|
The Democrats and the Impeachment
Clause
Dave Lindorff
Counterpunch
Saturday May 12, 2007
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
the Constitution to remove the impeachment clause. It will, in that
case, have become as much an anachronism as prohibition.
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
