Presented at George Mason University on April 14, 2008 Dedicated to Betty Hall and the New Hampshire State Legislature. By David Swanson
John Adams, who was later the second president of the United States, wrote some words in the Constitution of Massachusetts that have been quoted approvingly by the U.S. Supreme Court and every state supreme court in the United States. He described a separation of powers among three branches of government and said that this would be done
"to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."
Thomas Paine in his "Common Sense" pamphlets that helped launch the American war for independence, wrote that
"so far as we approve of monarchy, ... in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law OUGHT to be King; and there ought to be no other."
I raise this point in order to suggest that the question of whether the US Constitution requires impeaching Bush and Cheney is not an academic one and is very closely tied to the straightforward question of whether we should impeach Bush and Cheney. The Constitution is the highest law of this land. If it requires that something be done, then a failure to do it amounts to moving the country in the direction of lawlessness, and possibly in the direction of the rule of men and women, not of laws.
This is the case unless, of course, we amend the Constitution to fit our chosen behavior. The Constitution is not infallible. There are sections of the original text that I'm pleased have been removed through the amendment process. There are other sections that I think should be changed, things that should be added that are not there, etc. But there is a great danger in sidestepping the democratic process of amending the law and proceeding to simply violate it.
There are cases in which we do that. For example, for over 50 years the United States has fought wars without Congress ever declaring war, as required by the Constitution. But these are policies that should, in fact, be reversed and be brought back under the rule of law. If you believe a president should have the power to declare wars, then you should work to amend the Constitution to provide that power. Otherwise some president you disapprove of may decide to grant him or herself the power to do something else not found in the Constitution, and it may be something you don't like, but there won't be much you can say about it.
The Constitution, of course, gives the three branches of the national government different powers, and provides each with checks on abuses of power by the others.
The president is to execute the laws created by Congress. He, or she, serves as commander in chief of the military. He can pardon crimes (but not impeachments). If he consults with and gets the support of the Senate, the president can negotiate treaties and appoint officials, ambassadors, and judges. That's about it. There is no constitutional presidential power to write or alter or violate laws, to act in secret, to abridge the judicial system, to violate the Bill of Rights, to violate existing treaties, to build an empire, or to launch a war. Oh, and the Vice President under the Constitution has no particular powers at all, other than serving as the president of the Senate, where he or she only gets to vote if there's a tie.
In contrast, the legislative branch of our government, historically and even today in the version students are still taught in schools, has much greater power. The Congress, to which the first half of the entire Constitution is devoted, has the exclusive power to enact laws. Congress also has the sole power to raise and spend money. It has the power to declare war and to fund and oversee the military. It has the power to regulate international and interstate trade. Congress handles immigration, bankruptcies, the printing and valuing of money, the post offices, copyrights. Congress has the power to "constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court," and "to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations." But the first power that the Constitution grants the House of Representatives is the power of impeachment. The first power it grants the Senate is the power to try all impeachments.
In school we learn about the "Separation of Powers" and about something called "Checks and Balances." Our three branches of government are supposed to be separately elected, none of them created by any other. The Supreme Court is constituted by both the executive and legislative branches, not one alone. And the power to run the nation is supposed to be divided. Congress has certain powers. The courts have other powers. The president has others. Congress, as the most powerful branch, is further divided into two houses with somewhat separate powers. It's important to understand that Congress is more powerful than the other branches, which is one reason the phrases "balance of power" and "checks and balances" can be misleading. There is not supposed to be anything evenly balanced about it.
Under the U.S. system, the executive branch is understood to have the following checks on legislative power, and it still has them, plus some:
1. The veto. Bush does still have this power, but it is overshadowed by his newly created signing-statement power. No longer must he choose between signing a bill and vetoing it. Now, he can choose to sign it and rewrite it. While signing statements are not new, this use of them is, and twice studies by the GAO have found that in a significant percentage of cases the laws Bush announces the power to violate he has proceeded to violate.
2. Commanding the military. Bush does still have this power, but he has added to it the power to declare war in violation of Article I of the Constitution and in violation of the UN Charter which under Article VI is the law of the land, plus the power to misappropriate funds for wars that were not approved for them, and the power to take state militias (also known as the National Guard) away from the states to join the US military in fighting foreign wars.
3. The vice president's vote in the Senate. He does still have this power.
DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.
imprunement might be better for our constitutions.
don't waste my time with facts. they are just too time consuming. and when it comes to time, it justs ticks and tocks and gives me a head-ache. let's reminisce about the good ol' days and how wonderful it's going to be when Johnnie comes marching home.
but now- forgeddiboutit! i'm too busy, i can't find the time to tell you, Emerson.
go tell it on a mountain. call out to nancy and harry. tell conyers, too. this train is gonna stop for no-one.
let me count the ways ( and means). and I do mean being a meany, minie, moe.
so get it off the table, open up wide and stuff the imprunement where it was intended to travel. impeaches and herb, maybe. but real live congressional representatives are now being replaced by virtual un-reality.
wolfie is no owl, but he does give a hoot!
by
Wolfie (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 884 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 6:06:56 PM
A couple of things we can do to ensure impeachment
Darn right it does.
The problem is how do we get the House Democrats to hold Impeachment Hearings? We tried about everything.
The answer we think is GET TOUGH WITH THEM! SOON!!!!
We have a To To List for Today and Tuesday.
Item-1: Send preprepared messages to the Democratic New Hampshire House Representatives to urge them to support Rep. Betty Hall's resolution to push the US House to start Impeachment Hearings. The suggested letter and the comma separated email lists are HERE
Item-2: In Colorado we have after much trial and error come up with a plan we think will force the Colorado Congressmen to call for impeachment hearings. We are having enough of an effect on the Udall campaign that one of the prominent Udall supporters contacted us and asked us to back off. Udall is an incumbent Congressman in CD2 that is running for the Senate in a tight race.
Check out the value of putting rentless uncompromising pressure on Democratic Congressmen who are in tight races. We think it might be the key to getting the "safe seat" Democrats to call for impeachment.
the Constitution and support the laws that govern the nation. When you refer to it as a "piece of paper" and issue signing statements, I would understand it to mean that impeachment is vital to protect the pillars of government.
Obviously the democrats are in too deep with the republicans on the illegal occupations profiteering, that bill as a "War on Terrorism".
by
Stanimal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 315 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 10:28:01 PM
David, great work! It is important to remind everyone that impeachment is the means by which Congress can tell the executive and judicial branches to follow the law, but so far, only a handful of courageous members have pushed for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Others may join in the push to require the legislative branch to do its duty and hold the executive and judicial branches accountable. The way to get that to happen is by more people taking action.
Go to campaign functions, and tell the candidates that you have two short questions. Ask the candidates whether they believe that members of our government should be required to follow the law and be held accountable if they have broken the law. They will almost certainly say yes. People inherently understand that if our governors can violate the law without consequences, then they will abuse their power. Then, ask if they support impeachment of Bush and Cheney for their numerous offenses. Videotape your Q & A, and put it up on the web.
For more information on the push to have New Hampshire’s Legislature pass legislation requiring institution of impeachment proceedings in the U.S. House of Representatives, see http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00172.htm
Our governors at all levels now routinely violate the law without consequences. The checks that the people had to hold our governors accountable have been almost completely eliminated.
Currently, we no longer get to elect our leaders or throw bad ones out of office. Our votes are "counted" in secret on computers, and these "official" secret vote counts have been proven wrong repeatedly. Not only is secret vote counting dangerous, it’s unconstitutional, and when it was put in place, it is impossible to imagine that no one bothered to look at the constitutionality of it.
My article, "Virginia’s Elections Are UNCONSTITUTIONAL?!?!" includes a link in my comment to a video of my conversation with election officials in Virginia who pretend not to understand that computers count in secret. They say no one ever even though of that. Yeah, right!?! It also includes a link to my letters to each candidate asking them to take action to require that our elections be conducted in a constitutional manner. Naturally, not a single one took action.
My discussion with the election official in South Carolina was as laughable, but he did not want to be recorded. Any way, in my articles on Virginia and South Carolina, I point out that not only do the constitutions of both of those states specifically prohibit secret vote counting, but also, so do some U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Everyone knows that the people are supposed to be able to peacefully remove bad leaders through elections, but what if those who control the machines, and their secret vote count, want bad leaders in power? Is there another way that citizens can prevent abuse of power without resorting to violence?
Yes, there is or was another way to hold our governors accountable without resorting to violence. If you want to find out the other civil check on government abuse of power that our Founders provided for us, then read What Happens When the People Lose the Power to Control Government and What You Can Do to Take the Power Back?http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_ada_080204_what_happens_when_th.htm
If Congress will not perform its duty to hold Bush and Cheney accountable, then our nation is no longer a government of law, and everyone will suffer from increasing crime, violence, and poverty, the consequences that flow from every dictatorship.
by
Mark Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 73 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 11:58:41 PM
our forefathers clearly saw the need to expel anyone who was either incompetent or abused the power of the presidency. this is clearly true with Bush & Cheney. So it's really a " no-brainer ".
by
vin agamenone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 14 comments)
on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 11:19:44 AM
The litany of impeachable offences of which this administration is guilty should be clear to anyone with an IQ slightly above that of mud, and to any demonstrably sane person who has the ability to think for himself. But here in New Hampshire, where impeachment is currently being debated in the House of Representatives, there is little sanity on this side of the paradigm shift.
An article in the Concord Monitor today describes the rally last night in favor of impeachment this way:
"The event drew a variety of entertainment. An Ethan Allen impersonator from Vermont kicked off the show by proclaiming Cheney and Bush 'vain, arrogant, corrupt, unelected and impeachable'. Next up came a music video featuring images of Cheney in a devil suit and Bush as a vampire looming over the neck of the Statue of Libery and a song with the line: 'You lied, you lied, you lied - and because of you thousands of people have died."
With coverage like this, who needs any more facts?
Don't hold your breath waiting for the neanderthals here in New Hampshire State government to actully make a difference. I've lived here for 32 years, and the plodding mentality I see all around me is downright depressing.
by
Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 242 comments)
on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 11:28:25 AM
How do we get Congress to act when the bulk of the body is so guilty of corruption and complicity? My feeling is that our Reps are so dirty that they fear the investigations themselves. We have waited too long, I see no public pressure adequate to institute proceedings at this time.
But you know, doing the right thing needs not wait on surety, or even expectation of success. We must keep pushing.
by
Torus (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 12:02:27 PM
together with Bush”. You say “Impeachment is an investigation, leading to an indictment.”But nothing you say suggests you have reviewed the House Rules on Impeachment (#603 and #604) to come up with a workable plan.
by
Samuel Bryan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments)
on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 3:44:18 PM
Too bad that Nancy Pelosi does not understand her responibilities to the constitution.
Everyone who agrees with this should send Nancy Pelosi a link to this article. No doubt she lacks the time to read such a long article but perhaps her staff can read it and digest its contents for her.
You can send such a link by visiting her contact web page.
by
PrMaine (7 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 225 comments)
on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 5:59:04 PM
