|
Impeach Bush or Get Rid of the
Impeachment Clause
By Dave Lindorff
05/11/07 "Baltimore
Chronicle" -- -- What is it about impeachment
that has the Democratic Party leadership so frightened?
Talking with members of Congress, one hears the same refrain: “I
know Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable crimes, but
impeachment is a bad idea.”
The rationales offered are many, but all are either specious or
based upon flawed reasoning. Let’s consider them separately:
Excuse one, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is that impeachment
would be a diversion from Democrats’ main goals of ending the
Iraq War, and passing important legislation. The reality, of
course, is that many of the administration’s impeachable acts
relate directly to the war, so hearings would only build support
for ending it. Meanwhile, with the slim majorities in both
houses, Democrats cannot pass any significant progressive
legislation that could survive a veto (or a presidential signing
statement) and the record shows it.
Excuse two is that impeachment is divisive. This seems the
height of absurdity. When voters handed Congress to the
Democrats, they knew they were setting the stage for divided
government. That was the whole point. Moreover, divisiveness in
Washington has largely emanated from the White House, not from
Congress. Anyhow, given administration intransigence on all the
issues that matter to Democrats, they have no alternative but to
take a stand.
Excuse three is a claim that the public opposes impeachment.
This is simply wrong. The few straightforward scientific polls
done on impeachment, such as one published by Newsweek last
October, show a majority of Americans to want it. Furthermore,
if Bush has committed impeachable acts, it is inappropriate for
House members, all of whom swore to uphold and defend the
Constitution, not to act.
Excuse four is that old canard that impeaching Bush would mean
making Cheney president—a deliberately scary prospect but one
which any politician in Washington knows is garbage. Firstly, if
Cheney were to become president because of a Bush impeachment or
resignation, it would only be for a few months, and given his
stunning lack of support among the public—currently about 9
percent and falling—he would be the lamest of lame ducks, unable
to do anything. But more importantly, his own party would be
certain to remove him before any removal of Bush, and for
exactly that reason—they would not want to be going into the
2008 election with Cheney as party leader. This is exactly what
happened to Spiro Agnew, whom a Republican attorney general
managed to indict and remove before the collapse of Nixon’s
presidency. The same thing can be expected to happen to Cheney,
who would surely face either a sudden health crisis, or an
indictment for corruption.
Finally, excuse five is that the president’s crimes and abuses
of power need to be proven before any impeachment bill. This is
completely backwards. An impeachment bill can be filed by any
member of Congress who believes the president has violated the
Constitution. At that point, it is up to the House Judiciary
Committee to consider the bill’s merits and decide whether to
ask the full House to authorize impeachment hearings. It is at
an impeachment hearing where investigations should proceed.
After all, only after the Judiciary Committee votes out an
impeachment article can the full House consider whether to
actually impeach. Calling for investigations before an
impeachment hearing is like asking for an investigation before a
grand jury investigation. It’s redundant, simply a dodge.
Besides, some of this president’s high crimes are self-evident.
Take the case of Bush’s ordering the National Security Agency to
spy on Americans’ communications without a warrant. A federal
judge has already labeled this violation of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act a felony. There is no denying this
felony occurred, or that Bush is responsible. The only question
the House needs to vote on is whether the felony is a “high
crime” warranting impeachment.
The same applies Bush’s refusal to enact over 1200 laws or parts
of laws duly passed by Congress. Bush doesn’t deny that he has
usurped the power of the Congress, as laid down in Article I of
the Constitution. Rather, he asserts—with no basis in the
wording of that document—that as commander in chief in the war
on terror, he has the “unitary executive” authority to ignore
acts of Congress. Again, there is no need for an “investigation”
to establish whether this happened. What Congress must do is
decide whether this usurpation of its Constitutional role is an
impeachable abuse of power.
Likewise the president’s authorization of kidnap and torture. We
know the president okayed torture. We know too, that he used his
“unitary executive” claim to refuse to accept a law passed
overwhelmingly by the last Congress outlawing torture. Finally,
we know the president did not, as required by US and
international law, act to halt torture and punish those up the
chain of command who oversaw systematic, widespread torture.
There are many impeachable crimes by this president (and vice
president), such as obstruction of justice in the Valeria Plame
outing case, conspiracy (or treason) in the Niger “yellowcake”
document forgery scandal, conspiracy to engage in election
fraud, lying to Congress, criminal negligence in responding to
the Katrina disaster, bribery and war profiteering, etc., which
would require Judiciary Committee investigations.
In the meantime, though, Democrats need to step up to their
responsibility.
If this president is not to be impeached, Congress may as well
amend the Constitution to remove the impeachment clause. It
will, in that case, have become as much an anachronism as
prohibition.
Copyright © 2007 The Baltimore Chronicle
Click here
to comment on this and other articles
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
