Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-08-2019, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Ft Myers, FL
2,771 posts, read 2,304,565 times
Reputation: 5139

Advertisements

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-08-2019, 06:41 PM
 
Location: Native of Any Beach/FL
35,702 posts, read 21,063,743 times
Reputation: 14249
Good read, I figured unless commits a heinous crime or is a blatant traitor, total disregard for our laws like watergate- it’s in word but not in action. Good to see you post on here again
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2019, 06:50 PM
 
18,562 posts, read 7,375,874 times
Reputation: 11376
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinytrump View Post
Good read, I figured unless commits a heinous crime or is a blatant traitor, total disregard for our laws like watergate- it’s in word but not in action. Good to see you post on here again
Watergate was not even close to "total disregard for our laws".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2019, 07:05 PM
 
Location: King County, WA
15,840 posts, read 6,547,612 times
Reputation: 13333
It isn't all that easy to censure a President, even though it only requires a majority vote of one house of Congress. If nothing else, the articles of impeachment in themselves serve as a form of censure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2019, 07:07 PM
509
 
6,321 posts, read 7,048,872 times
Reputation: 9450
Thanks for research...that was interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2019, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Native of Any Beach/FL
35,702 posts, read 21,063,743 times
Reputation: 14249
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9 View Post
Watergate was not even close to "total disregard for our laws".
Back then - we were more critical of anything against our country. MrT would have not survived back then either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2019, 08:56 PM
 
13,601 posts, read 4,934,489 times
Reputation: 9687
So you're making the assumption that a President's own party would never vote to impeach or convict? Maybe true, but kinda sad. Dems did not have 67% of senate in 1974, yet it is widely believed that Nixon would have been impeached and convicted if he had not resigned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2019, 11:18 PM
 
18,562 posts, read 7,375,874 times
Reputation: 11376
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinytrump View Post
Back then - we were more critical of anything against our country. MrT would have not survived back then either.
He didn't do anything "against our country". Three people committed a burglary for their own reasons without Nixon's knowledge or consent, and then the Deep State threw that steaming pile of **** in his lap and began giving him bad advice about how to deal with it.

Last edited by hbdwihdh378y9; 12-08-2019 at 11:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2019, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,170,143 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries View Post
I set out to research which US Presidents had the potential of being both impeached and convicted by their opposing party.
Clinton.

Except the Republicans blew their wad with Monica.

Had the Republicans waited about 6 months, they could have impeached and convicted Clinton for violating UN Security Council Resolutions and US federal laws with the Iran-Kosovo thing (like Iran-Contra only different).

Sure, the Republicans could have attempted a second impeachment, but the Clintons and the Media would have screamed, "Witch-hunt!" and it would have turned on the Republicans.

Still, it wasn't a total loss, since Republicans did shoot down Clinton's appointments, like Clinton's Neo-Con Chief of Staff Tony Lake as CIA Director.

Lake would have been CIA Director at the time of 9-11 and he'd have you going into Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

So, there's always that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2019, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Ft Myers, FL
2,771 posts, read 2,304,565 times
Reputation: 5139
Clinton would've needed bi-partisan effort in the Senate to convict him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:02 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top