Time for a Grand Inquest into Bush's High Crimes
One of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's first acts upon taking the gavel was to rule impeachment off the table. She wanted Democrats to focus on challenging the president on the war and on kitchen table concerns -- from energy to education to health care. With Democrats now enjoying an increasing margin in generic polls and looking towards gaining seats in both the House and the Senate, the strategy certainly hasn't hurt politically.
But the constitutional implications are far more disturbing. This was dramatized as the Congress debated the FISA reform legislation that will provide retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies for warrantless interception of the conversations of Americans -- and by implication, retroactive acceptance of the president's authority to order such wiretaps.
We have witnessed a staggering abuse of power by this president. Even former Bush Justice Department officials now charge President Bush with trampling the Constitution. Bush has claimed the prerogative to declare an endless war without congressional approval, to designate someone an enemy without cause, to proceed to wiretap them without warrant, arrest or kidnap them at will, jail them without a hearing, hold them indefinitely, interrogate them intensively (read torture), bring them to trial outside the US court system. He claims that executive privilege exempts his aides -- even the aides of his aides and his vice president's aides -- from congressional investigation. He claims the right to amend or negate congressional laws with a statement upon signing them. And much more.
Even this Supreme Court, stacked with activist right-wing judges enamored of executive national security powers, has rebuked the president on some of these claims, particularly around the treatment of allegedly enemy combatants. But many of Bush's claims will escape judicial determination.
And there is the rub. According to the leading case on presidential powers, if Bush's extreme assertions of power are not challenged by the Congress, they end up not simply creating new law, they could end up rewriting the Constitution itself, altering the Constitutional division of powers by establishing the president's claims as constitutional powers that the Congress or the Courts may not infringe.
The Steel Seizure case -- Youngstown Sheet and Tube v Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952), remains the leading case on presidential power. In Youngstown, a six member majority of the Court joined in overturning Truman's executive order nationalizing the steel plants to end a strike during the Korean War. Justice Black wrote the opinion for the Court, but the historically influential opinions were penned by Justices Robert H. Jackson and Felix Frankfurter, both Democratic appointees. Frankfurter laid out the argument for a sort of common law of constitutional amendment:
Deeply embedded traditional ways of conducting government cannot supplant the Constitution or legislation, but they give meaning to the words of a text or supply them. It is an inadmissibly narrow conception of American constitutional law to confine it to the words of the Constitution and to disregard the gloss which life has written upon them. In short, a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned, engaged in by Presidents who have also sworn to uphold the Constitution, making as it were such exercise of power part [343 U.S. 579, 611] of the structure of our government, may be treated as a gloss on "executive Power" vested in the President by 1 of Art. II.
In Youngstown, Jackson concurred, arguing that the president's powers vary as to whether he acts with congressional authority (his greatest power), in the absence of it, or in opposition to it:
When the president acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.
When a president egregiously abuses his power -- particularly in areas relating to the rights of American citizens -- remedies are often difficult. The Supreme Court is reluctant to arbitrate a power struggle between two co-equal branches. That is why the Constitution prescribes the specific remedy of impeachment for crimes and abuses of power -- High Crimes and Misdemeanors -- and empowers the House and Senate to sit in judgment whether the actions are to be accepted or condemned.
What the Court said in Youngstown is that if presidents assert a prerogative -- like the power to make war without a congressional declaration -- systematically, with unbroken regularity, with the knowledge of the Congress and are never questioned -- then that practice becomes a Constitutional power that cannot be infringed upon by the Congress or the Courts.
Thus, Congress must formally object to President Bush's abuses or it risks by "indifference or quiescence" contributing to the powers of our imperial presidency.
When Pelosi took impeachment off the table, it was reduced to being a rhetorical protest vehicle for progressives like Dennis Kucinich or Russ Feingold. But Congress need not convict President Bush to impeach him for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. And arguably, the House need not even impeach the president to hold a Grand Inquest into the powers that he has claimed, registering a formal objection to them. The Judiciary Committee in the House should formally convene that Inquest, no matter what the decision is on impeachment. For if Pelosi's sensible political judgment results, as it has to date, in a show of congressional "inertia, indifference or quiescence," the Democratic majority in Congress may have gained a dozen seats at the cost of relinquishing its own powers, and putting the rights of Americans at risk.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The reason to impeach Bush is to put an end to any President 's ambitions to circumvent the Constitution. Eight years must have taught us something. Let us turn this mess into something productive for our country: The "Unitary" is a made-up notion that excuses a coup-de-tat of Congress. No President is a king. No group of radicals should ever again get a shot at closing down the Constitution. This should have happened years ago before Bush got to do all the damage he has done. But it isn't too late. Rove needs to go to jail for contempt of Congress. Cheney needs to testify. Bush needs to go home and contemplate his disgrace.
Think of it this way. If we impeach Bush, Cheney becomes president. Ugh.
If we impeach both Bush and Cheney, Condeleesa becomes president, at which time Hillary will have a hissy fit for sure having a black woman beat her to the office.
And if for some unknown reason Condolessa doesn't take it or is held for high crimes also, guess who is next?
Pelosi! Yipes, gadzooks and maybe we need to think a little more about this impeachment thing:)
You could always impeach immediately after the November election - that way the successor would be the next elected President.
To try to impeach a reasonably good President for sexual pecadilloes and fail to impeach the current gang (all of them) for destruction of the Constitution, makes a laughing stock of your sense of right and wrong. Is that what America wants ?
To reclaim your world status you have to demonstrate that you do know the difference !!
As stated above, Condelezza Rice is NOT third in line for the presidency. Nancy Pelosi is. I think that's why Pelosi took impeachment "off the table". She's scared shitless of becoming president.
Snapshots asked:
"What's the goal of impeachment? To see George Bush removed from office? "
No. The goal of impeachment is to reestablish the fundamental principles that the USA was created to embody, to reafirm the role of Congress as the nation's most democratic public institution and the guardian of those principles, and by doing so, to demonstrate that a candidate that believes in the legitimacy of the carefully staged fraud that Bush and Cheney perpetrated on both a gullible American public and most of it's elected representitives, is not the President the USA needs for the next four to eight years.
www.kucinich.us/impeachment
Well said !! Its in everyone.s interests worldwide, that America re establishes its fundamental decency and acts as an example to other less fortunate countries !
Not only did Pelosi not have the guts to impeach, she and Reid don't have the savvy to make political hay over the hideous crimes and numerous scandals that could totally guarantee a Democratic sweep in 2008.
They simply don't know how to create, lead and manage political theater. It's a tragedy for our country.
Reid and Pelosi can't even mount a focused scandal over the lack of accountability over our 12billion in tax revenues monthly going to private companies in Iraq. Billions to Halliburton every month, a company which has relocated to Dubai!! Can you imagine if this was a Democratic war--what the Republicans would be screaming about?
Now, pundits are saying that if it looks like Obama will win, Bush will be sure to attack Iran. Which will wipe out all the gains Pelosi thinks she's made with her carefully held well-behaved cowardice.
After listening to the systematic sellout of the 4th amendment these last few days,
I'm inclined to believe we have The Executive, The Legislative, The Judicial and The Corporate
with the latter having the most influence.
I want to see an in-depth article outlining exactly how prosecuting national leaders for high crimes is *not* in the best interest of the republic.
Just for balance, doan'cha know!
Why the rush? Just ask the young soldier in Iraq who is about to have half his head blown apart tomorrow. His name will be listed among the dead on next Friday's news.
Those who are postponing justice until after the election are relentlessly enabling this epic tragedy of senseless death, shattered lives, broken families, mind-numbing abuses of our hard-earned tax dollars, savage corporate exploitation, and on. We should never count on something of this magnitude to simply be voted away by a general election.
Our laws say we are entitled to impeachment proceedings, and our morality demands it.
Because we were fooled into war with Iraq, there are so many in this country who weep at the mere sight of the empty chair at the dinner table, knowing their loved one will never return to break bread in the sacred fellowship of family.
By overriding what recent polls reveal as a huge majority of the nation favoring impeachment, many in Congress are robbing the American public of a tremendous opportunity to grow in its civic stewardship by learning what really happened to us, and how never to allow it again. They are robbing us of our ability to bring justice to bear against those who perpetrated this monstrous misadventure. And more importantly, these members of Congress are robbing our nation of the opportunity to heal from the devastating effects of this massive tyranny and death.
There is no justice without impeachment--NOW!
DITTO!
The most compelling reason for impeachment of both Bush and Cheney is to restore the validity and authority of our Constitution!
Unless this administration's trampling of the Constitution and the laws of our country are addressed, the Constitution will remain permanently damaged and the rule of law weakened and turned into a sham by the myriads of Constitutionally contemptuous precedents set during this corrupt administration for all future administrations.
Additionally, Presidential pardon is not valid for anyone charged in impeachment proceedings nor is "executive privilege" available to be used to avoid discovery of the facts .
CIRCULATE!
impeachforpeace. org/ImpeachNow.html
The "Do-It-Yourself Impeachment" IS a legitimate procedure. I called several representatives offices and asked.
"In previous waves, over 500,000 downloads of the document represented over 1.7 million mailings".
Given Bush's DIS-approval rating and the well over 225 million citizens old enough to vote...
WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT!
Copy and paste this everywhere.
What's the rush to impeach? Bush has committed atrocitiies, yes, but Bugliosi says, according to law, Bush should be indicted for murder. There is no statute of limitations for murder ... Bush and Cheney will have to keep looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives. If Bush is impeached, he walks away a free man. If he's indicted, tried and found guilty of murder, he will face life in prison or worse.
What's the goal of impeachment? To see George Bush removed from office? What would this accomplish when the damage is already done? I would rather see Bush and Cheney indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced for murder as private citizens, after Bush leaves office. This would be oh so sweet.
All the more reason to elect Obama President!
Yeah right- Obama's first order of business was to condone unconstitutional wiretaps..
Who says McCAin will be George Bush's 3rd term?~right now it looks like Obama will be -
so much for CHANGE
I couldn't disagree with the article more. Many folks in the rural heartlands are sick to death of this administration and the GOP corporate giveaways. Those folks are ready to vote democratic and that is why Obama has raised a record amount of money from record donors, that is why 3 off year elections in GOP strongholds went democratic, that is why tradition GOP red states are in play in this election. The last thing we need to do is energize the right by doing anything more than letting Kukinich read a meaningless although truthful and well crafted impeachment rant.
After we have secured the whitehouse and both chambers, we can then accede to and formally endorse with at 2/3rd supermajority vote in the Senate the ICC-The International Criminal Court. The effective start date for that governing body was in 2005. The Bush administration and their flunkies can be tried as war criminals in that tribunial and they can be sentenced to hard time by the hague. We can have our cake and eat it too.
Maybe Bush knows that and that is why he bought a huge track of land in Paraguay.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/23/mainsection.tomphillips
Also interesting to note that the US extradition treaty with Paraguay signed in 1999 specifically excludes extradition for political offenses DP offenses. Like the ones Bush is guilty of. Hmmmm?
http://www.oas.org/juridico/MLA/en/traites/en_traites-ext-usa-pry.pdf
Several directions open up with Bush usurping constiutional powers, His third term using the puppet McSame, with Chaney still pulling his strings ain't going to happen. Congress has treated the Constitution with the same distain that it treats the taxpayers with. Maybe they think we are stupid, but, then King of England never saw the revolution coming either.
Interesting that you mention King George III. The characterization of his views on the American revolution are appaulingly reminiscent of the the views of the current administration towards, well, anyone but themselves: (From WIkipedia)
the King was determined "never to acknowledge the independence of the Americans, and to punish their contumacy by the indefinite prolongation of a war which promised to be eternal."[30] His plan was to keep the 30,000 men garrisoned in New York, Rhode Island, Canada, and Florida; other forces would attack the French and Spanish in the West Indies. To punish the Americans the King planned to destroy their coasting-trade, bombard their ports, sack and burn towns along the coast (like New London, Connecticut), and turn loose the Indians to attack civilians in frontier settlements. These operations, the King felt, would inspire the Loyalists, splinter the Continental Congress, and "keep the rebels harassed, anxious, and poor, until the day when, by a natural and inevitable process, discontent and disappointment were converted into penitence and remorse".
At least we have the comfort of knowing how that worked out for that George.
There are more books that validate the subversion of our Constitution by Bush than you can imagine. Articles that are based on fact number in the thousands and yet the Press does not seem inclined to print conclusions. It is time for impeachment to be put on the table. And every day that this information appears in print and is broadcast to the voters will make election day in November a " slam dunk ".
It is time for the media to stop funding the Bush administration. The economy demands it. Our fallen
in the Middle East and 9/11 deserve it.
Impeachment won't solve abuses of power - at least not directly. It may to some extent restore greater balance of power between legislative and executive branches, but that's not what's really all that important, either. What makes impeachment important in this case is that it alone can provide a legal framework to COMPEL members of this administration to testify and turn over documents they have kept under wraps. If we don't impeach, these guys will go off into the private sector to reap the rewards of their crimes without anyone really knowing just what they did.
Amen.
They only care about getting reelected to their cushy all expenses paid jobs. None of them could care less about the constitution. Truly sickening. I feel like I'm in some kind of made-for-tv movie. A movie that has yet to have any happy ending for anyone......except Bush.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
