Is It Time to Consider Impeaching the President?

It's been almost ten years since the House of Representatives voted to impeach Bill Clinton for lying under oath when asked during a deposition in the Paula Jones case whether he had had sexual relations with a White House intern.

I was one of the lead attorneys in that case and had agreed to represent Jones in her sexual harassment lawsuit because I believed the underlying principle in the case was too important to let it slide. Namely, no one is above the law, not even the president.

I did not, however, agree with the impeachment proceedings charging Clinton with perjury and obstruction of justice. Don't get me wrong: what Clinton did was unacceptable and unworthy of his office and his role as a national figure. However, there's a world of difference between lying about sex and blatantly disregarding the Constitution.

As Elizabeth Holtzman, a former member of Congress who served on the House Judiciary Committee during President Nixon's impeachment, explains, "The Constitution specifies the grounds [for impeachment] as treason, bribery or 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' a term that means 'great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution.' As the House Judiciary Committee determined during Watergate, impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself above the law and gravely abuses power."

Unlike Clinton, George W. Bush has repeatedly put himself above the law and abused the power of his office. Over the past seven years, Bush has greatly expanded the power of the president, in addition to unilaterally bypassing federal law to secretly, and illegally, listen in on the phone calls of American citizens and read our e-mails, among other things. His use of presidential signing statements is yet another example of his willingness to subvert the Constitution at almost every turn.

Historically, presidents have used signing statements to thank supporters, provide reasons for signing a bill or express dissatisfaction or pleasure with Congress. The previous 41 presidents combined challenged a total of only 600 laws through signing statements. Bush, on the other hand, has used the statements as a way to disregard certain laws with which he disagrees and, so far, has used the statements to challenge over 800 laws.

"The laws Bush has challenged with signing statements include a ban on torture, stricter oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, restrictions against using U.S. troops to fight rebels in Colombia, requirements that his agencies provide information to Congress, and various affirmative action programs," writes Charlie Savage for the Boston Globe.

Bush's latest signing statement was issued in response to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, which adds nearly $700 billion to the war chest, along with a 3.5% military pay raise and improved health care and benefits for wounded troops. The Act also prohibits the government from spending taxpayer money to establish permanent military bases in Iraq, requires that intelligence agencies such as the CIA and NSA hand over reports and legal opinions to Congress, calls for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate allegations of waste and excessive force by military contractors abroad, and strengthens legal protections for whistleblowers who work for and report abuses of government contractors.

Although President Bush disagreed with various provisions in the Act (primarily the ones intended to hold him or other governmental agencies accountable to our elected representatives in Congress), he did not express his disagreement with a veto, as the Constitution requires. Had he done so, Congress would have had to either reconsider it or override his veto. Instead, he issued another of his infamous signing statements in which he essentially tells Congress to stick it. According to this particular statement, if Bush wants to build permanent bases, he'll do it. And if he wants to order the CIA not to report to Congress, he'll do that, too.

Such actions place the president outside the rule of law, which is foundational to our country. It keeps our country free and promotes democratic government. If the president can simply chart his own course and set his own rules, not being bound by either the Constitution or the other branches of government, he is "above the law" and becomes, in effect, a dictator who can do whatever he wants. He then becomes the law, which is precisely what the Founders intended to prevent when they drafted the Constitution. As Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) explains, "If the president is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our framers."

We've never tolerated that before in this country, and we shouldn't start now.

The separation of powers, which is at the heart of our system of checks and balances, allows the president to have as much power as Congress and the courts but no more than that. The importance of this constitutional principle cannot be overstated. It ensures that power does not become centralized in a single branch of government, thereby preventing our country from sliding into an authoritarian regime.

Thus, it's time for Congress to grow a backbone and send this president a clear message: either step in line with the rule of law and heed the voice of "we the people" who speak through Congress or face impeachment hearings. If Congress does not act, this president and those who come after him will continue to amass power at an alarming rate to the detriment of us all.

We must never forget that America was founded on the consent of the governed. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

It's not time to abolish our form of government, but it's certainly time to bring our elected officials under the rule of law.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at [e-mail]. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Comments

[jimijass]

I am astonished that another "impeach" Bush article has to be written. Oh, it's a good one, no doubt!First things first, though! Impeach Pelosi, Reid, and whomever else on the Hill continues to enable these mass murderers in the White House to commit treason. The folk who keep impeachment off the table are co-conspirators with Bush and company.Keeping the Big "I" in one's back pocket or purse IS an impeachable offense in itself...and those in the press who agree with this hands-off policy have, indeed, blood on their hands as well.

[artmender]

It seems to me that if Dubya would use some of his vacation time to catch up on a little reading,let's say THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!, maybe he could learn the difference between his role in government, and that of the Congress. Or maybe he just has too much contempt for that. As most of you already know, the role of Congress includes but is not limited to:
"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"
"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"
"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"
Perhaps we should make a Constitutional Amendment that requires ALL future Presidents to read and understand the Constitution BEFORE they can serve.
Why Neo-Cons hate our Constitution so much?
Do they think that it's too Liberal?

[ColoradoAngryRU]

I could not agree with you more. It is way past time to put pressure on this administration and tell them, what they have been esentially telling congress, "it is our way or the highway" and by the way "Our way" is the constitutional way. This crime family needs to reeled in like the juvenile mafiaosa delinquents they are, and then prosecute them, as the adults criminals they are!

[jmrunning3]

So what is it going to take to hold the office accountable? What needs to happen to start this process...ANY process...with the goal of reigning in the office of the president? I know it's been asked before, but at this point, what's to stop the next president from taking Bush's unpunished actions, and pushing it even further? I've read many constitutional scholars and attorneys that say BushCo. is ripe for impeachment, but we seem to always be turned away in frustration. Why is that? I'm afraid the Constitution is to tattered and torn that there's little chance of repairing, much less protecting, what remains.

[lgillooly]

Sadly,this is just another one of the myriad of times he has done this. We all should be outraged. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Re "We must never forget that America was founded on the consent of the governed. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.""

Furthermore, per the Constitution, we not only have a right, but a DUTY, to cast off despotism.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Huzzah. PAST time.

Bush (and Cheney) should be impeached, even if on Monday, January 19, 2009.

[nypoet22]

I thought about this issue too, which is why i put two multiple choice survey questions in my profile. feel free to weigh in.

[Herrington]

What is hilarious and sad, is that the Democrats seem to fear looking like bad guys. They do not want to stoop to the tactics of the Republicans?

It is far past the point where impeachment of Bush could be sold, by even the Republican spin machine, as a political tactic.

Impeach. Save the Constitution, the Army, the money, and our international standing.

[Metacortex]

Here's a big question for you: Why hasn't anyone in the mainstream media been covering the impeachment cries of congressman Robert Wexler, who has been running an online petition for Cheney's impeachment for months now? That petition has earned over a 1/4 million signatures, all without media coverage. The question isn't the one in your heading above. The question is who exactly is preventing any serious consideration at all?

"Those who put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness."
~John Milton

[Schmice]

Does anybody in Congress ever read this kind of cogent analysis? This is so well written and such common sense that I doubt it. Impeach both Bush and Cheney for the sake of our nation.

[realpolitic]

Long past due!

Even if one looks past Bush's long record of criminality, his incompetence has reached such an art form that it is indeed a "high crime and misdemeanor."

[schatsie]

Yes, the signing statements do present an interesting issue... But I believe the issue should be criminal negigence for 9/11... We all know that Clinton would have been either crucified or castrated for that Presidential Daily Breifing title alone... Yes little Bush Boy there is an ogre and it attacked the WTC in 1993 and the Cole right before your selection..

Wake UP AMERICA and take your country back!!

[Clinton]

The real question is, "Why hasn't Bush been impeached?".