I know the Democratic leaders in Congress have said that impeachment is "off the table", but that is one campaign promise that should not be kept. Oversight of the Bush Administration is not enough.
How do you oversee a torture program? How do you oversee "extraordinary renditions" and secret prisons? How do you oversee the destruction of the U.S. Constitution? What is Congress going to do when Bush starts bombing Iran--watch closely?
You don't oversee these kinds of things. You stop them. That is why the Founding Fathers wrote impeachment into our Constitution.
The power of impeachment was one of the first proposals presented to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Founding Fathers felt it was important enough to mention it six times in the Constitution and once more in an amendment. They believed the new government needed a strong executive, but having just thrown off the rule of one King, they did not want another one--even an elected one.
• "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." -- James Madison, 4th U.S. President and "Father of the Constitution"
• Guilt, wherever found, ought to be punished. The executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power, particularly in time of war, when the military force, and in some respects the public money, will be in his hands. Should no regular punishment be provided, it will be irregularly inflicted by tumults and insurrections. --Edmund Randolph, First Attorney General to serve under the Constitution, The Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as reported by James Madison, 1787
Only two American Presidents have been impeached:
In 1868, Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, thus violating the newly passed Tenure of Office Act, which required Senate approval before the President could replace a Cabinet member. Johnson believed the Act was unconstitutional, and enough Senators must have agreed because they acquitted him and he remained in office. (The Tenure of Office Act was repealed in 1887.)
In 1998, after a six-year, $40 million investigation by Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, the House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice in his grand jury testimony about an adulterous affair with an intern (which had nothing to do with his official duties). In February 1999, the U.S. Senate acquitted Clinton and the world had a good laugh at our expense.
In both of these cases, the Constitutional power of impeachment was used for partisan political purposes, rather than as a punishment for "high crimes and misdemeanors", as proposed by the Founders.
The system worked as intended in 1974, when the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon, charging him with obstruction of justice, illegal wire-tapping, refusing to turn over information subpoenaed by Congress, lying to the public and other abuses of power related to the cover-up of White House involvement in the "Watergate" burglary.
Nixon avoided certain impeachment by becoming the first and only President to resign. (Note: It was Republican leaders in Congress who told Nixon he "had to go"--an obvious example of pre-9/11 thinking, when the good of the nation trumped partisan politics and the Constitution was still the law of the land.)
Today, America finds itself with a President who has committed all same impeachable offenses as Nixon, and many, many more.
• "For all the reasons Nixon was nearly impeached, George W. Bush could be impeached too. He has openly engaged in illegal, unconstitutional, warrantless spying, and -- while Congress has not yet used subpoenas -- Bush has obstructed its investigations, refused to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, and broken a variety of laws in the course of exacting retribution against whistleblowers, producing false reports, and establishing a regime of secrecy of a sort that Nixon could only dream about". -- David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, The Black Commentator, 10/26/06
• "Bush's abuses of presidential power are the most extensive in American history. He has launched an aggressive war ("war of choice," in today's euphemism) on false grounds. He has presided over a system of torture and sought to legitimize it by specious definitions of the word. He has asserted a wholesale right to lock up American citizens and others indefinitely without any legal showing or the right to see a lawyer or anyone else. He has kidnapped people in foreign countries and sent them to other countries, where they were tortured." --Jonathan Schell, The Nation via Common Dreams, December 22, 2005
The Bush Administration would like us to believe that the future of the United States and the world hangs on the outcome of Bush's war on Iraq. It does not. The future of the United States actually depends on the willingness of our representatives to set aside their partisan differences and re-establish their place as a co-equal branch of government.
Mick Youther is an American citizen, an independent voter, a veteran, a parent, a Christian, a scientist, a writer, and all-around nice guy who has been aroused from a comfortable apathy by the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Administration.
In both of these cases, the Constitutional power of impeachment was used for partisan political purposes,
So it was then and so it is today.
Mr. Youthier states clearly and forcefully the Founding Fathers (stress on Fathers, so as not to diminish the patriarchialism of our constitutional history)seriousness in providing a legal remedy for tyranical and improper behaviour on the part of the Chief Executive.
Mr. Youthier goes on to state the very serious and deliberate offenses the Bush Administration has committed against morality, against decency and against the US constitution.
There can be no question that the Invasion of Iraq was cruel and barbarous act motivated and continued by a spirit of cowardice divorced from any sense of honor, morality or justice.
But Mr. Youthier goes on to state exactly how the Impeachment clause was repeatedly abused by partisan majorities in the US House of Representatives.
What was the result? In Clinton's case the record of the only successful post Eisenhower President has been besmirched.
In contrast the reputation of the President who pushed the conservative snowball down the hill and began the long descent of American decency an power has been built up.
Look back to Johnson's case, the Radical Republicans impeached a racist President who was eviscerating their plan for Reconstruction of the Post Civil War South. Andrew Johnson beat the Impeachment rap and Jim Crow's political God-father went on to establish policies that reestablished white supremacy through out the South.
It is a lock that even if the Dems were able to somehow get an impeachment through the House, the trial in the Senate would result in an acquittal.
We would then have wasted another two precious years talking about Bush when we could be using the time constructively to devise policies to restore America as a country committed to justice and equity.
Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership made the right decision in taking impeachment "off the table."
We need to spend the time on the people's business, not on re-hashing George W. Bush's failed Presidency.
Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 12:42:15 PM
I am aware that impeachment would take time--so appoint a special prosecutor to do the leg work. When it comes to the people's business, I can see nothing more important than making sure the next president obeys the Constitution--rather than acting like a king. There is no point in having a Legislative branch, if the executive branch is not bound by its laws.
by
Mick Youther (83 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 2:01:29 PM
This comment has been flagged and is awaiting review by the editors -
Reason: Great Comment: Promote to Article
President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:
1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.
2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.
3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.
4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.
5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.
6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.
8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.
9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."
10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.
11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.
12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.
13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.
14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.
15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.
16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."
17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.
18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.
19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.
20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.
by
Vince Williams (26 articles, 0 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 31 comments)
on Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 2:34:03 PM
To say "impeachment is off the table" is the equivalent of saying the Constitution, the rule of law, and democracy are no longer relevant.
Maybe the Democrats are actually fearful of doing anything with good reason. The anthrax attacks were directed at ONLY the Democrats and certain segments of the Media. Fox news didn't receive any. And, oddly enough, although nobody considers the National Inquirer to be part of the media, or a threat to anyone except slandered celebrities, their corporate headquarters were targeted first. Why is that odd? They were running stories on the drunken Bush twins prior to 9/11 and about George's cocaine habit before the 2000 election. There is also the strange admission that top Republicans were taking prophylactic doses of Cipro prior to those attacks.
It is also very "odd" that only prominent Democrats who are critical of this administration seem to die in tragic airplane crashes.
Needless to say maybe the Dems know the Bush crime family is vengeful and capable of pure evil. That should not be an excuse for postponing impeachment, but instead should be the very reason they get started immediately with impeachment hearings and eventually lead to criminal prosecutions. I guess they are waiting for either WWIII, (that starts with Iran and Syria, then China, etc); or for those detention camps of Ollie North's to start filling up with millions of Americans who protest in demand of impeachment.
It is already almost too late. If either of the above mentioned atrocities take place it [impeachment] will be virtually impossible. And God forbid they engineer or allow another catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil. At that point martial law will be instituted and George W. Bush will have the dictatorship he always wanted.
In the meantime how many more soldiers and innocent Iraqis must die? How many more of our civil liberties and rights will vanish in the name of national security? How many more high crimes will be committed by this imperial president? The truly patriotic of America are demanding answers and justice right now.
by
JohnNmissouri (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments)
on Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 4:00:43 PM
Let's face it, as a practical matter, the obstacle preventing the impeachment of Bush and Cheney is the Zionist lobby.
We're apparently dealing with a vicious cycle of depravity here: The more evil crimes committed by Bush and Cheney, the more exposed to prosecution they become hence the more they depend on the Zionist lobby for protection from impeachment...and yet the more evil the Zionists demand in return.
Absent timely intervention into this cycle of destruction, the situation will continue to worsen and end with the ultimate sacrifice: the end of America as most would recognize it; sacrificed on the alter of Zionism for the sake of a pathetic, bloody delusion that never had any chance of success whatsoever.
by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments)
on Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 4:09:09 PM
The zionist lobby might not want Bush impeached, but it's 535 members of the house who hold office and took an oath which they have a duty to uphold. So any one of them, if they had the courage and the sense, could offer articles of impeachment and make the case. Don't blame anyone else. That's just BS.
by
Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments)
on Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 7:57:43 PM
Please explain why would someone need "courage" to do the right thing, when the right thing is something the majority of their constituents want done? Tell me what's there to be afraid of? Whomever advocates the impeachment of Bush and Cheney would become wildly popular heroes immediately.
You want to support your argument? Then show me some historical evidence, say just one single case in the last 20 years or so, where the U.S. Congress for example has ever collectively taken a stand against the Zionist lobby on any meaningful issue.
Face it, if Bush were bleeding the Empire to death in, say, Venezuela, and threatening to attack North Korea, he would have been impeached already. It's only because the victims of his present and future aggression are Israel's perceived enemies, that he's being propped up and protected from the consequences of his heinous crimes. You know it and I know it...let's not pretend otherwise.
by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments)
on Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 9:06:26 PM
Charley Manson wanted a race war, maybe this is where Bush got his ideology from. I can envision Bush bobbing his head to the tune of Helter Skelter. Putting a swats sticker tattoo between Bush's eyes on a picture would make a good anti Bush poster, well idolizing Manson from his knee's. LOL
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments)
on Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 9:21:12 PM
So, Apparently there is nothing to dishonest,too evil,too
illegal and insane to get Republican Mad Men Psycho Liars
George W Bush and Delusional Dick Cheney Impeached!
However,it also helps when Bush & Cheney have new best
friends, in Looney Toons Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi and
Harebrain Harry Reid,to block any attempt at Bush & Cheney
Impeachment,so wake up a face reality here people!
by
Ralph (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 74 comments)
on Sunday, January 28, 2007 at 10:42:40 PM
14 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
