No Vice President is Above the Law

For the first time since the Bush administration took office, three members of the House Judiciary Committee, Robert Wexler (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), are calling for hearings on the impeachment of Vice President Richard Cheney.

Their position, while courageous, is not surprising. What is surprising is that it took this long for members of Congress to invoke impeachment, and that even now, they do so against enormous political resistance and cynical indifference from the media.

No serious student of the Constitution would question that sufficient grounds exist to impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The Constitution provides that an Executive who puts himself above the law and abuses the powers of his office may be impeached, a point confirmed in the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon, for abuses such as illegal wiretapping.

There is little serious debate about whether Bush administration actions -- wiretapping without court approval (violating the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act), authorizing and facilitating mistreatment of detainees (violating U.S. treaties and criminal laws), starting the Iraq war on a basis of lies, exaggerations and misstatements (an abuse of power) -- meet the Constitutional standard.

So why hasn't a majority of Congress supported it? Twenty members co-sponsored Rep. Dennis Kucinich's resolution calling for the impeachment of Cheney, but bucked their leadership to do so. Democratic leaders took impeachment "off the table," apparently fearing it could hurt their chances in 2008.

Does the leadership defend the administration, contend that its actions are unimpeachable, or argue they don't rise to the level of abuse for which Nixon was impeached? Remarkably, no. They publicly say there is no time, and that impeachment proceedings would distract the Congress from other work and divide the country.

These arguments are laughable compared to the imperative to uphold the constitution. And even on their own terms, they are specious. Let's take them one at a time:

Insufficient Time

In the case of Nixon, the House officially instructed the Judiciary Committee to act in early February, 1974; the Committee finished voting on Articles of Impeachment on July 29, less than six months later. No presidential impeachment proceeding had taken place for almost 100 years, so the Committee had to start from scratch, analyzing the constitution and developing procedures for the impeachment inquiry. Now the relevant legal spade work is done and a road map for proper impeachment proceedings exists, Congress could probably conduct them even faster than in 1974.

Distracting Congress

During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee conducted the impeachment inquiry. It didn't deter the rest of the House and the entire Senate from getting their work done, even with a war on. Even the Judiciary Committee also worked on other matters during impeachment, just as the Senate did during its trial of President Clinton.

Dividing the Country

Nixon's impeachment united the American people. The process was bi-partisan, demonstrating this wasn't just a Democratic ploy to undo an election. The fairness of the process, the seriousness of purpose, the substantial evidence all gave the public a strong sense that justice had been done. This reinvigorated the shared value that the rule of law and preservation of democracy are more important than any president or party.

Currently, this value is expressing itself in grass roots impeachment movements across America. The Vermont Senate, several state Democratic parties and many municipal governments have adopted resolutions supporting impeachment -- more state legislatures would have acted except for pressure not to from Democrats in Washington. Multiple polls show a majority of Americans supporting the impeachment of Cheney (a November 13 American Research Group poll says 70 percent of Americans believe Vice President Cheney abused his office), and slightly less then a majority supporting the impeachment of Bush.

The Democratic leadership tactic of stonewalling this widespread public sentiment is itself divisive, leading at least half the country to frustration, disaffection and shaken faith in our democracy. Only a sober, serious airing of evidence in hearings would heal the split.

When Nixon's impeachment process began, he had recently been re-elected with one of the largest landslides in history. No one made the calculation about whether impeachment was a political winner for Congress. Public opinion simply forced Congress's hand after Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. After the House Judiciary conducted impartial hearings and voted on impeachment, Congress's approval soared. Republicans were swamped in the November 1974 elections.

Whether or not they bring electoral rewards in 2008, impeachment proceedings are the right thing to do. Regardless of outcome, they will help to curb the serious abuses of this administration, and send a strong message to future administration: the Constitution means what it says - no president or vice president is above the law.

Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman served on the House Judiciary Committee during Nixon's impeachment. She co-authored the 1973 special prosecutor statute, and co-wrote (with Cynthia L. Cooper) the 2006 book, The Impeachment of George W. Bush.

Comments

[UltraClassic]

Elizabeth, you are obviously well versed on this issue and I'm sure you could lay out a case on why you and others of your same belief feel President Bush needs to be impeached.

So the question is, why is your party not clammering, pitch forks and torches in hand, to take down the President? The answer is simple, most people don't feel the way you do. This is not Nixon snooping on dems pre-election. This is a strong willed President whom many people feel went over the line to protect the country post 9/11. Maybe he did, maybe he did not. Do you want to impeach Bush for bending the rules in an attempt to protect the country? Maybe you think he is just some power freak who gets his jollies by violating law? Many liberals and leftist democrats feel that way.

The country will be much more forgiving of a president who was attempting to act in the best interest of the country, whether or not he violated law. The worst you can accuse President Bush of at this point is very poor judgement. He's not going to be impeached because of that.

[ld]

Yes, Chaney is above the law. Just look at reality if you doubt that. And neither YOU nor the worthless congressional Democrats are going to even begin to impeach him. Can't even win a fight over war funding.

This is one of the silliest things I've seen on HuffPost.

[DavidF07]

I received an email from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, asking for financial support.

My reply:

"Appeals for support should follow a demonstration that the support has been
earned. Congress has the authority to stop the occupation of Iraq and has
failed to do so. What motivated many voters in November 2006 is still
there...this time to the detriment of the Democratic Party.

When Congress continues to deliver Bush almost all he requests, we see little
difference between a Democratic majority Congress and the previous Congress.

Cowards.

Truman said if people are offered a choice between a genuine Republican and a
Republican in Democrat's clothing, they'll vote for the real Republican every
time.

Persuade our Congress to exercise its power appropriately. After that, ask
people for their money and their votes.

Thank you."

That these cowards are avoiding the most responsible act they could take - impeachment - gives license to all future presidents to continue lawlessness and abuse of power.

Enough is enough.

www.impeachbush.org
www.year5.org

[sugarmoes]

9/11 9/11 9/11
war war war
nookyoolur nookyoolur
terra terra terra!

they started this war in large part so they could get away with... out in the streets, they call it murrrrrrrd­errrrrr...

[ultomatt]

Excellent article. However, I think it's fair to point out that the impeachment of Richard Nixon was a complete failure. Yes, he left office, but in allowing him to walk away without punishment for his crimes, every criminal President since has been emboldened to do as they please...the law be damned (along with the Constitution). Gerald Ford was a criminal in several ways, not the least of which was as a perjurer. You see, when he went through his confirmation hearings in the Senate, for the Vice-Presidency, he lied under oath. He said he would not pardon Richard Nixon...and as we now know, precisely one month after he took office, he pardoned Nixon...for crimes he was never indicted for. I guess it was a pre-emptive pardon, which was an entirely new, and thoroughly unconstitutional abuse of his pardon powers (which among other things, are forbidden in cases of impeachment). There's simply no legal precedent for pardoning someone before they've even been accused of a crime!

And when Ford said our national nightmare was over, he lied...it was just beginning. Enter Ronald Reagan, and you have the first truly stalwart lawbreaker in the post-Nixon era. He learned from the Nixon impeachments, and as a result, he never was brought to justice.

And now we have the very worst of the worst, the son of the other worst war criminal (think Highway of Death in Kuwait, along with kidnapping the leader of a sovereign country - Noriega...a man who's power was not in least lessened by his former association with the very man who had him kidnapped, George H.W. Bush, former head of CIA, aka The American SS (ASS)).

And no one will move to impeach this American Caligula, who lives to make oceans of blood. And a good reason they can't touch him is because Nixon was never brought to justice, and all those who followed saw this, and knew they'd never be impeached or indicted...at least not for anything other than lying about consensual sex.

[ijustcamehere2work]

Congress is a "Garden of Eden" ,,,A paradise to work in or be,,,,,but believe it or not,,,,you won't find it so hot,,, if you not bought and paid for you see!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ijustcamehere2work]

Hail King George,,,,,,Long live the KING!!!!!!

[ijustcamehere2work]

When those in the congress are afraid of not getting re-elected, the White House will skew the system to their benefit. We are stuck with gutless wonders. Congress ducks for cover when they are afraid of standing up for America. What else is new.

[darker]

No Vice President is Above the Law????
Cheney's ABOVE THE LAW.
Nobody in WashDC is doing anything about him!

That certainly makes CHENEY ABOVE THE LAW.

[KarlRoves3rdchin]

Elizabeth,

I totally agree on all counts...but have you heard the news this morning? Cheney (or one of his minions) destroyed all incriminating evidence by setting it ablaze! Mark my words, after all these years of stonewalling, Cheney will now claim that documents (and other evidence) was destroyed in the fire today!

[meileen]

"The Democratic leadership tactic of stonewalling this widespread public sentiment is itself divisive, leading at least half the country to frustration, disaffection and shaken faith in our democracy. Only a sober, serious airing of evidence in hearings would heal the split."

This is the real truth (and another great post from Ms. Holtzman). Just wish there was a way that our 'leaders' could hear us. Are things that convoluted in their world in D.C. that they know nothing about the desires of their constituents? I mean, these are our employees, are they not?

One has to wonder what Bush/Cheney have on the members of Congress. Impeachment for Clinton occurred for so much less – a dry cleaning bill rather than the loss of lives, reputation and our treasury to favored corporations.

And you have to wonder – what will we now hear burned in Cheney’s office. The visitor’s logs perhaps, or more tapes?

[anotherbozo]

Great column, er, blog, Ms Holtzmann. Your temperate voice, on top of the others, adds weight and additional credibility to the (our) efforts.

It's not as though Dems have crowded the calendar with restorative and corrective legislation...

[mellene]

Well said Ms. Holtzman. I hope more than just those three will get on the bandwagon in the judiciary committee.

[hopeless277]

Did anyone see the story at progressive.org about the Obama campaign assaulting nuclear energy protestors in South Carolina. Looks like Obama is Bush-lite too, just like Clinton.

[ChristianSoldier]

As a Wexler constituent and long time supporter of Impeaching not only Cheney, but Bush for falsely leading the nation to war I just say let's get on with it.

The more the nation sees that the Iraq war is nothing more than a neocon plot to establish hegmony and that Israel is also involved in support of foreign agent provocateurs like Wurmser, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and others the better.

If we have the courage this will make Watergate look like minor traffic violation.