US Presidents that could have been both Impeached and Convicted by their Opposing Party

[rbohm]

nixon would have been removed from office if he was impeached, and a trial was held in the senate. he saw this which is why he resigned.

[case44]

Obama, in an ideal world, should have been impeached for treason by Republicans. But our nation's biased media would never allow that to happen.

[Corvette Ministries]

Originally Posted by rbohm

nixon would have been removed from office if he was impeached, and a trial was held in the senate. he saw this which is why he resigned.

Nixon would've needed bi-partisan effort in the Senate to convict him.

[Corvette Ministries]

Originally Posted by Leo58

So you're making the assumption that a President's own party would never vote to impeach or convict?
...

No. What I'm saying is that, historically, no President after Lincoln's time could have been both impeached and convicted without bi-partisan effort.

[Corvette Ministries]

Another interesting consideration is this:

The Constitution doesn’t indicate that removal from office requires two-thirds of the Senate. It requires two-thirds of senators present for the proceedings.

From The Impeachment Loophole No One’s Talking About

The inclusion of this single word [present] in the Constitution’s impeachment clauses shifts the mathematical ledger of how impeachment, however unlikely, could go down. It allows for the all-important two-thirds threshold to exist along a sliding scale—far from the full attendance of the 100-member Senate. In theory, a vote to convict the President (or anyone else) would count as legal with as few as 34 members, not 67, assuming the absolute minimum (51) participated.

“The Constitution contains quorum requirements [elsewhere] and clearly distinguishes between percentages of a particular chamber and percentages of ‘members present,'” said Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School and the co-author of the book To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment. “That language in the provision for Senate conviction on impeachment charges is quite deliberate, creating precisely the possibility” described above.

My question is, Who would want to be marked absent on THAT day??

[whogo]

Originally Posted by tinytrump

Back then - we were more critical of anything against our country. MrT would have not survived back then either.

Yes, we had a moral center.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries

I set out to research which US Presidents had the potential of being both impeached and convicted by their opposing party.

To do so, I needed to find Presidents whose opposing party held both greater than 50% representation in the House and at least 67% in the Senate.

Many Presidents since Reagan had House representation primarily held by the opposing party.

And as you might expect, most Senates are roughly evenly split by party, but you need ⅔ majority to convict.

Seven Presidents going back to Lincoln’s time had Senates with one party holding a 67%+ commanding lead: LBJ, JFK, FDR, T Roosevelt, Grant, A Johnson* and Lincoln. However, in each case, that majority was held by the same party as their respective Presidents. Didn't matter much, because the party of each of those Presidents held the majority in the House as well.

So basically what I found was that in the history of US Presidents going back to Lincoln, no President could have faced both impeachment and conviction from his opposing party, because none had opposition holding a ⅔ majority in the Senate and greater than 50% representation in the House.

Though the future's uncertain, “Partisan” impeachment and conviction has not been much of a threat so far, has it? One could argue the Founders had a plan.

Sources:

Composition of Congress, by Political Party, 1855-2017

Presidents, Vice Presidents, & Coinciding Sessions of Congress

*A Johnson was a member of the National Union party, the temporary name used by the Republican Party for the national ticket in the 1864 presidential election.

lol Every single one in the last 50 years could have been, but the lunacy we are seeing now hasn't been seen since the Clinton impeachment.

[trlhiker]

Originally Posted by case44

Obama, in an ideal world, should have been impeached for treason by Republicans. But our nation's biased media would never allow that to happen.

LOL - what treason? A wet dream is not treason. Republicans are incompetent when it comes to hearings. Just look at Hillary. They investigated her 9 times and all they have to show is wasted tax payer money.