Impeachment for War Crimes

[James Maule]

Right or wrong, whoever in public political life stepped forward with the first (or subsequent) step in an impeachment process as so suggested would be a person of great daring, courage or boldness (take your pick), who would pretty much be sacrificing his or her or their political careers for what would, as a practical matter, be a futile gesture. I very much doubt that, absent something more, anyone presently in the Congress would step forward. Theory meets practice in the most interesting of places.



Jim Maule
Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law
Villanova PA 19085
maule at law.villanova.edu
http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule
President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction) (www.taxjem.com)
Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com)
Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com)
Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com)




>>> ricenter at IGC.ORG 11/21/01 03:17PM >>>
So far, much of the discussion around Bush's proposed military commissions has centered around the availability of judicial review.  What about the House and Senate's respective constitutional authorities to impeach and remove Bush from office for violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996?  It appears that regardless of the naked issue of the constitutional authority of the president as commander-in-chief to establish military commissions per se, the president cannot commit high crimes without being subject to impeachment and removal.  More generallly, is there any case in which a president can lawfully violate a federal criminal statute in pursuance of his constitutionally-mandated duties?

Francisco Forrest Martin
Ariel F. Sallows Professor of Human Rights
University of Saskatchewan College of Law