"Every President has done something worthy of impeachment"

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

People say this, most recently Sanchez in the Nixon thread, and several Libertarians as well. But no one has stated reasons for ALL 43 presidents (INCLUDING WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON) should have been impeached?

Now, please tell me 43 "high crimes and Mr. Meaners" (I always wanted to say that) that all of the presidents have done to deserve impeachment.

[minionofmidas]

Define "worthy". Certainly (at least by balance of probability) every President bar Harrison (YES INCLUDING JAMES GARFIELD ) has done something as bad as what Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson got impeached for. I highly doubt a majority of Presidents have done something the Founders would have considered worthy of impeachment, however.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Define "worthy". Certainly (at least by balance of probability) every President bar Harrison (YES INCLUDING JAMES GARFIELD ) has done something as bad as what Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson got impeached for. I highly doubt a majority of Presidents have done something the Founders would have considered worthy of impeachment, however.

I did. now tell me the "high crimes" that every president other than William Henry Harrison has done. Everyone from Washington to Obama.

[Blue3]

Since impeachment is merely investigation, not conviction, this is probably true.

(Yes, Bill Clinton actually was impeached. But he wasn't convicted.)

[Consciously Unconscious]

Well for Adams you have the alien and sedition acts.   For his son you could say he deserved impeachment for most likely making a corrupt bargain to get the White House.  Though is that worthy of impeachment?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

For his son you could say he deserved impeachment for most likely making a corrupt bargain to get the White House.  Though is that worthy of impeachment?

Actually, how Adams-Clay rumoured deal is diffrent than a presidential candidate proposing his primary opponent he'll nominate him for something in exchange for support.

That's not criminal. In Adams' case, the guilty was electoral system that allows such situations.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I said 40, not all 43. George Washington, William Henry Harrison, and Gerald Ford are the only Presidents who have not done something worth even considering impeachment.

Washington-nothing I know of.
Adams-Alien and Sedition Act.
Jefferson-Intervention in Tripoli.
Madison-Wilkinson affair.
Monroe-Intervening in Spanish Florida to fight the Seminoles.
Adams-Appointing Clay Sec. of State in return for his votes in 1824 contingent election.
Jackson-Indian removal.
Van Buren-Not helping the Mormons when the government of Missouri violated their 1st amendment rights.
William Henry Harrison-Does he really even count as a President?
Tyler-annexation of Texas technically illegal.
Polk-I think he was a decent President.
Taylor-Nothing of note.
Fillmore-Forcing Japan to open up trade relations.
Pierce-Recognizing the illegitimate pro slavery government of Kansas.
Buchanan-Using the military against Mormons in Utah.
Lincoln-Suspending habeas corpus.
Johnson-Illegally appointing Lorenzo Thomas Secretary of War without the Senate’s consent.
Grant-Nothing wrong done by him in person, but his administration and cabinet was corrupt. I would not have voted to impeach him.
Hayes-Good enough President, but I suspect a lot of foul play in the 1876 election on his behalf.

I will have the rest later. Highlights will include LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II, Clinton, and Obomber.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Adams-Appointing Clay Sec. of State in return for his votes in 1824 contingent election.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of anything that would make this unconstitutional or illegal.s

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Adams-Appointing Clay Sec. of State in return for his votes in 1824 contingent election.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of anything that would make this unconstitutional or illegal.s

As far as we know, nothing illegal went down but I think if it were investigated something would come out of it.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Adams-Appointing Clay Sec. of State in return for his votes in 1824 contingent election.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of anything that would make this unconstitutional or illegal.s

As far as we know, nothing illegal went down but I think if it were investigated something would come out of it.

So your entire basis for impeaching John Quincy Adams is "hey, he did a thing that I think might possibly sort of lead to something that might be illegal". I've got quite a few reasonable doubts about that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The whole notion of their being something illegal was created by Jackson and his thugs, who did far more to abuse the office than JQA ever did.

Unless you can get proof that any meeting took place, it is just simply the odd man out (Clay was number four) choosing the best of the remaining three (Adams) in terms of issues and so forth, and then later the new President selects the Speaker of the House to be Secretary of State, which granted was a stepping stone at the time for the Presidency. In an era without tape recordings and wiretaps, there is no proof, and without it, everything said about it was purely political.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Was the so-called "Corrupt Bargain" in any way technically illegal?

And as for the Alien & Sedition Acts, wouldn't all of Congress need to be thrown out of office for that one? By-and-large, it was the tradition of the time just to sign whatever the Hell came on the President's desk.

And if we're going to, on a case-by-case basis, examine the "crimes" of a presidency, how can you simply scroll through Polk, who according to some manufactured a war for his own expansionist agenda. While I myself have nothing wrong with that, I'm sure many would.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It might be today, if it were done Blago style. But the laws were different then and there were not wiretaps back then. You can't punish a crime that you can't confirm occurred, and just appoint the Speaker of the House as Secretary of State, isn't enough. You would also have to somehow prove that Clay was the one who had the ability to decided the election, which would involve proving that he controlled a majority of congressman from a majority of states. How do you prove that?