed a two-thirds majority. The obstruction of justice charge only garnered 50 votes, and the perjury charge only had 45 votes.

However, the impeachment, and affair, marred Clinton’s legacy.

Conclusion

Despite calls to impeach President Donald Trump (and previously President Barack Obama), impeachment isn’t as simple as it sounds. It’s a long, controversial, and political process–one that has only ever been even partially started against three presidents. While other figures throughout history have been impeached, those three presidents–President Andrew Johnson, President Richard Nixon, and President Bill Clinton–offer the closest thing we have to a blueprint for how an impeachment of a president would look. Given today’s contentious political landscape, who knows when we’ll see that again.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Impeach a President appeared first on Law Street.

Prosecutors in Seoul said on Monday that they would pursue an arrest warrant for former South Korean President Park Geun-hye, who was unseated from office earlier this month by the Constitutional Court. The Seoul District Court will examine the prosecutors’ request in a hearing scheduled for Thursday morning. If the request is granted, Park, 65, would be the first president to be jailed since the 1990s, when the former military dictators Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo were arrested on charges of sedition and mutiny.

Impeached in December and formally removed from office on March 10, Park is accused of bribery, extortion, and abuse of office. In a statement, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office said Park “abused the mighty power and position and president to take bribes from companies and infringed upon the freedom of corporate management and leaked important confidential official information.”

Last fall, hundreds of thousands across the country began demanding Park’s ouster, as she was accused of conspiring with her longtime friend Choi Soon-sil to extort millions of dollars from South Korea’s largest business conglomerates, including Samsung, in exchange for political favors. Choi, an unelected, largely secretive presence inside Park’s inner circle of advisers, is in custody, along with the Samsung executive Lee Jae-yong. Both are being investigated on charges of corruption.

Park has publicly apologized for the allegations against her, but has consistently denied any legal wrongdoing. The prosecutors’ office, in its statement on Monday, said “there is a danger of her destroying incriminating evidence if she is not arrested.”

As president, Park was immune from a criminal investigation, but now, as a private citizen, she does not enjoy the same protection. If the judge in Seoul grants the prosectors’ request, Park will be held behind bars for up to 20 days, during which time the prosecutors will continue the investigation. A spokesman for Park’s Liberty Korea Party called the prosecutors’ request for an arrest warrant “regrettable.” The main opposition faction, the Democracy Party, called it “historic.” An early election will take place on May 9.

South Korea is facing a critical time in its young democracy: North Korea is firing off ballistic missile tests every few weeks, and relations with China are declining because of a defense shield the U.S. began deploying to South Korea earlier this month. Beijing views the missile defense system, or THAAD, as a threat to its own missile program. Park, for her part, is steadfast in denying any wrongdoing. “It will take time, but I am sure that the truth will be known,” she said a few days after her ouster from office.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Korean Prosecutors Seek Arrest Warrant for Former President Park Geun-hye appeared first on Law Street.

In a five-minute televised address on Tuesday, South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye, who has single-digit approval ratings after a scandal that rocked the nation, said that if parliament would like, she will “step down as president.” Tuesday’s speech was the latest in a string of public apologies since it came to light that she had received secret advice from the daughter of a cult leader and longtime friend, Choi Soon-sil, who she also allegedly helped embezzle millions of dollars.

“I will relegate the decision to the National Assembly, including the shortening of my presidential term and resignation,” Park said. “If the governing and opposition parties inform me of the way to minimize the confusion and vacuum in state affairs and ensure a stable transfer of power.”

With an impeachment vote initially expected on Friday, now likely to be pushed back, some saw Park’s speech as a way to deflect an immediate resignation, and delay relinquishing power through impeachment proceedings. Many opposition lawmakers rejected the idea of Park’s resignation residing with the National Assembly.

“This is nothing but a sly trick to avoid impeachment,” said Youn Kwan-suk, a spokesman for the main opposition Democratic Party. “What the people wanted was her immediate resignation.” Instead, lawmakers from opposition parties as well as Park’s own ruling party, Saenuri, will proceed with their impeachment efforts. A vote is expected on December 9.

Park’s first term was set to end in February 2018. That was before thousands took to the streets to protest and demand her resignation. A two-thirds majority of the 300-member legislature would need to vote for Park’s impeachment for it to pass, and the Constitutional Court would get 180 days to ratify the vote. If she were to be impeached, the similarly unpopular Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn would assume the presidency.

Since the scandal took hold, members of Park’s cabinet have stepped down and she has ceded some of her powers. A few weeks ago, she gave parliament the ability to choose the next prime minister. With the looming impeachment vote and plunging approval ratings, Park’s speech signals she is aware that her previous concessions will not be enough.

“I am giving up everything now,” Park said. “I hope that the nation will find stability.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With Impeachment Looming, South Korean President is Willing to Resign appeared first on Law Street.

Brazil’s Senate voted on Wednesday to remove President Dilma Rousseff from office–an expected but nonetheless historic result, given that Rousseff was Brazil’s first female president.

Rousseff is accused of corruption and breaking fiscal laws, which her critics say aggravated the already bad economic situation in Brazil. Rousseff has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing ever since she was suspended from office in May this year. In the Senate, 61 voted for her impeachment on Wednesday, and 20 against. Upon hearing the result, she said, “Today is the day that 61 men, many of them charged and corrupt, threw 54 million Brazilian votes in the garbage.”

During the hearing she also said:

I’m here to look in your eyes and say with the serenity of someone who has nothing to hide that I haven’t committed any crimes of responsibility. I have not committed the crimes of which I have been unjustly and arbitrarily accused.

Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s 1st woman president, permanently removed after impeachment: https://t.co/8SwnwTvxn0 pic.twitter.com/iqL5fiUd2r

— Women in the World (@WomenintheWorld) August 31, 2016

This means the end of a 13 year-long rule of the left-wing Worker’s Party, and the end for the country’s first female President. Rousseff, 68, used to be a guerilla fighter during the dictatorship in the 1970s. She was elected in 2011, and then reelected in 2014. At the time, the country’s economy was in  really bad shape, and she did not manage to fix it. Even though she stands accused of further ruining the economy and corruption, she has never been formally charged with a crime.

Rousseff claims she has been ousted because she allowed a corruption investigation to go on, which lead to several politicians being charged. So the question is whether she is actually guilty of a crime, or if the opposition just wanted to get rid of a leader who drained the country’s economy.

In a second vote on Wednesday, the Senate decided whether or not to ban Rousseff from public office for the next eight years. This time the majority voted no, with 42 votes against and 36 for, meaning she could technically return to politics whenever she wants.

Acting President Michel Temer will take Rousseff’s place until the next election in 2018.

Rousseff’s parting words to her supporters were, “Right now, I will not say goodbye to you. I am certain I can say: ‘See you soon.’”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brazil Senate Votes to Oust President Dilma Rousseff From Office appeared first on Law Street.

As the world’s attention recedes from Rio de Janeiro–which hosted the Olympic games earlier this month–Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff is one step closer to being pushed out of office for good. On Thursday, Brazil’s Senate began deliberations regarding her permanent impeachment. A final vote will take place next week. Rousseff, 68, is currently serving an 180-day suspension, resulting from a Senate vote in May.

In April, Brazil’s lower house of parliament, the House of Deputies, passed the impeachment measure by a wide margin. If two-thirds of the Senate votes for her impeachment next week, Rousseff will permanently lose her place at the top of Brazil’s government.

The impeachment proceedings date back to Rousseff’s 2014 re-election bid. She had just been re-elected, and Brazil’s economy, after years of growth, was in the tank. Her opponents accused her of tampering with the country’s economic reports in an attempt to glaze over its bleak economic reality, including record-high unemployment, widespread corruption, and meager growth.

Around the same time, members of her Workers’ Party were brought down for participating in a pay-for-contract scheme with the state-owned petroleum conglomerate, Petrobras. Some of her political opponents accuse Rousseff of being involved in that as well, but the impeachment measure was separate, brought about due to her mishandling of economic reports.

Rousseff’s Vice President Michel Temer took over her duties during her suspension, and if the Senate votes to impeach her, Temer will serve out the remainder of Rousseff’s term through 2018. Rousseff, who accuses her political detractors of engaging in a “coup,” is set to address the Senate on Monday. Rousseff maintains her innocence, but her political allies have been falling in recent months, leaving her with few supporters in parliament. Many of Brazil’s lawmakers are themselves embroiled in corruption scandals: graft, electoral fraud, and human rights abuses.

And where do the Brazilian people stand? Recent polling data suggests most of the populace support Rousseff’s impeachment, with most citing the sinking economy, which is experiencing its slowest growth in decades.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Impeachment Deliberations Begin for Brazil’s President, Vote Due Next Week appeared first on Law Street.

Signaling the beginning of the end for Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, the Senate voted on Thursday in favor of impeaching the 68-year-old leader of Latin America’s largest country. She will be stripped of her duties for 180 days while the Senate holds a trial and debates whether to remove her from office permanently. Vice President Michel Temer will lead the country in the interim.

Rousseff has called the impeachment proceedings a “coup” and “fraudulent.” Her response to the day’s events, which saw the Senate vote 55 to 22 in favor of her impeachment: “It’s the most brutal of things that can happen to a human being—to be condemned for a crime you didn’t commit,” she said at a news conference Thursday morning. “I may have committed errors but I never committed crimes.”

Riordan Roett, Professor and Director of the Latin American Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University called the result “inevitable,” adding that Rousseff is “not a politician and did not understand how to work the system.”

“The mood of the country turned so negative,” said Roett, who is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, in an interview with Law Street. “It’s a combination of the scandals, increasing unemployment, increasing inflation, and the worst recession in a hundred years.”

Mistrust and public disapproval began in 2014, when members of her government, but not the president herself, were implicated in a corruption scandal involving the state-owned petroleum giant Petrobras. Calls for impeachment followed in 2015 after Rousseff was allegedly using illicit accounting practices to cover up the country’s sinking economic statistics.

Brazil’s economy has been tanking for years, with the central bank announcing in March that it expects the economy to shrink 3.5 percent in 2016, continuing the country’s worst recession in decades. Over the past year, millions of Brazilians have taken to the streets to protest Rousseff’s government. Seas of green and yellow gathered in Brasilia–the capital–and beyond: people waving flags and brandishing protest signs, wearing national soccer jerseys, some had their faces painted in the image of the country’s flag.

Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s president of six years, was impeached on Thursday, after months of political and social unrest. “Presidente da República Dilma Rousseff concede entrevista” courtesy of Senado Federal via Flickr

Her political opponents saw Thursday’s impeachment as necessary, the consequence of Rousseff breaking the law by allegedly trying to cover up government deficits and her role in the bribe scandal that rocked Petrobras–where executives paid politicians for contracts–in 2014. Rousseff was chairwoman of the Petrobras–the world’s sixth largest oil company–from 2003 to 2010.

“Did anyone think that we would get to 2018 [the next election year] with a recovery under this government? Impossible,” said Jose Serra of the PSDB, or Party of Brazilian Social Democracy, who lost the 2010 election to Rousseff’s Workers’ Party. “The impeachment is just the start of the reconstruction,” he said.

And that reconstruction will begin with Michael Temer, the 75-year-old of the centrist Democratic Movement Party who was also implicated in the Petrobras ordeal. He has promised to expand social programs while also calling for austerity measures to get the economy back on track.

While polls show a slim majority of Brazilians support Rousseff’s ouster (61 percent in April), and wish the same fate for Temer (58 percent), her supporters deem the impeachment as a machination of the right-leaning political elite that has historically dominated the country’s politics, but has taken a backseat to the leftist Workers’ Party since it rose to prominence 13 years ago.

In April, when the first round of voting to impeach Rousseff passed through the lower house of Congress, her supporters expressed malcontent with what they saw as a conservative coup.

“Power in Brazil is always very conservative and elite, and at various events in the history of Brazil, we had a rupturing of institutions and the rules of democracy so that the economic elite could maintain its power,” Workers’ Party Congress member Maria do Rosario told the Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper.

But Roett, the Johns Hopkins professor who has spent years in Brazil, disagreed with that assessment and with Rousseff’s claim that this is a coup by the right. “This reflects the mood of the country,” he said, noting that the history of the word “coup” dates back to the military coup of 1964, and Rousseff’s inclination to brand her political downfall with that loaded word. “People resented her attempt to glamorize herself,” by posing as the martyr of a political scheme.

And while he sees a long road ahead for Brazil–opening the economy, liberalizing labor legislation, reducing inflation and creating jobs–Roett is hesitantly hopeful about the country’s new leader.

“Let’s see if Temer can build the coalition that Rousseff never could,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Impeached in Brazil: President Booted Amid Scandal and Public Outrage appeared first on Law Street.

John Boehner says the House of Representatives is suing President Obama for not faithfully executing the laws he has sworn to uphold. The suit claims that when Obama delayed the employer mandate for ObamaCare, he changed the law, something which can only be done by Congress. But this might not be Boehner’s only motive to sue. It sounds a bit implausible, considering Boehner has no love for the President, but he may be suing Obama to avoid impeaching him. And if that’s the case, it’s a downright genius move.

Boehner himself has said impeachment is not being considered, but he needs to silence the calls from other Congressman and noisy pundits in his party. Impeachment is a bad option for the Republicans for a few reasons. One is that Boehner knows that even if the House did impeach Obama, the Senate would never go along with it. Also, as unpopular as Obama is, he’s still more popular than the House of Representatives. The same thing happened the last time Republicans impeached a president–President Bill Clinton. The whole ordeal led to the Speaker of the House having to resign and Republicans losing the midterm elections. Boehner seems to know that it is a terrible political move to impeach the president.

But perhaps the biggest reason Boehner wants to silence the calls for impeachment is that the Democrats are using impeachment speculation to fuel their fundraising efforts. It’s an election year where the left’s base did not have much to be excited about, but the impeachment talks have riled them up. For example, you’d think that FOX news would be very excited about Obama impeachment rumors, and would be covering the issue far more than any other news organization. In fact, they have mentioned impeachment a respectable 95 times so far this month. But MSNBC, the liberal bastion, has mentioned impeachment a whopping 448 times. Both organizations claim to deliver unbiased news, but I think we all know that FOX and MSNBC are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and the fact that the liberal news station mentions impeachment so much more shows how they want to get their base riled up. Boehner knows every time a Republican calls for impeachment on TV, it becomes a sound bite at the next Democratic Party fundraiser.

The lawsuit is also largely symbolic. It is doubtful that a court will say the House has standing to sue, and even if the House somehow wins the suit, the result would just be that Obama would immediately have to enforce the employer mandate. But odds are the case wouldn’t be decided until after the mandate begins enforcement in 2015 anyways.

There’s nothing for Boehner to gain legally, but there’s a lot to gain politically. This allows him to show he is doing something for those calling for impeachment. It allows conservative representatives to go back to their districts and tell their constituents that they have taken action against Obama. It is a symbolic gesture against Obama that will come to nothing in the long run–exactly what Boehner needs right now. This move also buys Boehner precious time. He can argue that impeachment would be pointless before the court makes it ruling. He’d be able to stretch out that excuse until the 2016 elections, at which point the whole impeachment argument would become null and void anyways.

Boehner has let the conservative end of his party control him before. For example, he could not get them in line nine moths ago, leading to a government shutdown. This lawsuit is his way of asserting control as the Speaker of the House. While the Democrats will still be able to fundraise by slamming the lawsuit, it gives substance to Boehner’s claim that impeachment is not being considered. The media will also focus on the lawsuit instead of impeachment rumors. This lawsuit has allowed Boehner to appease his conservative base, while limiting Democratic fundraising talking points. He found the narrowest of lines and is balancing on it beautifully. It will only take a slight breeze from his right to knock him off, but until that happens, this is an excellent move on Boehner’s part.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Speaker John Boehner via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Politically Genius: Boehner’s Suit Against Obama appeared first on Law Street.

If anyone believes that the President of the United States has overstepped his bounds, he or she may sue him. Recently, House Speaker John Boehner threatened to do just that. He announced that he plans to urge the House of Representatives to sue President Obama for multiple abuses of executive power.

Like any citizen of the United States, the president can be brought to court. The last time this happened successfully, Senator Edward Kennedy sued President Nixon in 1976 over his abuse of the “pocket veto.” According to Boehner, “the constitution makes it clear that the president’s job is to faithfully execute the laws and in my view the President has not faithfully executed the laws.” How exactly will the process go, should he choose to act?

Though touted in the media as a battle between Obama and Boehner, it would actually be the entire House of Representatives acting as the plaintiff in the lawsuit. Boehner is simply spearheading the legal action by calling on members of the House to bring the case against the president. Boehner plans to bring a bill to the House floor this month to authorize the lawsuit.

This is not the first time a political body has tried to sue a president. In 2011, an independent group of legislators challenged the authority of the president to allow the use of U.S. military force during the Libyan conflict.The case was dismissed by the D.C. Circuit Court due to the plaintiff’s inability to establish standing.

Suing a president differs from impeachment, which is the complete removal of the executive from office, and censure, which is a congressional procedure for punishing the president that has no explicit basis in the federal constitution.

How Can I Sue the President?

1. State Your Grievances: The first step in suing Obama, or any president, is to allege his misuse of power. Doing so is simple — you simply need to state your grievances with his actions. Boehner has already completed this step. Among his complaints, Boehner contends that Obama abused his powers on healthcare issues, specifically changing the “fixed” deadlines in the healthcare law. He also mentioned in a memo to congress that Obama overstepped his bounds in matters of energy, foreign policy, and education.

During his time in office, President Obama has used his constitutional powers to circumvent congress and put a number of laws into effect via executive order. Executive orders are legally binding decisions passed down by the U.S. president that bypass the typical order of passing through both legislative bodies. For example, he required the Department of Labor to allow same-sex couples the right to family leave. Obama also went around congress to raise the minimum wage for federal contractors.

2. Involve BLAG: The second step in the process to sue the president is the involvement of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. BLAG is a body of the U.S. House of Representatives comprised of five members of the House, the speaker, the majority and minority leaders, and the majority and minority whips. The group was enacted by Congress under President Clinton in 1993. BLAG is authorized to guide the office of the House General Counsel to take legal action on behalf of the House of Representatives. As stated by the rules of the House, “the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group continues to speak for, and articulate the institutional position of, the House in all litigation matters in which it appears.”

3. Establish Legal Standing: Step three to sue the president is to establish legal standing in court. To do so, the plaintiff, in this case the House of Representatives, would need to show that they have incurred “injury” as a result of Obama overstepping his boundaries set by the Constitution.

4. Argue Your Case: The final step in the process is for the plaintiff to actually argue the case against the president. If Boehner successfully establishes standing, the House will be permitted to begin expressing its grievances at the trial court level. Whoever loses the case at that level would likely appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court, followed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Will it Work?

So, does Boehner have a chance to successfully sue Obama? Many believe that Boehner’s threat to sue is, as Obama labeled it, a “stunt” simply intended to cause further political divide and steal the spotlight from the lack of legislation that congress has passed lately. Political analysts believe that other governmental bodies will be wary of involvement to prevent deepening divides among parties.

Frank Anechiarico, professor of law and government at Hamilton College, told ABC, “Even the conservatives on the Supreme Court — particularly Scalia — are reluctant to get in the middle of a political fight between the president and the Congress, unless the stakes are much higher than anything currently detectable. But all it takes is for one district judge to rule otherwise and we’re off and running.”

It’s very weird for the speaker of the house to suggest something like this. That said, if the speaker feels the president has violated the constitutional order of powers in a way that has harmed the house, he may feel he needs to sue.

– John Hudak, fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution

As taxpayers would be the ones covering the legal fees, many believe that citizens of the United States would not be supportive of the legal action Boehner wishes to take. Suing the President of the United States is no easy task, and only time will tell if Boehner’s plan to sue Obama over his “king-like” actions will come to fruition.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Take Radio News Service via Flickr, Pete Souza and Valerie A. Martinez via Wikimedia Commons]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Sue Your President, Obama Edition appeared first on Law Street.