 |
Add to My Group
Impeaching Bush to Preserve the Constitution
By Elizabeth Holtzman (about the author) Page 2 of 3 page(s)
But did congress talk about impeachment? Absolutely not. The Democrats were in control of the house and senate. Did they say, "Oh, we've got to have an impeachment now." Absolutely not! They did nothing. They did NOTHING!
Then the American people spoke. President Nixon fired the special prosecutor who was trying to get information about him and the American people said, "that's it. Enough is enough. We can't have a president who is above the law. We can't have a president stop investigations. We are not a banana republic, We are the United States of America. And the congress, you have to act." And they forced the congress to act. It was the American people. This is so critical.
Cindy Sheehan was so correct when she said "People have to walk and educate their congresspeople." They have to educate other Americans that this is possible. I believe it is mandatory, because the constitution was given to us as a precious legacy from those before us. How are we going to hand it down to our children? Shriveled, shrunken, torn? Scratched, stained? That's what we want? I don't think so.
Let me give you the "weapons" for those who are going to be the naysayers here.Plenty of people didn't want to do it. They were forced to do it because of the American people.
People say, "Why should we have impeachement? We now have the democrats in charge. that'enough. Checks and balances are restored. Who needs it?
Well, we had checks and balances in regard to Nixon. We had the democrats controlling the house and senate and we had the president of the United States. Why'd we have to do impeachment if we had checks and balances?
The constitution doesn't require the minimum. It requires the maximum. We can't have a president of the United States who puts himself above the rule of law if we want to continue with this democracy.That's it. No ifs ands or buts.
The fact that we have checks and balances does not mean that we are not obliged to remove the person who threatens our democracy from the presidency.
Secondly, it's not about revenge. The effort against Richard Nixon was not about revenge. Far from it. It was a bi-partisan effort. it was supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people, most of whom had voted for Nixon. The same people who had voted for Nixon where the ones who phoned and telegrammed their members of congress and wrote the them and protested in front of them, because they understood that this man was shredding the constitution. It's not a partisan thing, not a matter of revenge. It's a matter of setting the right standards and holding those accountable who lied and deceived the American people and who want to shred the constitution still.
There are also those who say that this will disrupt congress. There are some people who say that congress can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Congress, during the impeachment of Richard Nixon, did all the other business of the country and the house judiciary committee did its job. Nothing was disrupted.
And to those who say it divided the country-- the impeachment of Richard Nixon brought it together. How? We all recognized that we shared the same values as a country-- the values being, not a president, one person, not a party, not a political situation, but our commitment to the constitution and to the rule of law. When we discovered that we shared those values, it strengthened us and united us.
Some say that Americans only care about improving the minimum wage, about lower interest for student loans, about health care. But don't Americans care about the constitution? Don't we care about freedom? Don't we care about liberty? Of course we do. And anyone who says that (that we need to focus on getting legislation done on healthcare, etc.) is denigrating the intelligence of the American people, because it is our constitution and our democracy that makes all of those other things possible.
We need to investigate. There's no formula for how you conduct an impeachment. You don't need a Conyers investigation., Actually, if you go back to Watergate, you had a select senate committee that began the investigation-- started in the senate, bipartisan, equal representation. That's where Howard Baker asked the famous quesion, "What did the president know and when did he know it?" The same question is applicable to George W. Bush. What did the president know before the war started and when did he know it.
Same questions. There's no formula. The house can conduct inquiries. The senate can conduct inquiries. Those inquiries have to be focused though, on getting us the answers to the basic questions. What are those?
Why did the president drive us into war on the basis of deception? And how did he do it and document what he knew and when he knew it. That's critical, because no American should have to give one drop of blood for a lie, ever.
www.impeachbushbook.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
by Paul L. Murphy
$21.10
Number of pages: 570
Publisher: Harpercollins College Div
by Bill D. Moyers
$16.95
Lowest New Price $13.22
Number of pages: 168
Publisher: Seven Locks Pr
by John C. Conyers Jr.
$14.95
Lowest New Price $1.00
Number of pages: 320
Publisher: Skyhorse Publishing
by Kenneth C. Hill
$8.95
Lowest New Price $2.34
Number of pages: 86
Publisher: Hearthstone Publishing, Ltd.
| 40 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
