Because the United States of America was created as a reaction against tyranny, one of the main goals – perhaps THE main goal – of the Founding Fathers who wrote its Constitution was to prevent a recurrence of tyranny. Of particular concern was the possibility that the President, as head of the Executive Branch of government, tasked with executing the laws of the nation, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, could accumulate enough power to become in effect a tyrant.
To guard against that possibility our Founding Fathers wrote three safeguards into our Constitution: First is the separation of powers, which
tasks the Congress with writing our laws and
the judiciary with interpreting them. Second, are the specific limits put on Presidential powers, as specified in
Article II, Section 1, which states that the President must “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, and
Article II, Section 3, which states that the President “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. And as a corollary to that, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the
Bill of Rights, places a list of restrictions on Presidential power in order to safeguard the rights of individuals.
The last safeguard against executive tyranny is impeachment, which is described in
Article II, Section 4 of our Constitution. As
noted by James Madison, the main reason for Congress to invoke the impeachment clause against a president should be to address cases where a president “attempts to subvert the Constitution”. Since our Constitution is what stands between the American people and tyranny, attempts to subvert it by our President risk turning our democracy into a tyranny. Impeachment is our last and only defense against that.
An Urgent Case for ImpeachmentThe
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a group of Constitutional scholars and activists who have developed a case for impeachment against George W. Bush and have specified that case in a
recent book, “Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush”. They have specified four articles of impeachment in their book, the first three dealing with the Bush administration’s warantless spying program, the illegal war in Iraq, and the illegal abuse and torture of our prisoners of war, respectively. This post addresses only their fourth impeachment article, as that is the one that relates most directly to the potential to turn our democracy into a tyranny. That fourth proposed impeachment article contains several parts, as follows:
Usurpation of judiciary powersAccording to Justice Department figures, thousands of people throughout the United States were detained during the period after September 11, 2001. Many were held for months, provided with no access to lawyers, and were beaten while in custody. They were not formally charged and were literally “disappeared” in the sense that they were not allowed to communicate with the outside, and their family members did not know where they were held, or whether they were dead or alive. Out of the thousands of detainees, few were ultimately charged with any terrorism-related defense….
The administration violated the law, failing to bring detainees before a judge for weeks and months. It thus grossly violated basic separation of powers principles by denying the judiciary any opportunity to review thousands of detentions…
The detentions at Guantanamo… were denied the right to challenge their detention in the courts for years until the administration’s position was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in
Rasul v. Bush…
The above actions, in addition to violating the separation of powers principles also violate the 5th amendment’s prohibition against being held without charges, the 6th amendment’s guarantee of a speedy trial by jury, and the 8th amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
CCR also discusses possible objections to their assertion that the above findings constitute attempts to subvert our Constitution. In response to the argument that those actions are justified by the fact that they occurred during war time, CCR points out that our constitutional protections are needed even more during war time than during peace time, as
ruled by our Supreme Court in 1866, immediately following our Civil War. And in response to the argument that protecting us against terrorists justifies the above actions, CCR points out (though it is highly questionable that such an argument would provide justification even if its premises were true) that none of those Bush administration actions accomplished any benefit: They did not provide actionable intelligence, and they yielded no relevant charges.
Usurpation of judicial and legislative powers through the Bush administration’s warantless spying programCCF discusses how the Bush administration’s much used program of
spying on American citizens without bothering to obtain a warrant, as specified in the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), violates our Constitution’s separation of powers principles with respect to both our judiciary and our Congress:
George W. Bush nonetheless chose to bypass the special FISA court, denying it all judicial review. This circumvention gained the administration no apparent material advantage, as the FISA procedures were liberal to the point of being nonexistent. The only discernable reason is a simple contempt for the principle that executive power can be limited in any way by the judiciary. But to hold this position is to deny the most basic type of separation of powers principles and to subvert our very system of constitutional government. An executive unchecked by the judiciary is simply not a feature of our system…
It also intrudes on the legislature. Congress spoke in enacting FISA. By violating FISA, the president is violating the expressed will of Congress.
Usurpation of legislative powers with “signing statements”Presidential “signing statements” have been used by past presidents to clarify their understanding of bills that they enact into law by signing, and prior to George W. Bush’s administration those actions haven’t engendered much controversy. But Bush has taken the practice to an unprecedented level of intensity, using signing statements to
challenge more than 800 laws, whereas only 322 signing statements had been used by all 42 previous U.S. Presidents combined. As such, as
discussed by the American Bar Association, Bush has used signing statements to violate the separation of powers principle by usurping Congress’ authority to make laws.
A good example of this was his recent use of the signing statement in response to the
anti-torture legislation passed by Congress. Bush’s statement that “The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President… as Commander in Chief” was essentially a bald faced assertion that he is not bound to follow a law passed by Congress, and that he can use torture whenever he sees fit to do so, regardless of what Congress has to say about it.
Republican operatives make a virtue out of Bush attempts to subvert our Constitution and use it for political gainThis may be slightly off topic, but I think it’s very important to make this point. Ken Mehlman, talking on “Meet the Press” this morning, continued the long standing Republican Party tactic of fear-mongering in an attempt to make Democrats look “weak on terror”. Whining that Congressional Democrats vote against giving the president the power to carry out adequate surveillance and interrogation against terrorists, Mehlman was obviously referring to (without explicitly stating so) the Bush administration’s illegal and unconstitutional warantless spying program and its frequent illegal and unconstitutional use of
torture against terrorist suspects, the great majority of whom have never even been charged with a crime.
What Mehlman didn’t say, and what the Bush administration has never explained, is why it needs to conduct its so-called surveillance against terrorists without warrants, when its requests for warrants are approved more than 99% of the time, and when it has the option of requesting them retrospectively – so that time pressure couldn’t possibly constitute a valid excuse for not requesting a warrant. Nor has the Bush administration ever explained why it considers its use of torture to be so important, given that it violates international law, exposes our troops to torture, and fuels the creation of more terrorists. Nor has it ever explained why it received five Fs and twelve Ds on the 9-11 Commission’s 2005 year-end
report card for its attempts to carry out the basic recommendations of the Commission (which did NOT include torture).
Mehlman was not asked to explain any of that on
Meet the Press this morning. Nor, for reasons that I certainly don’t understand, was Howard Dean, who had spoken just prior to Mehlman’s rant, given a chance to rebut any of his ridiculous charges.
What we can doIn a
previous post I discussed a Teach-In sponsored by CCR that I attended a few weeks ago, and I included some grass roots actions that CCR recommends. Rather than refer you to that post, I’ll repeat those recommendations here, since I feel that they are so important:
Let Congress know how you feelSince impeachment starts in the House of Representatives, let your Congressperson know how you feel about impeachment. If you go to
the site noted above you can have a copy of “Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush” sent to your Congressperson. You buy the book (I believe you pay $9.95, but maybe $4.95) and CCR will pay the postage and ship the book to your Congressperson in your name. The site also contains a sample letter to send to your Congressperson.
Also, let John Conyers know how much you appreciate his
proposed legislation requiring investigation of Bush administration crimes. And let Ron Paul know how much you appreciate his being the most outspoken Republican in the House on the transgressions of the Bush administration, but he also needs to sign on to Conyers’ proposed legislation. And let Nancy Pelosi know that you believe that it was an egregious mistake on her part to “take impeachment off the table” even in the event that the Democrats take back the House this year. We don’t need her leadership on this issue, but it is imperative that she not obstruct the process.
Spread the wordThe above noted site also provides a link to a site that describes how you can host a teach-in, along with an opportunity to purchase an “action kit” for that purpose, which includes a DVD of the film. If you want to go that route, the site includes a sample flyer, a sample press release, and talking points.
Also, spread the word in less formal ways, by word of mouth, or wearing/using “Impeach Bush” buttons, t-shirts, yard signs, or bumper stickers. You will be surprised to learn that there are a lot more people out there who favor impeachment than one would think by listening to our corporate media. Talk to your labor unions. Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper, especially ones which inform the public about “impeachment events”.
Grass-roots resolutionsPassing impeachment resolutions at the state and local level is one way to set the impeachment process in motion, as specified in the
Jefferson manual of the House rules. The
above noted site provides a guide to getting the process started. It also contains a sample resolution and a sample petition that can be used to get this process started, as well as a list of towns and cities who have already passed resolutions.
Get impeachment on the ballotDespite the caution shown by our elected Democratic representatives on this issue, CCR feels quite certain that getting impeachment on the November ballot would boost turnout considerably, thus providing a double benefit.
Some concluding commentsHistory shows us that most civilizations eventually fail, and that democracies frequently turn into dictatorships. It is obvious that the United States is not immune to that fate, and it is currently showing many signs that dictatorship may be just around the corner, if not already here. It is yet possible that we may reverse course and maintain our democracy and our Constitution. If so, it will take a willingness to confront the seriousness of our situation, and a lot of commitment and courage from of a lot of people.
I don’t see how it will be possible to do that without impeaching and removing from office a President who has consistently demonstrated his contempt for the rule of law – both domestic and international – and his contempt for our Constitution, as well as his determination to subvert it.
Our Democratic leaders, whether they agree with that assessment or not, are currently following a very cautious approach to the situation. Perhaps their reasons are tactical. Perhaps they believe that if they make a big deal over impeachment at this time they will jeopardize their chances of taking control of Congress with big victories in this fall’s elections.
CCR disagrees with that approach, and I am inclined to agree with CCR. CCR believes that making a big deal over impeachment now, and getting it on local and state ballots, will substantially spur Democratic turnout this fall.
That impeachment is far from unacceptable to the general U.S. population has been shown in several polls, such as
a poll that showed a 50% to 44% majority of Americans answering yes to the question: “
If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him.” But even more important than that are the very strongly held pro-impeachment views of a sizable minority of Americans, as evidenced by the creation of numerous pro-impeachment groups, rallies and demonstrations throughout our country, and even consideration of impeachment resolutions by the states of
Vermont,
Illinois, and
California.
I look at it like this: First and foremost, George W. Bush needs to be impeached because he poses a tremendous threat to our democracy – and that is precisely why our Constitution contains a means for impeachment. If Democrats push impeachment prior to this fall’s elections, they are certain to be viciously attacked by Republicans, and by much of the corporate media as well. But if they are prepared to explain to the American people why impeachment is necessary for our country, the Republicans will be forced to defend their resistance to impeachment. Since there is no valid defense for being against impeachment, their attempts to manufacturer a defense will make them out to look like the corrupt politicians that they are. And then we may see a landslide this fall.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
