Put Impeachment Back on the the Table

[cenacle]

Pelosi Needs To Put Impeachment On The Table
by Bruce Fein

Published on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 by The San Francisco Chronicle

President Woodrow Wilson recanted his no-war pledge, President Franklin D. Roosevelt disowned his balanced budget promise and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., should learn from those examples. She should reconsider her “impeachment [of President Bush] is off the table” pledge. As Ralph Waldo Emerson advised, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

The speaker’s reluctance is understandable. The president’s tenure expires on Jan. 20, 2009. An impeachment inquiry could embolden al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iraq’s insurgents and Iran’s nuclear-minded mullahs. President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and a majority of Republicans in Congress would attempt to portray the exercise as naked partisanship. Their enthusiasm for impeaching President Bill Clinton over lying under oath about Monica Lewinsky would be no deterrent.

But countervailing constitutional concerns are more compelling. Bush has crippled checks and balances and protections against government abuses. If these claims and practices are not repudiated, the precedents will lie around like loaded weapons, ready for use by any White House incumbent to intimidate rivals or to destroy the rule of law.

The president has reduced Congress to wallpaper. He has asserted executive privilege to foil the congressional power of investigation - the most important because sunshine is the best disinfectant for lawlessness or maladministration. Thus, Bush has claimed inherent constitutional power to prohibit former presidential adviser Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, among others, from testifying about perjury, obstruction of justice or the politicization of law enforcement in conjunction with congressional scrutiny of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. Even President Richard M. Nixon, whose signature creed was “if the president does it, it’s legal,” shied from such a monarch-like claim. When former White House counsel John Dean was implicating him in the Watergate coverup by reciting chapter and verse of Oval Office conversations before the Senate Watergate Committee, Nixon never insinuated he could silence his accuser. In contrast, Bush is claiming that secrecy, as opposed to transparency, is the constitutional rule for the executive branch. Government by the consent of the governed, however, requires the people to know what their government is doing to enable them to adjust their political loyalties accordingly.

Bush has hidden from Congress details of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). It involves the National Security Agency’s spying on Americans based on the president’s say-so alone in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires judicial warrants. The president has declined to share the number of Americans targeted by the TSP, the intelligence yield, the earmarks employed to identify American targets, or other facts needed for Congress to evaluate its legality or advisability. Indeed, if it were not for an executive branch leak of the TSP to the New York Times, the spying would have been concealed forever with no public discussion or congressional hearings. Sister spying programs remain secret to this very moment.

Bush has claimed constitutional power to gather foreign intelligence by breaking and entering homes, opening mail, kidnapping, or torturing in violation of federal criminal prohibitions. He maintains that every square inch of the United States is a battlefield, where military force or tactics are legitimate, including killing suspected al Qaeda members or affiliates. He has endangered every American traveling abroad by establishing the international law principle that nations are entitled to kidnap, imprison and torture noncitizens who they suspect of sympathy with domestic rebels. He has claimed the United States is in perpetual war with international terrorism that justifies arming the president with perpetual war powers.

Bush routinely issues signing statements that declare his intent to disregard provisions of bills he has signed into law because he asserts they are unconstitutional. The signing statements lacerate the congressional power over legislation. They are indistinguishable from line-item vetoes that were held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Clinton vs. New York. Members of Congress vote on an entire bill, not on a Swiss cheese version. Signing statements entail the enforcement of a law, expurgated by the president, which Congress never passed. The Constitution obligates the president to veto bills he believes are unconstitutional, which offers Congress an opportunity to override by two-thirds majorities.

If House Speaker Pelosi neglects to put impeachment back into the Constitution, an omnipotent, repressive and secret presidency is inescapable. If her constituents voice that concern, it should concentrate her mind wonderfully.

Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer, chairman of the American Freedom Agenda, and author of the forthcoming book “Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle of Our Constitution and Democracy” (Palgrave Macmillan).

[cenacle]

I don't know if impeachment will happen, but I think we're all going to know soon. The question comes down to Bush's willingness to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. I'm wagering he thinks that the Dems are too spineless and he can ride out his remaining year and hand over the mess to Clinton, Obama, whoever sweeps into the White House on Jan 20, 2009.

What he fails to see is the will of the people, as particularly embodied in the progressive movement. In this movement's power of influence, or lack of power, is the question about impeachment likely to be answered. Will there be enough of us, loud enough, constant enough in our push, to make this happen? Will we make the 2008 election a referendum not only on Iraq, but on the imperial powers of the presidency which Bush created, and which are fundamentally illegal?

I don't know yet. As the old Phish song goes, "maybe so, maybe not"...we'll see, very soon...

[laughingwillow]

I'm not sure exactly why the people should have to cry loud and hard for impeachment. That's just not how it works with matters of law.  If a person is thought to have broken a law, the courts decide the outcome, not public opinion polls.

I expect the folks we elect to the legislative branch to take appropriate action when the balance of the three branches is at stake, as outlined by the constitution, not when politically expedient.

lw

[Stonehenge]

Cenacle, I'm glad to see you back to your radical roots. LW, you unfortunately sound a little naive here.

"I expect the folks we elect to the legislative branch to take appropriate action"

Our politicians are all bought and paid for nowdays. They take orders from everyone but ordinary taxpayers. The powers that be want Bush to stay in office and USA to stay in Iraq. They may be already planning the Iran invasion. 'the public be damned' has become the unofficial slogan of our government.

What has made this cabal more dangerous than others in the past is the fact that the media is apparently in the pocket of the ruling cabal. Whereas just the appearance that Nixon broke the law was enough to spark spirited debate back in the 70's and begin impeachment, now days, obvious law breaking by the president gets swept under the carpet. I believe Pelosi is part of the problem. All the demos want is to be top dog, not to restore justice and the rule of law.

[laughingwillow]

stoney: You don't always comprehend so well.

I don't expect dittily squat from this current batch of lap-dog legislators. My expectations are far higher than we are now experiencing.

lw

[cenacle]

Cenacle, I'm glad to see you back to your radical roots.

Haha, my roots never went anywhere. I'm just looking at this situation with my own eyes. I don't agree every politician is bought and sold, or things would be worse than they are. I also don't believe there are many who are brave enough to risk principle for job security. The ones who are stand out. Kucinich, Kennedy, Feingold, and a few others.

The Democratic leadership has alienated most of its base, and I don't know how they are going to get back that good will and hope that swept them back into power in Nov 2006. That said, I'm betting there is a lot of wheeling-dealing going on right now between the centrists and the progressives. That's how politics works, on every level of human society. From the local dogcatcher sleeping with the Mayor's granny right on up to the world-ruining Bush crime cabal. They're no better than the rest of us, most of the time, but then again, each of us has some moments when we shine and do the difficult right thing.

That we have the vote, that there is no longer race slavery, that there are such things as unemployment insurance and Medicare and 40-hour work weeks, and some protection of the environment and so on, such things tell me that good people do get into office and do get good things done. That a lot of bad shit is happening right now tells me that the good people are outnumbered.

So I look at what's coming and see card-sharking on the highest level. Posturing, positioning. And that's why I say it will come down to the power and influence of the people, led by the progressives on the net and in demonstrations, to push the bastards and angels alike in DC to do the right thing. Get us out of the Occupation of Iraq. Universal healthcare. Back to the UN. No more talk of nuking terrorists. No more wiretapping. And so on.

I have some hope but that's how I live my life, with some hope. Seems the healthiest way to circumnavigate these mortal waters.

[Stonehenge]

LW wrote:

"I don't expect dittily squat from this current batch of lap-dog legislators. My expectations are far higher than we are now experiencing."

Yes, your expectations are high but you don't expect diddly squat.

Cen, I don't say every single pol is crooked but most of the ones who aren't, go along with the ones who are.

"That we have the vote, that there is no longer race slavery, that there are such things as unemployment insurance and Medicare and 40-hour work weeks, and some protection of the environment and so on, such things tell me that good people do get into office and do get good things done."

Most of that happened before we were born. The current crop of demos seem to concentrate on posing like they were against the repubs while just enough of them cross over so that the R's always win on the key issues. Or else why would the "democrat controlled" congress pass the surveillence bill and give Bush another blank check on Iraq? Do they have a secret meeting and decide who will cross over?

The current junta that runs the country is more evil than any in the past. We will have to take to the street to get the bums out. With the media on their side, it will be hard as hell to rouse the masses.

[cenacle]

Most of that happened before we were born. The current crop of demos seem to concentrate on posing like they were against the repubs while just enough of them cross over so that the R's always win on the key issues. Or else why would the "democrat controlled" congress pass the surveillence bill and give Bush another blank check on Iraq? Do they have a secret meeting and decide who will cross over?

See, I don't know if they had a "secret" meeting, nor do I know that they are worse than previous politicians were. Governments have always attracted good and bad people.

There are really ugly scandals all through American history, like Teapot Dome, and slavery, and Prohibition, and the Vietnam War. Just like there have been good moments, like ending slavery a long time ago, and the Civil Rights Act from the mid-60s. The environmental legislation from the 70s.

I'm not interested in making broadly damning statements, I'm interested in specific people and their specific votes. Maybe there were "secret meetings," but if they are not documented, believing this is a matter of opinion only. I don't believe it, and see no evidence of it.

What I care about is getting every last politician to join in ending the Occupation, whatever party. It's simple. End the fucking Occupation. There's nothing else as important given how politically volitile that area of the world is. It has to start there. We're all watching.

[Stonehenge]

"I'm interested in specific people and their specific votes."

Are you going to oppose the demos who crossed over and gave the repubs their victories?

[cenacle]

I oppose anyone who supports the Occupation.

[laughingwillow]

Agreed, cen.

I also oppose anyone who initially voted for the war and now say they have changed their mind. That is/was too big of a "mistake" to over look, imo.   Voting records tell more than campaign speeches, imo.

lw

[Stonehenge]

I am really glad to see both of you on the same page with this issue. Or  it seems you both are. I happen to think the demos who crossed over on key issues are more worthy of being opposed than repubs. At least the R's admit where they stand and will tell you. The ones who claim to be one thing and then switch over at critical moments are the worst sort of swine.

Hillary claims to have "experience" but what experience does she have? Being wife of the dirtbag Clinton is not presidential experience.

I will not play the 'lesser of the evils' game any more. If it's Hill vs some repub who supports or did support the war and now waffles, I will vote third party. If the demos vote to continue the war in sept or when the money runs out, they are exactly the same as the repubs, in my book. No difference.

We need a new broom

[VajraPirate]

Bush and Cheney should both be arrested then impeached, in that order.

They are both war criminals and should be treated as such.

My opinion of Hillary has not changed one bit, she is a wolf in sheeps clothing, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take a hard look at her record.


Lw is right to expect the legislators to do their job, that's what we're over-paying them for isn't it? Even if we don't think they will do it we should still expect them to, otherwise there would be no dissapoint or dissent when they don't.

I expect a lot out of my government, and so far they have completely and utterly failed to live up to my reasonable expectations. My vote in the upcoming elections will certianly reflect that.

Ron Paul Save Us All!!