Impeachment 'off the table'––unconstitutional By P. A. Triot

[Demeter]

OpEdNews

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_p__a__tr_070803_impeachment__off_the.htm


Congress is in violation of the United States Constitution by failing to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and holding them accountable for their respective and joint “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The “impeachment card,” a term so many pundits are fond of using, is not merely an option allowed by the Constitution, it is required by that document.

Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution reads in its entirety (with original punctuation): “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 Misdemeanors.”

The Constitution uses the word shall, not may. The word shall makes impeachment a requirement of congress, as opposed to may, which implies congress has an option.

Most people, including most Washington pundits, believe that beginning hearings and bringing impeachment charges against the president and vice president unleashes a constitutional crisis.

On the contrary, the nation is in the throes of a constitutional crisis now and the impeachment process is the safety valve the founders provided to solve the crisis.

That is why the Constitution reads shall, not may in regard to the impeachment process.

The founders intended impeachment authority of congress to be vigorously exercised. It is mentioned no fewer than six times in the Constitution.

For the speaker of the House of Representatives and the majority leader in the Senate to take impeachment “off the table” therefore is unconstitutional.

Both those congressional officers have taken an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution and to uphold its provisions.

For that matter, each and every one of the members of both houses of congress have taken that same oath.

Impeachment of a president and/or vice president does not mean removal from office. It simply means there is probable cause for the U. S. Senate to hold a trial. Removal from office only results if the subject of impeachment is convicted by the U. S. Senate.

It is only fair to accuse Bush and Cheney of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The both of them have truly proven themselves to be outlaws.

Those two men, and their henchmen, have ripped the Constitution to shreds––more than any of their predecessors.

The framers of the Constitution insisted on guarding against the possibility of the executive branch grasping so much authority as to virtually evolve the republic into a kingdom.

Their efforts began with sharply limiting presidential authority. The founders of this great nation were revolutionaries who detested kings.

The citizenry today ought to model the founders’ example.

The United States is perilously close to a state of monarchy. While not necessarily a kingdom, the differences between what exists now in America and a medieval kingdom are inconsequential.

Bush and Cheney are asserting that they have unchecked authority to make war, select which laws they will comply with, select which laws they will enforce, choose which provisions of the Constitution are applicable to them and ignore those provisions that are inconvenient or too “quaint” as to apply in today’s world, as Alberto Gonzales wrote about regarding the Geneva Convention rules on torturing prisoners of war.

Renegades. The president, vice president, attorney general and their cronies are renegades all.

A majority of the body politic, meaning the citizens of the United States, want these outlaw renegades out of office as soon as possible.

The election of November 2006 was all about getting us untangled from the the illegal occupation of Iraq.

Now, however, the people are speaking not only about that cause,but have added their voices to the call for impeachment (and conviction) of these two despicable characters––Bush and Cheney.

The Democratic majority in congress is not listening. They seem to be afraid of two hot-button issues: 1) cutting off funds for continuing the illegal occupation, and 2) impeaching the culprits who dragged America into this disreputable adventure (and all the concomitant lies and actions that have trampled our beloved Constitution into dust).

By not listening to their constituents, members of the Democratic majority are not only failing to do what they were elected to do--extract us from Iraq--they are in violation of their own oaths of office to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States.

We currently are in the midst of a constitutional crisis. Unfortunately, congress, which has the sworn duty to resolve the crisis, dithers. Congress has a solemn obligation to impeach.

It’s not only a sad time in our history, it may signal the waning days of our republic, as we not so slowly let our republic slip into a kingdom. From the looks of it, we won’t even have a constitutional monarchy, simply a medieval one.

Weeping might be all that is left.





Authors Bio: P. A. Triot is the pen name of a retired jounalist.

[Mythsaje]

1. But...but...but...

they're afraid!

Bah, I'm disgusted.

[Igel]

2. He can't read, can he?

"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 Misdemeanors."

Paraphrased and putting in the subject that was deleted when the passive was formed: "If the President, Vice-president, or any civil Officer of the United States is impeached for and convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdeameanors the Congress shall remove him from office."

Notice what's required: Removal from office in the event of impeachment and conviction by Congress. What the Constitution didn't say was required: Impeachment and conviction.

Now, what he *wants* the Constitution to say is, "Congress, in the event of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors on the part of The President, Vice President and any civil Officer of the United States, shall impeach and convict the person found guilty by Congress of said acts."

He assumes what he wants is what the Constitution says, and is blind to the fact that it doesn't say what he wants. There's rather a lot of that going around these days, don't you think?

[Tom Joad]

3. Like saying a cop "may" arrest someone in the process of killing massive number of civilians

but if it is going to cause way too much paperwork, he/she can let it go until the perp finally decides to call it a day.

[Betsy Ross]

4. Unfortunately,

the shall cited in Article II, Section 4 refers to removed from office following impeachment. It does not state "shall impeach."

[Gregorian]

6. Yes. Because I made the same mistake. And posted it here quite a while ago.

Maybe more people should hang around DU. We're a self-correcting group.

[creeksneakers2]

7. That means that

Reid and Pelosi aren't violating of the Constitution.

[Demeter]

9. No, They're Just Violating Their Oaths of Office n/t

[Vincardog]

5. impeachment it is required

[0007]

12. Impeachment is the only option to end this criminal abuse..

Government must be given back to the people.

[reprobate]

8. "it may signal the waning days of our republic". And for more than one reason.

IMHO, the argument of whether the constitution 'requires' impeachment is moot at this point in our decline. Many of us worked long and hard to assure that 'our' dems won in the last election. This was to guarantee that congress once again take up their constitutional requirement as a check and balance on the powers of the executive branch. Impeachment would have been wonderful and certainly emotionally satisfying, but I could live without it if only our "representatives" would do their sacred duties and reclaim our constitutional rights. It's possible IMO for the nation to survive until the next election if only the Democrats proved they were not invertebrates, if only they stood up to the right wing noise machine and spoke truth. I believe that this one act would guarantee a landslide election win in '08. The nation is moving more liberal, even progressive in all th polls that ask. The voters would show their appreciation.

Instead what we see in DC are Democrats that are afraid Bush will call them pussies and cowardly on terrorism. So instead of standing up and shouting back that Bush is the one responsible for terrorism by invading a nation that posed no threat to us - that the Bush and bin Laden families have been buddies and business partners for decades - that Bushdaddy was in charge of the CIA when it was handing bales of cash to bin Ladin - that the Bushes and Saudis have been joined at the hip for longer than they will admit to and that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudies, etc. etc. etc. The Dem leadership have not only lost their voice, they've lost their testes.

Look at the polls that all show Bush with the lowest numbers almost in history, but congress has numbers that rival his. With the citizenry looking at Bush as truly evil, congress as ineffective, and the courts as no more than extensions of the executive, there is nothing left for the people to trust. Read the Declaration of Independence. It begins with "When in the course of human events". I fear we are once more approaching that kind of turning point.

There is a word that I keep hearing on various forums, blogs, and from just plain people. Well, it's actually two words: "insurrection" and "revolution". And I'm not hearing it just from the left, but from the center and right also. The questions that come to mind are how far are we from such a thing, what form will it take, and what will be the spark that sets it off.

Question 1: how far are we from this? Not being used to public prognosticating, I can only think that there are several answers that also speak to the spark to set it off. Another stolen election I think will do it, and the people will not learn of it thru the MSM, but thru the internet. Or perhaps another attack followed by martial law will set it off.

Question 2: what form will it take? I think it will start with increased lawlessness, armed lawlessness. And with the economy sinking as it is and the rich getting richer while the rest of us founder, I believe the anger will turn on the corporations, the leaders of which will become the targets of the anger. Finally, the King will be forced by the corporate leaders (those of them that have not yet become targets) to send troops to restore peace. If this is done, I can foresee the troops refusing to fire on citizens - like the Russian troops refused to kill THEIR citizens in 1917, which precipitated their revolution. That's the point at which we see a military coup. The military leadership is so fed up with the fascists in DC that I really see it as possible. So then they can either form a military government, or, as I think more possible because they all swore an oath to the constitution, they conduct an election cycle, with the usual campaigns, etc. If that's what happens, I believe we will have a progressive government for some years to come.

Let me say right here and now that I do not support or advocate any of the above. Just looking at causes and possible results.

If you disagree, I'd like to hear your opinion. Let's not have a flame war, but a discussion as things used to be here on DU.

[Cobalt-60]

10. It does look pretty grim

Congressional democrats behave as if they're being bribed and/or threatened.
We can never outbid the forces of darkness for a bribe.
Dealing with a threat can be surprisingly affordable - if the party sending it can be identified.
I suppose the trick will be to actually reach the next elections.
Bribes can be tracked. They show like a freshly swallowed hog inside a python.
Threats we need to hear about.
Regardless of the cause, our congressional delegation is apparently useless.
So we provide an Old School beating to the Republicans in 08, we've got business in the primaries.
The only excuse for voting with the shrubbers is a credible threat - with proof.
That proof will need to be pretty solid as the time to speak out about it was BEFORE they got their way.

[farmboxer]

11. Congress does not care! They look down on all of us

I am sick of it all. We are all expendable/subhuman. Why don't they do something about the war? Save some human beings? The corporations would not approve. They have to obey the retarded Hitler Boy Bush. They really do think everyone is stupid. Yet it is they who bow down to a damned retarded Hitler! Amerika is a Plutocracy, nothing else. It's all about the money. Politicians laugh and make fun of us all, except the lobbyiests of course. Dead troops? Does not appear to matter to them. There are a few good politicians, but it is getting very difficult for them to get elected. Fixed voting machines do the job for the crooks and always will.

Kevin Trudeau exposes it all.

[Loge23]

13. "Let them split hairs"

While we're arguing over grammar, the country has been lost.
The right owns this country now - we are, for all intents and purposes, "managed" by a far-right conservative government.
The Democrats, eager to capitalize on the same absolute powers as they see the ruling party use, do absolutely nothing to stem the flow.
Yes, there's the hearings and a relatively small band of finger wavers who "want to get to the bottom of this", but we're already at the bottom.
So let's hem and haw about what is and what's not on the table as we sit quietly and await the crumbs of the freedom we once had.
It was fun while it lasted.