I remain unconvinced that impeachment proceedings against Mark Sanford would be worthwhile. As you know, I believe he should have resigned by now (if nothing else, thereby sparing us from Andre Bauer’s candidacy), but I hate to see the State House stroke the gov’s narcissism with another session all about him.
And I certainly thought it appropriate that lawmakers not try to wrestle the subject to the ground in a two-day special session.
All of that said, I was encouraged that Greg Delleney at least took the most promising approach in his impeachment resolution. He didn’t mess around with all of that dull stuff about airplane rides and such, but concentrated on the one most glaring instance of dereliction of duty — the week that the governor ran off to Argentina, the trip that started this whole mess rolling:
Whereas, Governor Mark Sanford was absent from the State of South Carolina and from the United States from Thursday, June 18, 2009, until Wednesday, June 24, 2009, while in or in route to and from Argentina for reasons unrelated to his gubernatorial responsibilities; and
Whereas, from Thursday, June 18, 2009, until at least on or about Monday, June 22, 2009, Governor Sanford was not in official communication with any person in the chain of command within the Office of Governor of the State of South Carolina; and
Whereas, the Lieutenant Governor was not aware of the Governor’s absence from the State and there was no established chain of command or protocol for the exercise of the executive authority of the State; and
Whereas, the Governor intentionally and clandestinely evaded South Carolina Law Enforcement Division agents assigned to secure his safety in order to effect his absence from the State; and
Whereas, the Governor directed members of his staff in a manner that caused them to deceive and mislead the public officials of the State of South Carolina as well as the public of the State of South Carolina as to the Governor’s whereabouts; and
Whereas, the purpose of the Governor’s absence from the State of South Carolina served no furtherance of his duties as Governor; and
Whereas, the Governor’s conduct in being absent brought extreme dishonor and shame to the Office of Governor of South Carolina and to the reputation of the State of South Carolina, and furthermore, has caused the Office of the Governor of South Carolina and the State of South Carolina to suffer ridicule resulting in extreme shame and disgrace; and
Whereas, the Governor’s conduct and actions under these circumstances constitute serious misconduct in office pursuant to and for the purposes of Article XV, Section 1, of the Constitution of this State. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That pursuant to Article XV, Section 1, of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, the Governor of South Carolina, the Honorable Marshall C. Sanford, Jr., is impeached for serious misconduct in office.
Is that enough to warrant impeachment? Maybe not. But it certainly makes the case that this guy shouldn’t be governor, which is not quite the same thing, is it?
Related Posts
I was almost going along with the “most promising approach” of Delleney’s until someone explained how he erred procedurally.
If Delleney’s his first motion had been to suspend the Rules of the House (ie the Sine Die stipulation) and that motion passed with a 2/3 majority, then, his motion on the impeachment resolution would not have been “out of order”.
If this is wrong please correct me. But if true, shouldn’t a seasoned representative like Mr Delleney know the Rules of the House?
And, yes, I am cynically implying that he knew what he was doing procedurally and was “playing a role” assigned to him by the Triumvirate.
Look, I want him out so badly I could have shouted out when he spoke at Rotary, but I am wary of the populism inherent in a recall, which is really what the resolution is, isn’t it?
As Cindi (?) said, do you impeach the next time for bringing defecating piglets to the State House? (works for me, actually) Taking the flag off the dome?
Oooh, Libb–that sounds so devious,
yet has the ring of truth.
And Delleny got lots of press for doing it, too. Win-win-win-win
That’s a win for each of the triumvirate plus Delleny. Should we add a “win” for Sanford, too?
Certainly not the people of SC.
Regular ole state employees can be fired if they are AWOL and do not notify a supervisor within 3 days.
I do not know why this should not apply to a governor and be considered an impeachable offence.
I hate it when I defend the indefensible Sanford, but he doesn’t *have* a supervisor. It’s good to be king. Who is going to give him “leave”? He sets his own schedule.He’s his own boss.
What his disappearance highlighted was the shortcomings of our chain-of-command for emergencies. There needs to be a protocol and procedure spelled out that would apply to all governors about what constitutes absence/inability to serve, etc. such that power needs to be transferred to the Lt. Gov. and just how “in touch” the Governor needs to be for emergency purposes. I understand that is not the current case.