Tags for This Article:

Impeachment (2740)  Congress (2414)  Pelosi-Nancy (342)  Judiciary (177)  Subpoena (103)  Conyers-John (100)  Waxman-Henry (38)  Ray McGovern (7) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
March 22, 2008 at 07:57:51

Headlined on 3/22/08:
The Democratic Majority: Enabling a Rogue Presidency and Stonewalling the American People

by Cheryl Biren-Wright     Page 2 of 4 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com


Tell A Friend

During the summer of 2007, Congressman Conyers crisscrossed the country. At every turn he was met with citizens who implored him to move on impeachment. In response, he coined a new phrase. At an August 28 town hall meeting in his home district in Michigan, constituents clamored for impeachment. Conyers announced, "Nancy Pelosi has impeachment 'off the table,' but that's off her table, it is not off John Conyers' table." The crowd erupted in applause.The same day in a telephone interview, the congressman discussed impeachment with journalist Amy Goodman. From the Democracy Now website:

‘"I’ve got the constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other," House Judiciary Chair John Conyers (D–MI) said today on Democracy Now! when asked about the possibility of impeachment. Conyers said hearings could "make the record clear that there has been a great deal of violation of the sworn oath of office, abuses of power…but there isn’t the time for it.’ He also said he doesn’t think there are enough votes in the House and Senate to support impeachment.’

Clearly, rogue administrations aren’t the only ones adept at stonewalling.

Failed Strategies

Members of Congress have inexplicably chosen not to harness their duly granted powers to take on a criminal administration. Instead, they cling to previously failed efforts.

The Letters

A very small sampling finds letters about
"fixed" intelligence, letters spanning two years from John Conyers to Fred Fielding requesting information and documents concerning warrantless wiretapping, and a letter from John Conyers to President Bush requesting the release of the Hadley memo related to claims of uranium from Africa and the "16 words."

There were several letters regarding the president’s signing statements including one from Senator Dick Durbin requesting confirmation from President Bush that he would indeed enforce legislation that was just enacted. Two years ago, Senator Leahy sent a letter to the president urging him to "cease and desist" from his unconstitutional use of presidential signing statements. GOP Senator Susan Collins sent President Bush a letter about opening letters.

The chair of the House Oversight Committee, Henry Waxman, sent letters to
Fred Fielding on the mystery of the missing White House e-mails. Recently, there was a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey from 46 House Democrats asking how he will ensure the President follows Congress’ ban on permanent bases in Iraq. Congress is now relegated to asking an uncooperative Attorney General to make sure the President takes care that the laws be faithfully executed.

The Subpoenas

When a few years of polite inquiries fail to produce results, Congress moves onto subpoenas. When used within the context of a healthy government, subpoenas prove to be quite effective. Why Democrats think that an overreaching, unaccountable administration would readily respond or cooperate fully is mind boggling.

Last April, House Democrats issued five subpoenas in a single morning related to the U.S. attorney firings, the use of RNC email accounts, and the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons program. According to the
Washington Post, "The White House signaled that it will continue to resist efforts to secure testimony from Rice, Rove and other aides." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated that she was "not inclined" to appear. To date, none of these issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the House Democrats.

Contempt

In February, eight months after issuing subpoenas to Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, the House moved to initiate civil contempt proceedings. John Bresnahan of Politico.com reported, "Pelosi noted that Conyers had sent nine different letters to current White House Counsel Fred Fielding seeking a compromise that would allow Bolten and Miers to appear, but Fielding refused to allow either aide, or former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, to testify in public or under oath."

Two weeks later, the Attorney General wrote a letter to Pelosi stating he would not refer congressional contempt citations to a grand jury or take any other action on the matter.

The Lawsuits

When all else fails, take ‘em to court. In 2006, John Conyers announced he was
"Taking the President to Court." After a battle over a Republican budget bill, the president despite being warned by Democrats, signed a Senate version that Democrats claimed had not been passed by the House. The purpose of the lawsuit? To seek confirmation from the court that a bill not passed by the House and Senate is not a law. The lawsuit never made it to court. Perhaps he never sung along with School House Rock.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced last May that she would sue the President if he attached a signing statement to Congress’s Iraq funding bill. Of course, a simple and effective solution would be for the House Speaker to turn to Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution then quickly drop down to Section 4. [Note: There is no clause about the 2008 elections, time left or predetermining votes.]

This month after Mukasey refused to enforce Congressional subpoenas, House Democrats filed a
lawsuit against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. And thus, the cycle continues.

New Legislation

In response to the Bush administration’s assertion that it did not require congressional approval for establishing any long-term security agreement with Iraq, the Congressional Progressive Caucus announced they were introducing new legislation to combat the situation. The legislation seeks to "reassert the constitutional powers of Congress in the shaping and conduct of U.S. foreign policy."

A move like this is not without inherent risk. If the legislation fails to pass, it can serve to bolster the administration’s arguments. If it does pass, we’re right back to the signing statement which is what brought this whole issue out in the open in the first place. If Congress starts making a habit of creating new legislation to reinforce already established laws the country is headed down another dangerous path.

With a Heavy Heart

Whether a principled response to the administration’s lack of cooperation with Congress or a growing concern that a Democratic President might be equally uncooperative, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), railed against the Bush administration last month. Rohrabacher whose aggressive support of rendition and lack of compassion for Iraqi refugees has upset many, has spoken out strongly against the administration for its "contemptuous disregard for Congress."

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

Writer/Photographer/Activist. An advocate for clean government, media integrity and civil liberties. Chair of the Progressive Democrats of America S. Jersey Chapter Impeachment Team and co-leader of the New Jersey Impeach Groups. Founder of the Strike08.com campaign. Working to end the war in Iraq and prevent one with Iran. Writer and editor for OpEdNews.com. cherylbirenwright.wordpress.com

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Spurl      Tag!RawSugar      Shadows Tag!      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 comments

Mark is an anti-civilizationist in San Diego.
Mark E. SmithMark is an anti-civilizationist in San Diego.

A Dissident Democrat?

Is that something like a law-abiding member of the Mafia, or a non-racist member of the Ku Klux Klan?

Kucinich called himself "the only real Democrat." But he would never split his party's vote by running as an independent, just because his party and its candidates favor everything he claims to oppose.

Sorry, Cheryl, a Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat, whether you call yourself a dissident Democrat, a progressive Democrat, or the only real Democrat.

Being a Democrat means that you will vote for somebody who is committed to continuing the wars of aggression (crimes against humanity) you claim to oppose, because you want your party to get a bigger share of the war profits than the other party.

It means that you remained loyal to a party that does not represent you.

It means that you are supportive of a system that does not represent you.

And it means that you remain loyal to a Constitution that does not even allow you to elect your President and Vice-President. You may, if the state you live in grants you that right, vote for Electors, but their names aren't on the ballots (the names of the candidates you may NOT vote for are on the ballots) so you think you're voting for Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates when you don't even know who you're voting for, but whoever it is, it is NOT the names on the ballot because you may not vote for them, only the Electoral College can do that.

John Conyers is a very smart man. And he knows how ignorant and stupid most people are. He knows that the military-industrial complex decides who the candidates will be, decides who will win the elections, and controls both political parties. The MIC will not allow impeachment. So the very fact that people are asking John Conyers to do something that is not within his power to do, tells him how uninformed our electorate is.

All the candidates are committed to continuing the war crimes and one of them will be "elected" or selected by the Supreme Court.

To belong to ANY political party, or to vote in this country's faith-based elections, is an indication of ignorance and apathy -- ignorance of who really runs this country, and apathy with regard to war crimes. The only thing a person of conscience who wants to be able to die without blood on their hands can do, is to refuse to vote. Fifty percent of the electorate already do just that because nobody on the ballot ever represents their interests.

Join us, or remain a Vichy Democrat. Or a dissident Vichy Democrat if you prefer. Whether you piously claim to oppose the war crimes doesn't matter. What matters is if you will support a party (and its candidates) that has consistently voted for war crimes and is committed to continuing them. Only war criminals and their collaborators will do that, and I am proud of the fifty percent of Americans who will not. WE are the only ones who really care.

 

by Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 23 quicklinks, 59 diaries, 710 comments) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 at 2:33:38 AM
 


I have worked as a reporter, media watch columnist, ran a consumer group for three years and been an occasional pro se attorney. I've sold everything from vacuum cleaners to satelite dishes to computers. I am a huge fan (literally, I'm 6' 5") of comics and science fiction and am a Pop Culture addict in general.
Philip ShropshireI have worked as a reporter, media watch columnist, ran a consumer group for three years and been an occasional pro se attorney. I've sold everything from vacuum cleaners to satelite dishes to computers. I am a huge fan (literally, I'm 6' 5") of comics and science fiction and am a Pop Culture addict in general.

I think that's an unfair critique...

There really are no viable third parties in the United States. They're underfunded whites only clubs that simply aren't competitive in just about any race of consequence. I think there are differences between the major parties, perhaps not much but I remember having a decent job during the Clinton years, not to mention that I never worried about being sent to an internment camp. I am extremely disappointed that they haven't impeached our current war criminals in chief but I will participate in the process as much as I can...

 

Philip Shropshire 

www.threeriversonline.com

 

PS: I think there is less risk going after Bush after he's no longer commander in chief of the armed forces, which, and after watching this guy for awhile, he would probably use to keep power, up to and including the arrests of anyone and anybody who tried to "impeach" him... 

by Philip Shropshire (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 at 3:59:06 AM
 


Writer/Photographer/Activist. An advocate for clean government, media integrity and civil liberties. Chair of the Progressive Democrats of America S. Jersey Chapter Impeachment Team and co-leader of the New Jersey Impeach Groups. Founder of the Strike08.com campaign. Working to end the war in Iraq and prevent one with Iran. Writer and editor for OpEdNews.com.

cherylbirenwright.wordpress.com

Cheryl Biren-WrightWriter/Photographer/Activist. An advocate for clean government, media integrity and civil liberties. Chair of the Progressive Democrats of America S. Jersey Chapter Impeachment Team and co-leader of the New Jersey Impeach Groups. Founder of the Strike08.com campaign. Working to end the war in Iraq and prevent one with Iran. Writer and editor for OpEdNews.com.

cherylbirenwright.wordpress.com

honestly?

thanks, mark, for sharing your thoughts, but do you honestly think that

The only thing a person of conscience who wants to be able to die without blood on their hands can do, is to refuse to vote. Fifty percent of the electorate already do just that because nobody on the ballot ever represents their interests . . . I am proud of the fifty percent of Americans who will not. WE are the only ones who really care.

i very seriously doubt the reason 50% of our electorate are not voting is a matter of principle. i seriously doubt there are that many who are sitting around assessing the situation and concluding that no one represents them and hence they are not voting. do you have stats on that? a good percentage of that 50% i am sure are people who simply don't give a sh*t. i think it's more about apathy.

that said, perhaps you can share more about what you think people ought to be actively doing to help the situation. and, for the record, i am not registered for any party, although i did take a Democratic ballot in nj last month to vote against clinton. and, no, that does not mean i think obama is all that much better.

p.s. do the other "anti-civilizationists" know you're using a computer?

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (13 articles, 9 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 186 comments) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 at 6:33:52 AM
 


Brett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law.
Brett PaatschBrett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law.

Holding impeachment hearings IS within Conyers power

and its also within the ambit of his oath of office. Conyers cannot credibly argue that he does not perceive the Bush administration as a domestic enemy of the constitution. 

the very fact that people are asking John Conyers to do something that is not within his power to do, tells him how uninformed our electorate is.

It would involve some political risk yes, but as Cheryl points out in her article that Fein has noted, those who played key roles in the founding of the United States put a lot more at risk personally than just their careers.

I am not an American but found Opednews because my daily google alert on impeach Bush kept showing that Opednews was a place where likeminded Americans were posting. Yet even here there is a very small minority that actually seem to know how their own system works as opposed to having mythological beliefs about it - many of which seem to serve no real purpose other than to convince those who could do something with the power of a citizen to actually rationalise doing very little at all. 

I don't doubt for a moment that there is some substance to the notion of a military industrial complex but I don't credit that any such a complex would weild more political power that large numbers of Americans writing their representatives and demanding that their oaths of office be upheld or else. 

The real problem with America is that most Americans don't understand the power they have and don't accept any of the responsibilies of maintaining a government of the people by the people for the people.

Modern America is a great example of bystander calculus - a phenomena whereby people perceive that there is a problem but also that there are a large numbers of witnesses to that problem and so each actually does less figuring their contribution would either be too small or their non contribution will go overlooked.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 610 comments) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 at 6:51:07 PM
 


I am a Vietnam Vet disabled by MS and other various diseases.  On average I am a Moderate with slight Conservative leanings although it truly depends on what issue I am concerned with at the time.
Hayesml47I am a Vietnam Vet disabled by MS and other various diseases.  On average I am a Moderate with slight Conservative leanings although it truly depends on what issue I am concerned with at the time.

Impeachment list

It is time to add Conyers and Pelosi to the impeachment list.  If we can just impeach one of these miserable creeps then maybe the whole deck of them will start to fall.  God knows this list is getting bigger all the time.

by Hayesml47 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 201 comments) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 at 5:52:43 PM
 


Michael Cavlan , RN, was an Official Green Party Observer for the 2004 Ohio Re-Count.
He was the Green Party Candidate for US Senate 2006 and is a Candidate US Senate
2008 Seeking Green Party Endorsement in Minnesota. See www.michaelcavlan.org

Michael CavlanMichael Cavlan , RN, was an Official Green Party Observer for the 2004 Ohio Re-Count.
He was the Green Party Candidate for US Senate 2006 and is a Candidate US Senate
2008 Seeking Green Party Endorsement in Minnesota. See www.michaelcavlan.org

Why No Impeachment

Cheryl,

Please feel free to check out my story on Impeachment. Oh and for the record Impeach For Peace also cornered Conyers in Minnesota. Check out my campaign website, click on the movie about Conyers. I am the guy in Nurses scrubs (I am a Nurse) challenging Conyers.

 

I am a dissident, plain and simple. I oppose BOTH wings of the war machine.

 

Michael Cavlan

 

Minnesota 

by Michael Cavlan (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 72 comments) on Monday, March 24, 2008 at 2:38:09 PM
 

 

6 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008