The “I” Word
by Lee
The cause of impeaching Bush comes up from time to time on this blog. My contention has always been (a) that the Clinton impeachment was one of the main catalysts in fomenting the ideological and cultural schism in this country, (b) a Bush impeachment will do nothing but make this worse and damage the country even further, and (c) he’s outta here in a year and a half anyway, do we really want President Cheney in that time period? So I’m against impeaching him. That being said, I clearly think he deserves it, as does Cheney.
I know there are number of you who disagree with me. So, for discussion, read this and then make a counter-argument.
BILL MOYERS: One of the fellows you’re about to meet wrote the first article of impeachment against President Clinton. Bruce Fein did so because perjury is a legal crime. And Fein believed no one is above the law. A constitutional scholar, Bruce Fein served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration and as general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission. Bruce Fein has been affiliated with conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation and now writes a weekly column for THE WASHINGTON TIMES and Politico.com.
He’s joined by John Nichols, the Washington correspondent for THE NATION and an associate editor of the CAPITOL TIMES. Among his many books is this most recent one, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: THE FOUNDERS’ CURE FOR ROYALISM. Good to see you both. Bruce, you wrote that article of impeachment against Bill Clinton. Why did you think he should be impeached?
BILL MOYERS: Bruce you wrote that article of impeachment against Bill Clinton. Why did you think he should be impeached?
BRUCE FEIN: I think he was setting a precedent that placed the president above the law. I did not believe that the initial perjury or misstatements-- that came perhaps in a moment of embarrassment stemming from the Paula Jones lawsuit was justified impeachment if he apologized. Even his second perjury before the grand jury when Ken Starr’s staff was questioning him, as long as he expressed repentance, would not have set an example of saying every man, if you’re president, is entitled to be a law unto himself. I think Bush’s crimes are a little bit different. I think they’re a little bit more worrisome than Clinton’s. You don’t have to have--
BILL MOYERS: More worrisome?
BRUCE FEIN: More worrisome than Clinton’s-- because he is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the judiciary to superintend his assertions of power. He has claimed the authority to tell Congress they don’t have any right to know what he’s doing with relation to spying on American citizens, using that information in any way that he wants in contradiction to a federal statute called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He’s claimed authority to say he can kidnap people, throw them into dungeons abroad, dump them out into Siberia without any political or legal accountability. These are standards that are totally anathema to a democratic society devoted to the rule of law.
BILL MOYERS: You’re talking about terrifying power but this is a terrifying time. People are afraid of those people abroad who want to kill us. Do you think, in any way, that justifies the claims that Bruce just said Bush has made?
JOHN NICHOLS: I think that the war on terror, as defined by our president, is perpetual war. And I think that he has acted precisely as Madison feared. He has taken powers unto himself that were never intended to be in the executive. And, frankly, that when an executive uses them, in the way that this president has, you actually undermine the process of uniting the country and really focusing the country on the issues that need to be dealt with.
Let’s be clear. If we had a president who was seeking to inspire us to take seriously the issues that are in play and to bring all the government together, he’d be consulting with Congress. He’d be working with Congress. And, frankly, Congress, through the system of checks and balances, would be preventing him from doing insane things like invading Iraq.
Go for it, kids. Hit me with your best shot. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a personal matter. Bush is, literally, undermining the bedrock concepts of the Constitution and American democracy.
Comments
So domestic espionage, attacks on habeas corpus, “enemy combatants,” war under dubious justification, monumental incompetence in the prosecution of that war, an imperial attitude towards the Constitution, etc.… you don’t think these “ putting the nation at a serious risk”?
You have to remember, Bush is gone in less than 2 years. Tell me, what will a president 30 years from now be doing with the powers that Emperor Bush has been usurping for himself?
Exactlt what part of what Bush has done is a high crime or misdemeanor? I mean he institutes programs, and policies that you and I both agree are ridiculously un-constitutional. But when has the supreme court said he has gone too far, and afterward he continued to do it? I think our highest court in the land, should be chomping at the bit to literally punish this administration, by actually ‘checking and balancing’. But sadly, the ‘patriot act’ is still a viable piece of legislation, and most of the authority that Bush has usurped for the executive branch is only challeneged rhetorically. how does one impeach a president who claims to be acting lawfully, when no-one in a position of power to challenge what he does, is actually challinging him. What does actually constitute ‘torture’, is kind of like what is the meaning of the word ‘is’. I personally would like to see Bush impeached, removed from office, run out of town on a rail, and maybe even be tried criminally. However I am not sure what laws he has clearly broke. I think those that should be ‘checking and balancing’ havent been. He has largely gone unchallenged, so it is nearly impossible to define what he has done that is illegal.
If congress tries to pass unconstitutional legislation, SCOTUS invalidates that said legislation. But the congree does not collectively or individually have criminal charges brought against it. If the executive branch asserts that it has wide ranging powers during wartime, then SCOTUS has to weigh in on that. If it asserts that the president has overstepped, again he is most likely not in a position to be charged criminally unless he ignores the ruling.
Sorry I have been up nearly 30 hours, so I think I am being a bit incoherent here, but I hope the gist of what I am saying is getting through.
Bottom line...I am not a lawyer, but exactly what would the president be charged with specifically?
war under dubious justification
Whoa!!! Lee, that is just a ridiculous statement. There were a million good reason for this war. The fact that Bush generally sold it to the public as mostly related ‘WMD’S’, doesnt mean there werent a lot of other good reasons. As you darn well know, we were already at war with Iraq, and legally speaking we simply resumed that war when Saddam continued to not comply with the cease fire arrangement.
As for the the WMD rational not working out in the long run, Clinton , the British, Hans Blix, pretty much everyone was wrong on that one. IF they were even wrong. In our 9 month headlong rush to war, its not like weapons couldnt be destoyed, hidden, or even moved to Syria.
Remember I am only attacking this statement so vehemently beucase it was introduced in a list of offenses that Bush could possibly be impeached for.
monumental incompetence in the prosecution of that war
Again , not a crime at all.
an imperial attitude towards the Constitution
Not a crime, or most of our SCOTUS justices in the last 50 years also belong in jail.
The problem is, Bush didn’t use any of the other valid reasons, chose to go it alone, and only after the war started going badly began claiming it was for something other than WMD’s. And if we were at war with Saddam I must have missed it, because I thought we were in the business of containing the SOB, something Bush seemed happy enough to continue doing before 9-11.
What does actually constitute ‘torture’, is kind of like what is the meaning of the word ‘is’. I personally would like to see Bush impeached, removed from office, run out of town on a rail, and maybe even be tried criminally. However I am not sure what laws he has clearly broke.
Ah, but now you’re seeing the brilliance of the Founding Fathers. They didn’t define a specific crime, only a class of crimes—“high crimes and misdemeanors.” It is up to the Congress to determine exactly what activities meet that standard, and if the situation at the time in any way provided mitigation to the charge.
So, like Fein said, “he is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the judiciary to superintend his assertions of power.” He took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Instead he has attacked and undermined it, all for his own personal benefit.
Look, I’m not a Constitutional lawyer so I can’t give you chapter and verse. My point is that finding examples of high crimes and misdemeanors by this president is like falling off a log.
Rebel, youre just not thinking like a lawyer...the context of this conversation is Bush’s impeachability, so to speak.
Bush did list other reasons, and even if he hadnt, it woudlnt make what he did impeachable....we did NOT go it alone, and even if we had, not an impeachable offense...and as for ‘containment’, legally speaking, we were in the middle of a cease fire that was constantly being violated( sorry you missed that). The fact that only after 9-11 did we change our policy, isnt illegal. The prism through which we viewed Saddam Hussein was rightfully altered by 9-11.
Positively ridiculous that the prism through which we viewed Saudi Arabia wasnt altered as well, but again....not illegal.
Let me give you an example. Say it’s 3 months after 9/11, the country is still on edge, all waiting for the next attack. Then news comes out that the president ordered the rounding up and torture of a number of American citizens of Muslim descent. That clearly meets the high crimes and misdemeanors standard, and an impeachment would likely follow.
Now, say that the president comes out and says “Yes, I ordered that action, But it was out of extreme necessity. We discovered plots to destroy the Hoover Dam, the Sears Tower, and Disneyland. Federal agents are now removing nuclear and other incendiary devices from those locations.” Same crime, same laws, same Constitution. Think anything but praise would be heaped on Bush? Of course not.
(I chose this as an example because it also shows why relaxing torture rules for the ticking time bomb scenario are totally unnecessary.)
Look, I’m not a Constitutional lawyer so I can’t give you chapter and verse. My point is that finding examples of high crimes and misdemeanors by this president is like falling off a log
I am also not a constitutional lawyer, but I am fairly sure that making a viable ‘legal’ argument to use as a defense against those kind of chargesd isnt all that difficult either. Let us remember the deeds of one of our ‘greatest’ presidents, Abraham Lincoln, and how he defiled our consitution during the civl war. There is your precious precedent. One of your favorite arguments has been that even if Bush is just a swell guy who would never abuse these powers he has vested unto himself, what about the next president or one 30 years from now. I submit to you that part of what we are seeing is the consquences of Lincolns systematic abuse of the constitution, and unfortunately therein, where Bush’s defenses for what he has done can be found.
Ah, but it looks like we’re arguing two different things now. Think of the House as being like a grand jury. The prosecutors put forth their case, and the grand jury decides whether there is sufficient cause to proceed to trial. This is what the House does, and if they find in the afformative that constitutes “impeachment.” Even if the president is subsequently found not guilty in the Senate trial the president is still considered impeached.
I am arguing for the impeachability of Bush. Whether it would hold up during a trial or whether he could/should be removed from office is another discussion. I’m saying that a reasonable person could conclude that he had, through his countless nefarious activities, have committed a high crime or misdemeanor, but it would take a constitutional scholar to actually and specifically lay out a case. If the House proceeds, boom, Bush is thus “impeached,” whether or not the Senate acquits him at a later date.
Now, say that the president comes out and says “Yes, I ordered that action, But it was out of extreme necessity. We discovered plots to destroy the Hoover Dam, the Sears Tower, and Disneyland. Federal agents are now removing nuclear and other incendiary devices from those locations.” Same crime, same laws, same Constitution. Think anything but praise would be heaped on Bush? Of course not
But therein lies the problem Lee. Your fictional account of the consequences that Bush would face changed with the context of why he did it. Generally speaking the law isnt supposed to work that way, or our system would be much more tolerant of vigilante justice in general. But more to the point, your fictional account was very black and white, while the current truth is much more nebulous and manipulable, and because of this it becomes nearly impossible to make anything stick. The combination of this administrations gathering of powers and secrecy, is just about impossible to prosecute. The best we could hope for is a SCOTUS that would take the time to make clear delineations of what powers the executive branch can take upon itself, and not.
Again, I aint saying the S.O.B. doesnt deserve it ( impeachment), I am just saying I dont think it is feasible.
I’m saying that a reasonable person could conclude that he had, through his countless nefarious activities, have committed a high crime or misdemeanor, but it would take a constitutional scholar to actually and specifically lay out a case.
Lee, I generally agree with you here, but honestly...dont you see how ridiculous the above staements looks? Its totally a “if theres smoke theres fire’ statement.
Ed, you’re conflating criminal law and Constitutional law. Bush is liable as president under criminal law, but he is also bound by Constitutional law. Think of it as sort of this warm, fuzzy, nebulous layer of laws which only affect the president. They don’t have specific definitions. This wouldn’t work for criminal law, which requires specificity. The genius of the FF’s is in which they made the requirements for impeachment vague, but still created a system in which the actual removal of a president is difficult (but not impossible). The idea was to keep the threat of impeachment alwys dangling over a president’s head. And, the lack of specificity protects us against presidents, Bush being the PERFECT example, who will use the specificity of a law to his advantage in skirting it.
This is from Wikipedia:
For the executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” may be impeached. Although treason and bribery are obvious, the Constitution is silent on what constitutes a “high crime or misdemeanor.” Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense. In 1970, then-Representative Gerald R. Ford defined the criteria as he saw it: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”
In other words, the fact that there is no specificity in what constitutes an impeachable offense is, in a way, a power granted the Congress. The greater the specificity in what constitutes an impeachable offense, the harder it is for Congress to check the president’s activities.
The ambiguity is there for a reason. It’s sort of a Constitutional mulligan. :)
Impeachment is a political activity, not a quest for facts or what actually happened. Be warned that any political attack must be backed up with objective facts which show why the President overstepped one of the *reasons* listed in the Constitution, or you look like a dork. Pelosi and Reid don’t want to look like dorks, as impossible as that seems to avoid.
Bush’s immigration proposals make me want him out of office yesterday. Kerry’s Iraq plan makes me what Bush in office tomorrow.
Impeachment would clearly take at least a year. Bush’s impeachment would be relatively close to the end of his term. It is unlikely Cheney would authorize global thermonuclear war during that time. Who knows? If USA threatened a Cheney presidency, maybe on the day before his inauguration Al Qaeda would release our two American troops captured in Iraq. Oops, that’s a taboo topic here.
No one reports the fun part of impeachment. Unlike nearly every thing else they do, Senators are required to sit in the chamber during the entire trial. Just imagine the priceless head shots of Biden, Boxer, Feinstein, Kerry during all that “William Jefferson cummed on Lewinski’s blue dress?!?! What?” testimony.
C-SPAN2 refused to show shots of the Senator seats during the last impeachment.
So domestic espionage, attacks on habeas corpus, “enemy combatants,” war under dubious justification, monumental incompetence in the prosecution of that war, an imperial attitude towards the Constitution, etc.… you don’t think these “ putting the nation at a serious risk”?
Is it fair just to blame Bush for all of this? Republicans (congress/senate) could have put a stop to a lot of this if they wanted to, they either didn’t want to or where playing politics.
Yes, Bush has been a disaster - no sane person thinks otherwise; but he could have been a lot less of a disaster had Republicans not given him a free ride to do whatever he wanted.
The democrats have been pretty spineless as well since they got into power.
being a S.O.B. is not a impeachable offense… other wise many of presidents would have been flung out on thier asses. The whole Clinton drama was B.S., but getting Bush back for his lack of a spine and brain, wont solve anything.
The system broken, its been broken sine the mid 1860’s… and it only gets worse.
The democrats have been pretty spineless as well since they got into power.
uh.. use the past tense on that please.. they have been spineless for quite some time.
Why not impeach. Dems been trying to impeach since the day he took office, if not before. Maybe Bush deserves it, maybe not.
Why not just make impeachment a constitutionally mandate action. Annually after the State of the Union, just call the POTUS out on the floor and let the opposition take it’s best shot.
Whoever gets in next won’t be able to fart in church without someone calling an impeachment.
I would be happy if the Dems just grew enough of a spine—maybe a vertebra or two—to restore habeas corpus and stop torture. They don’t have to impeach. Just re-assert the authority of the Congress.
This is from Wikipedia:
I’m not going to comment on the substance here (too much sake tonight) but I have to ask the obvious question...is the man who invented the term wiki dixit relying on wikipedia to prove a point?
There’s nothing wrong with Wikipedia. I used a term therein to illustrate a concept that otherwise exists. Wiki Dixit is a logical fallacy in which the fact that something is in Wikipedia is, in and of itself, taken to be reason that something exists.
Wikipedia works well for most subjects. When you get to controversial subjects it breaks down. But a subject like impeachment, which is (at least in my mind) not controversial in its definition, the Wikipedia illustration fit nicely.
Without arguing in this case whether WikiPedia was accurate, I still don’t buy that you can come up with a term like Wiki Dixit, which plays on the ability of Wikipedia to be manipulated by those with an agenda, and then rely on a Wikipedia entry that contains “several commentators” as a prelude to the statement.
It’s a pretty common trick in the media and elsewhere to push a biased story through on the alleged objectivity of a few “commentators.” Personally, unless a Wikipedia entry had proper footnoting to sources that could be relied upon, I would never use a Wiki entry to prove a point.
I still think that your Wiki Dixit point is the better one here-the Wiki system is fairly easy to manipulate-and remain surprised that you would rely on Wikipedia as a source, especially with the “some commentators” lead in.
Next entry: BWS
Previous entry: The Power of Allah
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8230
Total Logged in members: 8
Total guests: 55
Total anonymous users: 0
chrisbg99,
Hal_10000,
Important Aspects Of,
Manwhore,
Mississippi Yankee,
Orpheus,
Ronk,
Section8,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 08:58)
Mark_M: The average American is so fucking stupid I don’t give us much hope. I'll paraphrase a great line from Dennis Miller ..."The American people are so stupid...of course, I know better than them. But then again I DO have a bachelor's in communications from Tallahassee Junior College."
Tonight's speech by Obama on Iraq...
(30 total, Last @ 08:56)
Manwhore: It is striking to me that Alex is now the only real voice of conservative thinking on this blog. For the few who rebel against the idea are hit in the face with a Limbaugh smear. I think it was fucking hilarious that he handed all of you your asses;…
Quote Mining
(14 total, Last @ 08:04)
Dick Fitzwell: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul--George Bernard Shaw Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.--Mark Twain A major source of objection to a…
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 07:34)
Seattle Outcast: Get that sand washed out yet muirgeo1?
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:33)
Seattle Outcast: Considering that this is exactly what I hear from your typical garden-variety libtard, I'm keeping my guard up around them in case they snap.
Last 30 Comments
Lee,
Don’t get me wrong i agree with everything above and also Bush is a scumbag. But that in mind i really do think the founding fathers put in impeachment for only the most serious crimes and IMHO i think that only includes things like treason or putting the nation at a serious risk to the point that removing the president was neccessary to preserve the nation.
I think the founding fathers believed elections would solve issues of presidental over reaching such as we see with Bush. The nation has had two impeachments and both were political nonsense. If bush or clinton really broke the law they can or could be indicted after their terms. Just my opinion. But Bush still is a Dick.
david