Constitutional and legal scholars agree that S.C. Governor Mark Sanford did not violate the State Constitution by taking an undisclosed, six-day trip to Argentina – a saga that ended yesterday in shocking fashion as the governor returned home and admitted to having an extramarital affair with an Argentine woman.
So … is the fact that Sanford didn’t break any laws enough to keep his political opponents in the S.C. General Assembly from pursuing articles of impeachment against him?
We highly doubt it – especially given the unusually high level of animosity that exists between Sanford and lawmakers of both parties.
And let’s face it, impeachment (and removal from office) in South Carolina is a purely political vehicle – which means that if lawmakers have the votes, they can get rid of the governor for any reason they see fit.
Similar to the federal process, impeachment is exclusively the prerogative of the S.C. House, and would require a two-thirds majority to pull off. Assuming the House impeaches Sanford, that would automatically trigger a trial in the S.C. Senate (with the S.C. Chief Justice presiding).
If two-thirds of Senators vote against the governor, he’s out of a job.
“The legal basis of the arguments doesn’t have any relevance at all in an impeachment and subsequent trial setting,” a prominent S.C. legal expert told FITS. “If you don’t like the guy and you’ve got enough votes to take him out, you can take him out simply by drawing up the articles and scheduling a vote.”
That means all S.C. lawmakers really have to do is break out their fountain pens and portray the governor’s actions as a “willful neglect of duty,” which the State Constitution lists as a cause for impeachment.
“I’d expect to see them draft articles of impeachment that include words like ‘malfeasance,’ ‘absent without leave,’ ‘dereliction of duty’ and other similar terms,” our legal expert said. “And once you draw the document up, regardless of the legality of it, the whole thing becomes a popularity contest.”
And if recent trends hold, it would appear that the governor does not have the votes to win that kind of contest.
Just look at the relative ease with which lawmakers have consistently overridden Sanford’s vetoes, which also requires a two-thirds vote of both chambers to do.
Obviously, we’ll be watching this front quite closely as lawmakers plot their reaction to the Sanford bombshell …
By Mike June 25, 2009 at 12:57 am
Normally, you would think that maybe some of the clowns in the GA would take such a vote a little more seriously than overriding a veto, but I’m certainly not saying that the SC political scene is normal.
By cgi-bin laden June 25, 2009 at 6:01 am
Sanford probably did break the law of SC:
SECTION 16-15-60. Adultery or fornication.
Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment and, on conviction, shall be severally punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.
SECTION 16-15-70. “Adultery” defined.
“Adultery” is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman when either is lawfully married to some other person.
By Cam June 25, 2009 at 6:31 am
LET THOSE IN GLASS HOUSES CAST THE FIRST STONE…
There are so many closets that can be emptied during this time. While I am not for an impeachment…would it not be great to have a true bloodletting? A real cleansing of the state’s political classes?
Let the halls scream with previously undisclosed sin, bad businesses and hidden money. Let’s hear where these guys and gals are sleeping, and where there money comes from. It is time for a “public” lost trust…where the wicked are seen for what they are.
That would make this whole thing worthwhile. Yep…it would be the one good thing to come of this mess.
By karl June 25, 2009 at 7:12 am
Does the fact that the crime was committed outside of South Carolina and outside of the United States for that matter, take most chances for prosecution/impeachment off the table? (I’m not a legal expert, just a friendly question.)
By cgi-bin laden June 25, 2009 at 8:42 am
@karl
I don’t know.
Regardless, I don’t think it’s worth impeaching over, though I think Article XV, Section 1 of the SC Constitution may allow for it.
By Ed June 25, 2009 at 8:57 am
After consulting with my legal expert, I offer the following advice. A lot of what happens from now on depends on how hot the lady from Argentina is.
By baker June 25, 2009 at 9:21 am
I’m not favoring impeachment of the guy, but it does seem that Mark Sanford fairly willfully neglected his duty over the last week. Am I wrong here?
Pingback: Rev Bill » Blog Archive » How Does Impeachment Work In SC?
By male sapphist June 25, 2009 at 9:52 am
Have you heard all the ‘state employees’ (read teachers) attacking Governor Sanford on call in talk radio? They all had the same talking points: AWOL, if I had not reported to my supervisor…, abandonment, and etc.
New investigation: Was this coordinated attack on the Governor committed or organized with state equipment or on ‘state’ time?
By Jeffy June 25, 2009 at 9:52 am
Good point Ed.
By Darth June 25, 2009 at 10:18 am
Where was this talk of impeachment during Beasley’s alleged infidelities?
As to “Have you heard all the ’state employees’ (read teachers) attacking Governor Sanford on call in talk radio? They all had the same talking points: AWOL, if I had not reported to my supervisor…, abandonment, and etc” How’s the malfeasance of not performing their own jobs, q.v. the high performance of SC skules, constitute being without sin?
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' June 25, 2009 at 10:20 am
Doesn’t matter if he leaves office or remains; he’s politically impotent now. Amazingly, he’s managed to make himself even less relevant. The question is whether the GA removes because (1) they hate him so much, and (2) they want to give Andre an edge in ’10 by making him the incumbent. I bet no; they’d rather let Sanford twist in the wind and leave ’10 open for a more electable candidate.
By Tim June 25, 2009 at 10:26 am
Even Bill Clinton didn’t get impeached because he had an affair, but because he lied about it under oath. Not surprisingly for those of you who think I’m a commie bastard, it was stupid to impeach Clinton, and I think it would be even more stupid to impeach Mark Sanford.
I don’t think the legislature can call itself into session just to impeach and try the governor, so they’d have to cool their heels to January anyway, at which point they’re one legislative session away from being rid of him anyway. Why waste a session on trying a guy they – in my view, rightly – roundly ignore anyway?
The larger question is should he resign. Even Sanford’s most ardent supporters have to admit he’s been largely ineffectual as governor, and he’s going to be even more so now. It’s hard to argue that we’d be better off with Andre as governor, but it’s an almost sure bet that we’d not be worse off.
By South Carolina Law June 25, 2009 at 11:20 am
As a practical matter, the State doesn’t prosecute adultery, one of many outmoded morality laws passed a long time ago that remain on the books.
By Freddie Guy June 25, 2009 at 11:52 am
I bet he regrets THIS statement:
“I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign). I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.” [Sanford on Clinton, The Post and Courier, 9/12/98]
Since he is a Republican, this standard should not apply to him, correct???
Fred?
By jeffy June 25, 2009 at 4:41 pm
OK scholars…did the Senate and House adjourn sine die? uhmmm??? Do your research before you answer.
By StupidShouldHurtMore (SSHM) June 25, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way . . .
Impeachment of Sanford is tantamount to making him a martyr.
Review Article XV of the SC Constitution. Look who will preside. Look how he will be beset on all sides by those who do not like him. He will be made a lightning rod for future conservatives in South Carolina.
Impeachment would be a homecoming for all of those who abhor the governor.
The best thing the General Assembly can do, if they want to continue to push their status-quo agenda is nothing. Leave him to be half the lame duck he was before leaving for Argentina.
Which, according to some, the General Assembly has mastered (doing nothing).
- SSHM