The impeachment of a President should never be treated lightly. Our constitution states that conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors may impeach a President. The original intent of the constitutional writers was that impeachment would only be undertaken for criminal behavior. However the two presidents who were impeached, both found not guilty by the Senate, Johnson and Clinton, were said to be guilty of breaking particular laws that I would not consider high crimes. Johnson was impeached for removing a cabinet member in violation of a new congressional law later determined to be unconstitutional, and Clinton for lying about an affair. The true reasons for the impeachments were political. Johnson was at odds with right wing republicans for his conciliatory actions towards the South after the civil war. Clinton impeachment was generated by the general political hostility of the Republican Party, fueled by his inability to keep his pants on.
While the original intent of the constitution was only to impeach a president for criminal activity; the actions of congress have been to use impeachment more for political gain than punishment for criminal behavior. George Mason, at the time of the writing of the constitution, actually favored impeachment for poor performance. The phrase high misdemeanor in early English law meant maladministration of high office.
This brings us to George W Bush. Bush should be impeached for his total ineptitude in office. There has been a move to impeach him for lying to the public about the real reasons for going to war in Iraq. We could try that. But I think in the end it would be hard to prove. The fact of the matter is that he went to war on flawed intelligence, which he should have been skeptical as UN evidence was to the contrary. His administration continued to link Iraq with 9/11 despite public evidence to the contrary. He persecuted the war with too little a force over the objections of learned military advice. He went to war without a concise plan for dealing with the aftermath. After the war his administrators continued to bungle their duties, from the debaathification to the disbandment of the Iraqi army. Because he had no understanding of the history of the area, and what the aftermath of war might bring he has created a mess in the Middle East. A mess that has delivered a higher threat of global terrorism than existed after 9/11 under the guise of lowering the threat.
The advantage of impeaching a president for ineptitude is that it signals to all future presidents that the office is indeed part of a system of checks and balances. Stupid is not an excuse. In a parliamentary form of government, if the leader proves that he/she is incapable in office, an election is held and the party is thrown out and new leader elected.
2 comments:
Can we impeach Hilary ahead of time for ineptitude by not reading bills that she votes on?
The only hesitation I have about impeachment for ineptitude is that it too can be used for political ends. And then you have the lengthy-lawyerly obfuscation of the definition of "ineptitude". (like Bill Clintons "sex").
Interesting NYT article this am (?) about there were presidents like JFK (who like bill....) who were, nonetheless, effective.
When ya got something serious (as gwb has done to us as a nation..) I am more inclined to impeach him for treason.
I'm still thinking about impeachment, at the very least. Here is what culturekitchen.com had to say about Cheney and Bush:
Clarke has signed on to Dennis Kucinich's bill, HR 333, which are articles of impeachment against Cheney. For the full text of HR 333, go here.
Back in February I began advocating the impeachment of George Bush based on the exact articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, an arguement widely discussed by former Congresswoman Liz Holtzman, who was part of the House committee that DID impeach Nixon. If anyone can be said to be an expert on impeaching a president, Liz is one of them.
George W. Bush pesonally authorized about 45 wiretaps without any court approval. He has also publically admitted that he has done this.
This is precisely what is covered in Article 2 of the articles of impeachment of Richard Nixon adopted by a bipartisan vote in Congress. Bush is guilty of a crime that was part of the Nixon impeachment. No new case has to be built from scratch, although Liz Holtzman ALSO argues for several more articles of impeachment built around several other areas where Bush has violated the law and/or his oath as President. But the framework for impeachment based on illegal wiretapping already exists from 1974.
Here it is:
Article 2
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
2. He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
3. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
4. He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.
5. In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
Adopted 28-10 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
The 28 who voted for Article 2 included 6 Republicans. It's all there ready for us to use. Bush signed his name to the illegal wiretaps and has publically admitted it.
Post a Comment