The Pleasure of the President - Lessons on Impeachment from 1974 - I

[babylonsister]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/31/9258/14992

The Pleasure of the President - Lessons on Impeachment from 1974 - I
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-05-31 14:31. Impeachment

By think blue, Daily Kos

As Jon Stewart documented so unforgettably, "I serve at the pleasure of the President" has become a favorite talking point for embattled Cabinet members and White House staff. And for good reason. On one hand, it confers an appearance of humility, as though in that one sentence the appointee can neutralize any past offenses by confessing "I am merely a servant subject to the whim of my superior. I take nothing for granted." On the other hand, it acts as a defensive shield, its unstated implication being "I serve at the pleasure of the President and no one else." With this President, it is effectively a contract in perpetuity.

But there's a constitutional imperative behind the President's power to remove his appointees that hasn't been discussed enough with Bush. In fact, it was only by reading an article about Nixon's impeachment by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. from the May, 1974 issue of Harper's Magazine, that I understood why that Daily Show compilation may be more damning than is realized.

As Schlesinger recounts in his article "What If We Don't Impeach Him?", James Madison, the "Father" of the Constitution, successfully argued before the First Congress that Presidents should have the power to remove appointees. If you think about it, this makes cabinet-level appointments unbalanced in the sense that they're confirmed by the Senate but can be removed arbitrarily on the President's whim. But this is a presidential perogative that comes with a bite. In Madison's words, giving the President this power would

make him, in a peculiar manner, responsible for their conduct, and subject him to impeachment himself, if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excesses. On the Constitutionality of the declaration I have no manner of doubt.

In other words, the President has the power to remove his appointees so that Congress may hold him accountable for not checking their unconstitutional behavior or abuses of power. The fact that cabinet members "serve at the pleasure of the President" isn't as much a Presidential perk as it is a Congressional injunction, on pain of impeachment, for the President to keep his appointees in line. The President is directly accountable to Congress for their continued service.

more...

[Demeter]

1. WOW!!! K&R!!!! Take THAT Federalist Society!

Talk about your original intent--

[jwirr]

2. I believe the phrase was "I was only obeying orders" at Nuremberg.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. And by the same reasoning...

there should have been an imperative to impeach Reagan over Iran-Contra, if not for the over 200 indictments such as the HUD scandals.

And, of course, Harding, who still beats Reagan and Shrub for allowing the most extreme corruption and profiteering under his watch.

Whilst I would persoanlly love to see the twin demons exorcised from power, leaving our Speaker as President, it still remains that impeachment is not purely a criminal prosecution but is still a highly political matter involving all sorts of discussions and deals before it happens.

We are getting closer, but it still comes down to the crucial votes and support of those who fear the consequences amongst their electorate if the go for impeachment.

[pat_k]

4. The power to impeach any official in the executive or judiciary. . .

. . .makes them all directly subject to our collective sovereignty.

Congress is the body through which we express our collective will. Our institutions have become so dysfunctional that it is sometimes hard to see it, but we surrendered none of our collective sovereignty to any institution or office we have created under our Constitution and our law.

We gave the power to impeach to the House for a reason. It is the body closest to and most responsive to our will. It wouldn't make sense to give our trump card to any other entity within our Government.

They all -- every single officials that makes up the apparatus of our Government -- serve at the pleasure of the people. We grant our consent through our votes and our laws. We can withdraw that consent at ANY time.

[babylonsister]

5. I wish that were true, but it appears no one is listening to 'the people'. nt

[pat_k]

6. It's true. That so many think otherwise makes it no less true.

Not knowing we have power doesn't make us powerless. (Dorothy had the power to go home anytime. She had no idea, but that was always the reality.)

You're right, they aren't listening, in part because they have some absurd beliefs about what impeachment is. (They are just people. People who are vulnerable to groupthink and false assumptions. Sadly, they've internalized, and helped to spread, notions that are ridiculous on their face.)

Too few of us are out there demanding impeachment because too many of us are alienated from the reality of our power.

Unfortunately, much of our rhetoric accepts the alienation as "reality." We talk about our government as if it were some alien being. We complain about "them" -- the political "professionals" and officials who are "running things." We tell each other that we are powerless to fight the power elite -- that money runs the show.

It's incredibly easy to fall into the "powerless" trap. We get out of the trap by being clear about the reality of our power and challenging bogus beliefs. We need to talk to each other AND to the men and women who represent us.

As noted, one of the reasons that our Senators and Reps aren't listening is the wrong-headed notions about impeachment so pervasive on the Hill. Almost every statement any of them make about impeachment reflects beliefs that are flat wrong -- so flat wrong that they are EXTREMELY easy to knock down. All we need are a few simple truths and moral principles.

For example, before he won the election, Rep. Keith Ellison had this to say (excerpts from "Will Ellison pursue impeachment?" by Rob Hotakainen, Star Tribune 1/25/07):

. . .Bush "has been running amok" and needs to be reined in: "There is one way that you can truly hold this president accountable, and it's impeachment."

If Rep. Ellison recognizes that Bush is running amok, he has a duty to impeach. His Congressional oath to "support and defend" demands it. There is no doubt that a president who running amok poses an intolerable threat to the Constitution. The danger of a president who has "run amok" is immediate and grave. Any delay is dereliction of duty.

When Ellison took office, he started blathering excuses for refusing to impeach.

. . he said that he's backing proposals to fully investigate Bush and that "a little more homework needs to be done" before Congress can move to impeach.

"I'm a lawyer, you know. I don't think due process is just for some people, it's for all people, including the president."

Might sound reasonable to some, but two simple truths expose the irrationality.

First, there is nothing to investigate. Both Bush and Cheney are "running amok" in plain sight. They are openly and willfully breaking our laws. They declare our War Crimes statute null. Bush nullifies McCain's anti-torture amendment -- a reiteration of existing law -- with a signing statement. They claim the absolute power break any law at will "to protect us" (e.g., illegally spy on us). Their so-called "theory" of unitary authoritarian power is laughable (Didn't hear any members of the committee challenge Spector when he scoffed at it.)

Second, the notion that Bush must be afforded the "due process" of a criminal prosecution is absurd. Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial/legal process.

Criminal procedure and burden of proof are designed to protect the sanctity of our individual civil rights. Our "due process" minimizes the chance that we mistakenly deprive an innocent of those rights.

Impeachment is about protecting the sanctity of our Constitution -- the foundation of ALL our civil rights. The error to be minimized is mistakenly leaving an official in power who is subverting our Constitution. Probable cause to believe an official has betrayed our trust or subverted the Constitution would be more than "enough." Whether an act or a suspicion is "enough" is a political decision. If the public concluded a president's stupidity posed a threat, that would be "enough."

We aren't violating their civil rights when we impeach and remove, whatever the reason. Just as we aren't violating an official's civil rights by voting them out.