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 real point in all of this has always been, Will the Democrats continue to be spinless lapdogs??? So far we hear a lot of noise yet the war is funded and continues. No impeachment? Two years of Democrats in power and there is nothing to show for it! Bush leaves office untouched, builds his $200 million dollar Texas library , Cheney goes back to Halli Burton to pick up his $100 million dollar bonus and it is over. Pelosi has shown to be a sheep in wolves clothing! I thought that she was making History in the position of being the first women Speaker? History will show her to be the weakest Speaker ever!
"History will show her to be the weakest Speaker ever!"
Or the strongest. After all, she's still raping the country in plain sight, for all to see while we merely wring our hands and bay at the moon.
Impeachment is too good for George W. Bush and when he leaves office and becomes a private citizen again his executive privilege is over and he will be eligible for indictment for war crimes.
What has the result of impeachment meant for any president? Not much in the way of punishment. No, GW needs to be prosecuted in a federal court for breaking the law, convicted and sent to prison.
It is going to take prison sentences to make the Republicans understand that we are not going to tolerate breaking the law and the trampling of the constitution.
Put it this way,
If Nancy Pelosi does not support this very loud cry to impeach Bush and Cheney,
We have no other choice that to call for HER impeachment for criminal dereliction of duty.
It is time that we remind our representatives that party loyalty is what got us into this mess.
That it is time to stop being good Republicans and good Democrats and to carry out their sworn duty
as good Americans.
Yea... Good luck with that one. Her Daddy Warbux has more than enough cash to beat of you and your "impeachment call".
That is an absolutely fantastic post, Mr. Borosage.
Thank you.
I tend to agree with you.
However, it seems to me, it's long past time for the grand Inquest. In fact, many of us have been ranting for one for years. Still, it's a silly notion considering the fact, as witnessed by their voting record, that the dems have long been in collusion with repubs.
For instance, has anyone noticed while some dems posture the majority can always be counted on to vote with the repubs? Funny thing, sometimes a few aye dems switch with a few posturing, nay dems...
Hell, I'm not even sure that Kucinich is real. After all, he introduced articles of impeachment twice, once against Cheney and once against Bush. But knowing it must stay on the floor to be relevant, the dems, including Kucinich, both times voted to table it.
I agree
Before the 2006 elections I would watch c-span and I would see the effort the dems put into trying to stop the repubs from railroading a bill through. After they won the majority, they seem to have stopped trying to stop the republicans. There was more effort when there were fewer dems.
Now that they have the majority it seems their efforts are being expended most into gaining a larger majority.
I'm reminded of scott mcclellan's term for what the bush administration did
"permanent campaign" and I'm thinking the dems are also doing it,to our detriment.
A few bold souls will continue to call for impeachment. (Go, Dennis!) But they will be as voices in the wilderness. The mainstream majority do not have what it takes to get this started. We are running out of time. As delighted as I am to finally be in the final countdown to the end of the Bush II Era, with each passing day our chance to call his cabal accountable slips away. If they wanted to actually act on this, there would already be a concerted effort to do so.
Bush will get off scott-free. He will divide his time between Crawford and Paraguay (if he ever feels the heat is on) and he will be out of reach.
If he is called to a world court, he will show the same disdain for international law out of office that he has shown as "president". He will go into hiding somewhere and simply refuse to show up. He has never been made accountable for anything he has done in his lifetime and he is not about to begin with that now. And he has plenty of lackeys and handlers and "true believers" left over who will assist with this.
My opinion on this depresses me and I hope I get proved wrong. But I won't hold my breath.
Where there is blood and there is money, there also will be silver-tongued jackals ... like the ones that you quoted.
Where there is blood and money and absolute power, the corruption that is wrought in the stone hearts of powerful men and women is also absolute.
The authors of our Constitution said this: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof [...] shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithsta
They further said: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeano
And why did they do this? "[...] in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity [...]"
They knew about those Jackals. They knew that many things, both good AND evil, happen "by the consent of the governed."
I, and about 300 million of my closest Plaintiffs, do not give assent.
True. However our spineless democratic representatives and senators have ong given their assent. Yet, silly me, I continue to hope. And if the dems actually begin to do their jobs, I will be an extremely happy man.
Hope is all we have. Well then again, there IS the 2nd Ammendment too as a last resort.
With the balance of power so critical in this upcoming election, there is a real world problem
with the Israel Lobby.
Sadly, I feel that Pelosi may be worried about appearing strong for Israel and the pro Israel
voter block as we head into the election.
If Israel does attack Iran between now and January, both parties will be hard pressed not to support
Israel's action. What a stinking mess!
This would play into the plans of PNAC perfectly.
Our military does not have the resources to enter, yet another conflict without a draft.
If Israel does attack Iran, we are one very dangerous step away from a declared "national
emergency" and Martial Law.
The simple fact that Iran could block oil shipments would be enough to throw this country
into a true energy crisis and tah dah, "national emergency"
Welcome to the New World Order..
We MUST not sit on our hands and allow this to happen.
Every last one of you should make every effort to support the start of impeachment proceedings.
Every day we delay, gives Bush and Cheney time to destroy even more evidence and stack
the cards in their favor.
The most critical part of starting impeachment proceedings is to get our hands on those records!
We can not allow these oil baron cowboys to get us into another war.
Let's get a grip here people, Bush didn't do anything that congress didn't approve. Least we forget, Iraq broke 14 some resolution (world approval) and from the intelligence gathered by the US and other countries decided to go to "war".
Whether the intelligence shows faulty, can you really look at Bush? Who was on these committees, who lowered our military budget, why and how did we get wrong information? Your Dem's have you so hoodwinked and focused on impeachment, that you haven't taken the time to figure out how we got here. Let's see, President in 2000, 8 months spent defending the election, 9/11, and everyone here thinks he had the time to manipulate the CIA, FBI, numerous foreign countries, plus the press, wow, I thought this guy was an idiot.
Constitution, funny how the left defends it only when it is their interest (i.e. judges overturning gay marriage ban in Cali) You are all worried about someone listening in on your conversation, while we are being invaded and more people are dying every year then Afgan and Iraq put together over 5 years. You don't give a shit about America, Bush, or the constitution, all you care about is winning an election.
I wrote my congressman, Hank Johnson and asked him to support any and all resolutions for impeaching Bush. He responded by saying that while he supports the idea and believes Bush has committed impeachable offenses, an impeachment would allow Cheney to become president and impeaching both at this time would be to difficult.
The Democrats are like the proverbial blind man trying to describe an elephant by touching its trunk. They're aware that President Bush has done a lot of things a lot of people don't like; so they're using that to their political advantage. But as far as impeachment: I doubt that they truly think he's done anything impeachable. They probably begin every caucus every morning by asking themselves if anyone has the slightest idea what the hell people are so upset about. Bottom line: you have to believe in the Constitution yourself before you can begin to understand how grievously it's been wronged by the Bush Administration. And it's becoming clearer every day that the Democrats have no more idea what the Constitution is than the Republicans.
You absolutely nailed it! Thank you.
1. It would never succeed. The Democratic Caucus controls 51 seats. You need 67 votes, and it's lunacy to think that you could get 16 Republican Senators to join in, much less maintain the unity of the caucus.
2. The Dems in the Senate would lose their majority. Lieberman would bolt the caucus IMMEDIATELY and join the Republicans. While some may say good riddance, we would lose our Chairmanships. The GOP wouldn't "share" like they did in early 2001.
3. The GOP would paint it as a COUP. They would be stupid not to. Who would be next in line for the Presidency? PELOSI. That would be their only line from now until November. And, potentially, they could convince enough voters that the Democrats are trying to turn the U.S. into some developing-world dictatorship (images of Chavez and Mugabe on advertisements) that we could lose the election we're supposed to win. And really, a few months of pleasure in exchange for four years of McCain and a revanchist GOP?
4. Every single President facing an opposition Congress would be impeached. Twice in a row already? It would no longer be viewed as a tool against a President truly breaking the law, but as a way to screw with the President and possibly switch the party controlling the Presidency.
Unfortunately, Bush-Cheney HAVE committed serious crimes and they ARE prime candidates for impeachment and ouster.
BUT, for the sake of our republic, this is something that can't be done.
The Republicans set the precedent for invalidating a legitimate election via impeachment. That cat is already out of the bag. But you are right, maybe it would be better to get the World Court to handle the world crimes. There are certainly enough of THOSE to put these people away for a good long time.
Don't be afraid to impeach. That means they've already won.
Exactly! Who cares what the corpse effin' republicans would label it? Even 82% of We The Sheeple, the best trained voters in the world, don't believe republicans. Hell, only 28% of Americans will even admit to being a corpse effin' republican. And who can blame them?
1) Lunacy to think that rats would jump a sinking ship when big media hits the documented crimes of Bushco? Anyway, sucess in this case is to be measured by preventing WW3, which only such media attention could do. Who cares about whether he's removed from office? He's gone in Jan anyway.
2) Interesting, but arguably political suicide for Lieberman.
3) Cheney's next in line. The process could be dragged out till January and then simply dropped. Bush's future doesn't matter. Amercia's does.
4) I'm sure Republican pundits would say the same and that a handful of morons would agree. This is high crimes, misdemeanours and WW3, not a fling with an aide, and the drive patently comes from the grassroots, not demagogs .
For the sake of the republic, impeachment hearings are probably the only thing that CAN be done.
Wave America goodbye if an Iran attack goes ahead as slated by various recent and widely unreported congressional resolutions; Bush will need a draft and emergency powers all round, nor does he seem the type to shy from suspending elections as per one of his many signing statements.
Bush would not be removed from office, as I believe an election would NOT be held, IF the country is in a national emergency.
What do you say?
(R)Republicans can impeach a president for lying about his BJ to prevent a circus but (D)Dems can't impeach this fool. All you have to do is draw anyone of the crimes this administration have commited or potentialy commited in a hat and draw one.
Impeach now!
exactly
Yep, and many other sleep walking dems on this and other blogs joined their dim witted chorus, ending with the line, WE THE SHEEPLE FOREVER!
But dems had time to condemn Moveon didn't they?
Yeah, I called my congressman after THAT deal and asked where he had been during the swiftboating of John Kerry.
The Republicans LITERALLY get away with murder because they know that the Democrats won't even try to stop them, much less punish them.
Pelosi's impeachment abdication was the single most damaging decision in the last 2 years. SHE should be impeached.
Absolutely true. The people of San Francisco must act and vote her out of office. I they are too evil to do this, the House must remove her as Speaker.
I've been a member of impeachmen
I agree that they need to move on this regardless of the potential outcome. However, to say that the Pelosi-enabling strategy hasn't hurt Dems in generic polls is, well, generic.
Everybody loves a winner. If the Dems were ever to show some real teeth, who would they lose? Their abused children aren't going anywhere no matter what they do. They'd win over the red-headed step children so often blamed for costing 2000, and once the swing voters saw what real grit was made of, they stay/jump on board as well.
But this is fantasy anyway. The party rules, period. Two parties, no dissent allowed.
I agree with nearly everything you wrote... Except I'd have to say two parties in name only.. IMO, in reality, there's one corporate party with two factions. The dems are now ascending but, alas, I strongly suspect little will change. The repubs have been in charge of the store for too many years, while the dems were little more than janitors. Yet, it seems they may be switching positions, but down here were we live, little will change.
The electorial college will remain one of the main ingredients in their collusion simply because it only allows for the two, so-called parties. Another main ingredient is their political stepping stone as they later become high paid Big Money Lobbyest.
"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 politicall
Are you sure? The Democrats will most likely win with a wide margin in November but don't think for a second that people haven't noticed who the enablers and co-conspirators and lobbyist lickers are.
Democratic Party's inability and reluctance to stand up to high crimes and misdemeanors has cost the party enormously politically. There is a clear hunger for a viable third party in the nation. I personally think it is either going to be a progressive party which will sever the ties with their Democratic brethren or a Democratic Party which swings towards a much more progressive agenda.
Remember to oust the enablers in both camps!!!
Let's make the US the first country to really come to terms with its own crimes and corrupt politicians. That would be a sign of a really healthy democracy.
I'd love to have a third party, but it ain't gonna' happen as long as the Republicrats keep a death grip hold on the electorial college. Because the electorial college is all that remains between them and a third or even fourth party...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
