Impeach Bush or Get Rid of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22385

Impeach Bush or Get Rid of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution
Submitted by dlindorff on Fri, 2007-05-11 15:13. Activism

What is it about impeachment that has the Democratic Party leadership so frightened?

Talking with members of Congress, one hears the same refrain: “I know Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable crimes, but impeachment is a bad idea.”

The rationales offered are many, but all are either specious or based upon flawed reasoning. Let’s consider them separately:

Excuse one, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is that impeachment would be a diversion from Democrats’ main goals of ending the Iraq War, and passing important legislation. The reality, of course, is that many of the administration’s impeachable acts relate directly to the war, so hearings would only build support for ending it. Meanwhile, with the slim majorities in both houses, Democrats cannot pass any significant progressive legislation that could survive a veto (or a presidential signing statement) and the record shows it.

Excuse two is that impeachment is divisive. This seems the height of absurdity. When voters handed Congress to the Democrats, they knew they were setting the stage for divided government. That was the whole point. Moreover, divisiveness in Washington has largely emanated from the White House, not from Congress. Anyhow, given administration intransigence on all the issues that matter to Democrats, they have no alternative but to take a stand.

Excuse three is a claim that the public opposes impeachment. This is simply wrong. The few straightforward scientific polls done on impeachment, such as one published by Newsweek last October, show a majority of Americans to want it. Furthermore, if Bush has committed impeachable acts, it is inappropriate for House members, all of whom swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, not to act.

Excuse four ...

more...

[begin_within]

1. Rs impeached Clinton for lying in the Paula Jones case, so why not. What Bush did is far worse.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. How well did that work out for the Republicans?

:shrug:

[begin_within]

5. Well, they did get the words, "Clinton was impeached by the House" into the history books...

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. I's sure that the Republicans who lost their seats in Congress really appreciate that

How many seats in the House are you willing to sacrafice in order get a few words in the history books.

[Sparkly]

15. Clinton was impeached for nothing CLOSE to what BushCo has done.

I don't think there'd be the same backlash as the facts of this cabal came out.

[klyon]

19. the backlash should be against the ones that don't vote to convict

Senators should also vote on the facts, not politics in an Impeachment Trial. The evidence should be overwhelming if presented properly.

[Cults4Bush]

16. Apples and oranges... the public might be dumb but

they for the most part do understand the significance and degree of severity regarding the difference between a blowjob and an illegal war.

Also and I dont mean this as a personal thing but Clintons impeachment and its after effects is a horribly piss poor excuse (not even a reason in my book) to not prosecute the war criminals to the fullest extent that the laws of our somewhat free society will allow. I think you may also be underestimating the restorative powers that such a thing could have over time regarding all foreign poilicy as well general goodwill towards not only ourselves but democracies the world over. You want the mid-east to go democracy and free society then that is how you do it. You show them that for the most part it works by holding your own highest officials to account when they so richly deserve it, dont and it really says its all a sham.

Again apologies if that comes off rough but impeachment of these criminals is what the law demands and what the world needs to restore some semblance of faith in our systems. that means much more than a few pages in the history book ..(which when you think about it is probably a fairly serious event if it gets a couple of whole pages:) )

[AndyA]

2. The bottom line is this:

To not impeach is to set a bad precedent. It tells future administrations that they can break the law and get away with it. They can fail to uphold the Constitution and get away with it. They can dishonor their oath of office and be given a pass on it.

The average American citizen would not be given a pass on such things, nor should anyone in government. Especially since those in government should know better, moreso than the average guy or gal on the street.

A crime is a crime, and must be punished. Congress will be just as guilty of violating the Constitution and laws if they do not impeach. To be in government and know of a crime or felony, and do nothing about it is also a criminal act.

[babylonsister]

3. Well said, AndyA. It's their DUTY! Why aren't they realizing that? nt

[onenote]

6. Response 1 through 4

Response one: The "reality" that you describe may not be the "reality" that exists. Would impeachment hearings build support for ending the war? Doubtful. Support for ending the war is very high except among repub deadenders, who aren't going to be persuaded by impeachment hearing revelations or anything else. These folks will be even more dug in and other repubs who are questioning the war will be tugged back towards the repub camp by a impeachment effort that divides along partisan lines.

Response two: Yes it is a fact that we have divided government. Does that mean that the electorate wants a partisan impeachment effort? The fact is that virtually no Democrat elected in November ran on a campaign platform that included a call for impeachment. So its a bit of a leap to suggest that impeachment is what the electorate was looking for when they elected Democrats.

Response three: Your characterization of the Newsweek poll is a bit overstated. Here is how Newsweek described the results: "Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a “top priority,” but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done. (Five percent of Republicans say it should be a top priority and 15 percent of Republicans say it should be a lower priority; 78 percent oppose impeachment.)" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/page/2/

So, while one way of looking at the poll is to say that a majority favored impeachment, another way is to say that fewer than one in three thought it should be a top priority (and even half of all Democrats felt that way). I'm not aware of any more recent polls reflecting a greater demand for impeachment "now".

Response four: The "excuse" that I've seen most often for not going down the road of impeachment at this point in time is that it cannot succeed and will only end up rallying an otherwise dispirited opposition prior to next year's election. There is an assumption that voting out articles of impeachment in the House is a "slam dunk". But all it would take is for 16 Democratic members of the House to defect and articles would fail. There are more than enough blue dogs and new members from districts that are moderate to conservative that probably don't want to go down the impeachment path because it changes the debate in 2008 from "do you support or oppose the war", corruption and undue politicization of government (e.g., the US Attorneys mess and other repub scandals) to a debate over whether the president should've been impeached. Given that there is zero chance that the Senate will convict, these members undoubtedly fear that the public will view the impeachment effort as (1) a victory for chimpy when he avoids conviction) and (2) a partisan waste of time -- thus putting new members on the defensive in moderate/conservative districts.


As I've said before...if bi-partisan support for an impeachment effort begins to grow, then pursuing it may be the politically astute course. Otherwise, the best approach is for the Democrats to continue to hammer away at the administration though oversight and investigatory hearings as ends in themselves and not labelled as part of an impeachment effort.

[pberq]

8. Crimes are crimes

Political expediency is not an excuse for not pursuing impeachment. This administration must be held accountable for their many, many crimes. Otherwise it is the end of our democracy - we might as well just declare that we are living in a dictatorship.

[onenote]

9. if the impeachment effort fails, how is the administration held accountable?

Why aren't they held just as accountable (arguably moreso) by shedding light on their activities through oversight and investigatory hearings held as ends unto themselves rather than as a means to achieve a result that likely is not achievable (impeachment and conviction).

[pberq]

11. Whether it fails or not is moot.

Congress has the responsibility under the Constitution to proceed with impeachment in a case like this.

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/

. . .Finally, excuse five is that the president’s crimes and abuses of power need to be proven before any impeachment bill. This is completely backwards. An impeachment bill can be filed by any member of Congress who believes the president has violated the Constitution. At that point, it is up to the House Judiciary Committee to consider the bill’s merits and decide whether to ask the full House to authorize impeachment hearings. It is at an impeachment hearing where investigations should proceed. After all, only after the Judiciary Committee votes out an impeachment article can the full House consider whether to actually impeach. Calling for investigations before an impeachment hearing is like asking for an investigation before a grand jury investigation. It’s redundant, simply a dodge.

Besides, some of this president’s high crimes are self-evident. Take the case of Bush’s ordering the National Security Agency to spy on Americans’ communications without a warrant. A federal judge has already labeled this violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act a felony. There is no denying this felony occurred, or that Bush is responsible. The only question the House needs to vote on is whether the felony is a “high crime” warranting impeachment.

The same applies Bush’s refusal to enact over 1200 laws or parts of laws duly passed by Congress. Bush doesn’t deny that he has usurped the power of the Congress, as laid down in Article I of the Constitution. Rather, he asserts—with no basis in the wording of that document—that as commander in chief in the war on terror, he has the “unitary executive” authority to ignore acts of Congress. Again, there is no need for an “investigation” to establish whether this happened. What Congress must do is decide whether this usurpation of its Constitutional role is an impeachable abuse of power.

Likewise the president’s authorization of kidnap and torture. We know the president okayed torture. We know too, that he used his “unitary executive” claim to refuse to accept a law passed overwhelmingly by the last Congress outlawing torture. Finally, we know the president did not, as required by US and international law, act to halt torture and punish those up the chain of command who oversaw systematic, widespread torture.

. . .

[onenote]

12. We've been through this a number of times.

The Constitution nowhere imposes an obligation on Congress to initiate an impeachment proceeding. It empowers such action, but does not require it. Nor does a member's oath of office impose any such obligation. A member takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. It is left to the member's judgment as to how to best fulfill that obligation. Maybe its through impeachment, maybe its not.

Also, while Judge Taylor held that the NSA spying was illegal, it is a bit strong to say at this point that "there is no denying this felony occurred" since Judge Taylor's decision was stayed by the Court of Appeals, which just recently heard arguments on the government's appeal. I hope that Taylor's judgment is upheld, but until the judicial process is completed, I think it overstates the case to claim that "there is no denying" a felony has occurred.

[pberq]

13. How can you say this - given that the case against Bush is so overwhelming

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/

Calling for investigations before an impeachment hearing is like asking for an investigation before a grand jury investigation. It’s redundant, simply a dodge.

http://www.articlesofimpeachment.net/

ARTICLE I


George W. Bush, in his conduct of the Office of the President of the
United States, has abused his power by violating the constitutional
rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of
justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, contravening the laws
governing agencies of the executive branch, and failing to take care
that the laws were faithfully executed by directing or authorizing the
National Security Agency and various other agencies within the
intelligence community to conduct electronic surveillance outside of
the statutes Congress has prescribed as the exclusive means for such
surveillance, and to use such information for purposes unknown but
unrelated to any lawful function of his office; he has also concealed
the existence of this unlawful program of electronic surveillance from
Congress, the press, and the public. Wherefore George W. Bush, by such
conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


ARTICLE II


The impeachment of George W. Bush, President of the United States,
is warranted by his initiation and continuation of the Iraq war.
The initiation and continuation of the war constitutes a high crime
and misdemeanor and is illegal as well. In undertaking that war,
George W. Bush violated his oath of office and constitutional
obligation that the laws be faithfully executed.

George W. Bush has subverted the Constitution, its guarantee of a
republican form of government, and the constitutional separation of
powers by undermining the rightful authority of Congress to declare
war, oversee foreign affairs, and make appropriations. He did so by
justifying the war with false and misleading statements and deceived
the people of the United States as well as the Congress. He denied the
electorate the right to make an informed choice and thereby undermined
democracy.

George W. Bush also committed fraud against the United States by lying
to and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for the Iraq
war.

George W. Bush acted contrary to his trust as president, and subverted
the constitutional government to the prejudice of law and justice and
the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore George W. Bush, by
such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

(More at link . . .)

[Mme. Defarge]

10. AMEN!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. The latter is an eminently reasonable approach.

Whether or not a politician has committed high crimes and misdemeanours should be a matter for the courts, not for other politicians, as the Clinton scandal amply demonstrated.

The idea that partisan politicians can be expected to vote unbiasedly on such allegations strikes me as a bizarre one.

By all means have a clause allowing the removal of the president by a sufficient majority of Congress and Senate, but I think it should be made explicit that in such cases what the President is guilty of is displeasing the other branches of Government, not being found properly guilty of any crime.

If you want to convict someone of criminal behaviour, you should do it via the courts, where proper standards will be applied.

[2008]

17. Excuse number six (not mentioned in the article) came from my Dem rep...

The After Downing Street article mentions a total of five excuses: the three reprinted by the OP, and then...

"Excuse four is that old canard that impeaching Bush would mean making Cheney president..."

and

"Finally, excuse five is that the president’s crimes and abuses of power need to be proven before any impeachment bill..."

My Dem representative came up with excuse number six (in response to my email asking him to support Kucinich's H. Res. 333, which calls for Cheney's impeachment). After explaining the impeachment process, he went on to say:

One of the most difficult questions raised by these provisions is:
What are high crimes and misdemeanors? The conclusion reached
by most scholars is that clear criminal law violations represent
impeachable offenses, whereas misconduct that is not necessarily
criminal but that undermines the integrity of the office (such as
disregard of constitutional responsibilities) may rise to the level of
an impeachable offense. Partly because of this, impeachment has
taken place infrequently. By making impeachment difficult, the
Constitution guards against the intrusion of the legislature into the
business of the judiciary and executive branches. It also ensures
that impeachment remains primarily a legal, or judicial, procedure
rather than a political process.

I agree with you on the need to confront Vice President Cheney on
the points where he has been dishonest with the American people.
As for impeachment itself, that is a very serious step to take and
one I cannot support at this time. I strongly believe that it should
be reserved for the gravest of occasions, because respecting our
process of democratic governance is such an important foundation
in our country. I am concerned that pursuing impeachment would
bitterly divide our country - which is part of the reason why the
Constitutional standard for impeachment is so high.

(emphasis mine)

So, excuse #6 appears to be: "I haven't been paying enough attention to current events to witness any actual crimes being committed by this administration."

[pberq]

18. "reserved for the gravest of occasions"?????

What would it take for this guy to call it the "gravest of occasions"?

Would Cheney have to murder someone with video cameras rolling?

The last 6 years of this administration turning the U.S. into a fascist dictatorship is beyond the "gravest of occasions".

[2008]

20. he's either a lying p.o.s., or he actually is not paying attention

well I AM and I won't vote for him again if he doesn't start caring about his country