Talk:Jefferson's Manual

Untitled

Several states have therefore introduce bills which, if passed, could begin the impeachment process.[4]

Not quite sure that could is more accurate than would - it depends on the actual rules. would is not definite, but it means something is expected.

E.g. If GWBush went to Iraq and was kidnapped by insurgents and they cut his head off, then GWBush would be dead - not could be dead. or: If Sarkozy won the next French presidential election, then he would become president. This one is less than 100% sure - he might die of a heart attack between the election and the official date of becoming president. But "could" would be too weak here. If we want to be really careful, we could say "he would in the normal run of things become president".

On the other hand, for this particular case, i don't know the procedure enough to know if passing any of the state bills would necessarily "begin the impeachment process". Someone would have to, or could, ;) read more in order to make a reasonable judgment...

My 2 cents. Boud 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "could" because, to the best of my knowledge, there is no way that a state legislature can compel the U.S. Congress to do anything. I've looked at the Jefferson Manual, and don't see anything in there that appears to me to require the House to act when presented with a resolution of impeachment from a state legislature. In the normal course of business, the majority in the House has nearly absolute control over what matters are and are not considered on the floor; absent evidence to the contrary, I assume that would continue to be true. If anyone can find language from the House rules that credibly says otherwise, I'd be willing to look at it. But right now, with a Republican majority in the House, my best guess is that any such resolution would get buried in a committee, never to be seen again. Maybe the Dems will win back the House in the fall. Then maybe Speaker Pelosi would take action. Or maybe neither of those things would happen. Since it's a procedure which (again, to the best of my knowledge) has never been used before, it seems highly speculative. Brandon39 06:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment section

I'd like to see some references for the claims made in the Impeachment section. There's a narrative in there about accessing the GPO website and looking at the Text vs. PDF versions of the site; this is rather un-Wikipedia-like for an article and should be cleaned up, and should have some references added to go along with it. --CapitalR 13:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am the author of the new section on impeachment. I am a historian of the Jeffersonian republic and a professor of same--but I don't know the customs of Wikepedia posts. I thought it important to correct the widespread error on TJ and impeachment. I gave the only "reference" logically needed to do so--the offending House document. And I also needed to point out how it is that the error comes from the online transcription of the document. Perhaps I didn't do that in the right Wikepedia form (I tried to make it an external link). If someone wants to "clean up" the piece, fine, but let's make sure we don't just repeat and amplify (as did the section I replaced) this really sloppy error! Mcnelsdatter 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)mcnelsdatter 24 July 2007

• Hi Mcnelsdatter, thank you for helping to improve Wikipedia. Since you're a new user, I can you help clean up the text some when I get a little time. I spent a half hour or so reading through the manual from your link and it does seem that you are correct that Jefferson himself did not write that part. Just out of curiosity, in the PDF version, in note 603, it states "...by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469)...". What does the (III, 2469) refer to? I don't know much about law and couldn't figure that out, but perhaps you could tell me. Thanks, -CapitalR 15:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Capital R. I don't know the answer to your question but would assume the information for those abbreviatecd references must be at the start of the House document somewhere. Mcnelsdatter 18:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I must be missing the connection between the mistake in confusing authorship of the original manual with the addition of later notes on Congressional precedent, and the assertion that the manual's notes are somehow invalid as to recognized precedents for the inception of impeachment proceedings. While it's clearly true that Jefferson didn't author the notes on Congressional precedents, is there any evidence for the assertion that a confusion of authorship renders the precedents invalid? I've never seen any. That the petition of a state legislature can set an impeachment in motion hasn't been validly disputed in this section. Nor should it be. The Manual provides the necessary references. In answer to Capital R's question, the "III, 2469" refers to Hinds' Precedents, volume III, section 2469, which you'll see describes the early-1900s impeachment of Judge Charles Swayne of Florida. , an impeachment set in motion on the petition of the Florida legislature. The only confusion that actually remains with respect to this procedure is that the petition of a state legislature by itself doesn't impeach anyone, but that the proposition to impeach still needs to be made by a Member of the House, incorporating the legislature's petition. Thanks. KagroX (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)User: KagroX 19:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

References