George W. Bush Should Be Impeached for this "Signing Statement"

The United States Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush this afternoon. Once again, he has violated the U.S. Constitution by issuing a "signing statement," this time to gut the intent of a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act.

Congress stipulated that there would be no funds expended for building permanent U.S. military bases inside Iraq. Bush has now nullified or "waived" the section of the Act that would tie his hands in turning Iraq into a permanent U.S. military outpost.

Congress cannot allow this abuse of power to continue. Why should the Congress bother to pass laws at all if the President, or "unitary executive," can with the stroke of a pen nullify any provision in the law he so chooses?

It's time for Congress to hand George W. Bush his first-ever Constitutional defeat. The Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate are making a huge mistake by capitulating to Bush over and over again as he tramples on the division of powers. This is not how the Constitution is supposed to work. The Congress passes laws and the President either vetoes them or signs them into law. Once he signs, he's bound by the law. We have an arrogant brain dead mean-spirited bully as "our" president who insists on behaving like a monarch. He must be stopped now!

The Congressional Democratic leadership is betting the farm on 2008 -- but this is a risky strategy. Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Harry Ried, and Patrick Leahy have apparently decided that the Democratic Party's political objectives trump the vital need for the Congress to reassert its status in our Constitutional government as a co-equal branch. What good is the next election going to be if we end up with another monarch who can lie us into war and then issue "signing statements" like a King nullifying acts of Congress?

Bush showed with his State of the Union speech last night that he has no intention of doing anything other than whatever suits his whims. He must be shown that he is not a King or a Dictator. And only the Congress has the power to do it. He must be impeached because he deserves to be impeached and because if he is not impeached he might succeed in permanently altering the balance of power in our Constitutional system of governance.

Shredding the Constitutional system of checks and balances could be the one lasting and disgraceful "legacy" of the Bush years.

No President should be granted the authority to invade and occupy a sovereign nation and then build permanent U.S. military bases there.

Comments

[convict]

His 'Iraq' 'Oil' comment, is also a written admission of guilt of a War Crime, 'a war of aggression'.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

I fear that Bush as succeeded in destroying the United States of America permanently -- especially if his Supreme Court rules in favor of the "unitary executive." We should just call it a "dictatorship" and dissolve the Congress, we can save a lot of tax dollars.

[mobius1ski]

What's absolutely stunning about the signing statements is that Bill Clinton employed a similar tactic using the "line item veto" -- a measure which was approved by Congress, that authorized the President to target specific measures within a bill (like heaping barrels of pork) and to nullify them. The Republicans fought and fought him over it, and the line item veto was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Bush, on the other hand, has completely gone around Congress, using an Executive Order that empowers him to make signing statements that, in effect, achieve precisely the same thing as the line item veto, and the constitutionality of the practice has gone more or less entirely unchallenged by our Democratic Congress.

What's good for the goose is apparently no good for the gander.

[Berettasskeeter]

What law has he broken that would fit into the "high crimes and misdemeanors" category? Did he arrange for the transfer of high-tech equipment to the Chinese? Oops, I forgot, that was Clinton. Has he lied before a Grand Jury? Oops, I forgot, that was Clinton. Has he attacked a country without the backing of the Congress? Oops, I forgot, that was Clinton.
Semper fi

[RepublicanBrain]

Perhaps a little research on signing statements is in order. Of course, I say this so many times it seems meaningless, but I shall persevere.

Signing statements have a legal precedent extending back to the Founding Fathers. It was either Madison or Monroe who first used them, and practically every president has used them since. Even Bill Clinton, the poster child around here, has used them. There is no provision in the Constitution that forbids them, just an extrapolation of the checks and balances system. While checks and balances are a part of the system, extrapolations of what people "believe" to be checks and balances are not necessarily that. I could very well say the unitary executive theory contradicts this claim: That the president, because he must enforce the law, can be hindered if Congress prevents him from doing so, and thus, Congress would be violating the checks and balances. I don't believe in the unitary theory, but, when compared to the signing statement detractors' theories, it holds the same amount of note. It's just a bunch of people clamoring that they are right because they say so.

Impeachment is simply a political move, not a legal one. Bush is a lameduck: he cannot be elected again for President. At all. End of discussion. All of the candidates are proposing changes, some radical, some slight. If you want change, it's right there in front of you. It's all of the options. So vote with your, well, vote. Sounds kinda stupid, but that's the truth. The Democrats in Congress won't do anything anyway, so it seems the people proposing impeachment are little more then whiny know-nothings who are still peeved over the Clinton impeachment and are desperately looking for a one-up.

I hear lots of talk of criminal activity, brain-dead, and all this rot. These personal attacks are depressing. The name-calling is quite childish. Get over yourselves.

Perhaps, when you realize that evidence, not hysteria, is the reality of the game, and evidence is something you lack in abundance, we can get some real work done.

[HeevenSteven]

Cheyney first, else HE gets the job. The evil emperor!

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
-- the Declaration of Independence

[LeftRight]

What! bushco(tm) issued yet another signing statement completely nullifying a law that Congress! I'm shocked! Completely stunned! he promised Congress that he wouldn't do that anymore, didn't he??

[GordonDR]

Correct, Mr. Palermo. And now there is a further wrinkle.

In his SOTU speech, Bush declared:

"And tomorrow, I will issue an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by the Congress. If these items are truly worth
funding, the Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote."

Now, I am no fan of spending earmarks slipped into bills in conference committee. But a bill as it arrives at the President's desk has been passed by Congress under its rules. If the President signs it, it becomes law. The above declaration says the President intends to use an exective order to _require_ government agencies to ignore a duly passed law.

So now it isn't just the President and the VP who supposedly can break laws in order to exercise their "inherent powers" (speciously derived from the Commander-in-Chief provision). Now the entire executive branch can ignore laws if the President doesn't happen to like the rules under which Congress passed them.

More astounding still is how PATHETIC the legislative branch's behavior is, even when it comes to safeguarding its own prerogatives. Could there be anything more pathetic than members of Congress moving bills that say, "From now on, the President must obey law X"? Even if the Congress can override vetoes of such bills (unlikely), the whole _point_ is that the President has asserted his right to disobey laws. If he can disobey laws on wiretapping and can instruct agencies not to implement laws he doesn't like, what is going to force him to obey laws that say "The President must obey law X"?

Such laws achieve nothing. BushCo figure they can prevail in court, and if not, by then it will be too late anyway. The Congress has failed to use the only remedies at its disposal: contempt citations and impeachment. As a result, the entire separation of powers and the system of checks and balances have been destroyed. Goodbye, Republic.

[Uosdwis]

But he won't because of BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS, who should be forcibly, publicly, made to change their affiliation because they ARE NOT DEMOCRATS!!!!! (and that goes for Lieberman, too) VOTE THEM OUT.

[raptor]

Don't you get it? Bush is not going to be impeached over ANYTHING. The House won't even start the impeachment process. Even if they wanted to, they're running out of time. Especially at their pace. Even if they did manage to impeach him, he's not going to be convicted in the Senate. Just impeachment in the House is fine with me.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Apparently the Democratic Congressional leadership believes that if the only chance they leave We The People for lawful governance is to elect a Democratic President (and assuming that they all continue to exhibit higher ethical standards than their Republican counterparts)we will be forced to work to try to get Democrats elected.

The counter argument, of course, is that if Democrats can't be trusted to maintain the Constitution when it is clearly under threat then what use are they at all.

[Pquilson]

Give it a damn rest. He will be out of office in less than a year. Then you can try to impeach the next president.

[jqcitizen]

Polermo-

Impeachment might have been a good idea too long ago, when the Supreme Court annointed this bunch of so-called leaders into power.
Now, after hearing the same State of the Union mantra for the last time, let the owners of this nation breathe. Forget impeachment. Let the loosers go. Hopefully forever.

[ebbtide]

NO ONE, Mr. Palermo, is going to lay a finger on the criminal now in office. NO ONE. That is the truth and it has been proven.

NO ONE is going to bring him to task over the murderous Iraq war that he initiated on lies, some 935 of them

NO ONE, Mr. Palermo.

It has been accepted by the Republicans and the Democrats that the murderous killing of hundreds of thousands of human beings for the sake of occupying a small country that was no threat is fully acceptable--to both side of the aisle. That is a fact.

NO ONE is going to make him accountable for the death and destruction and the lies. NO ONE

He has set a precedent . That it is just fine and dandy to go on a killing spree, make up justification for doing so, let the war profiteers profit beyond their imagination, and wreak havoc upon a country, just because he can.

It is acceptable now. How far down the scale of decency has this country sunk.

NO ONE, Mr. Palermo, will seek justice for thie war criminal in office. In fact, they continue to give in to all his demands and he laughs and laughs as he reviews how many deaths he has cuased, while he fingers his trophy of Saddam's pistol.

Shame, shame, shame on this country for supporting such an evil man.