Reply #4: "No point is more important

[H2O Man]

than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above justice? Above allshall that man be above it, who can commit the most extreme injustice?"
-- George Mason at the Constitutional Convention

From the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, it was the expressed goal of our Founding Fathers to insure a balance of powers in the government. To insure that balance, especially in times of crisis, they included the right of the congress to impeach the president (as well as the vice president and any other civil officer in the federal government).

The Founding Fathers recognized that the single greatest domestic threat to democracy would come from a strong federal government. The balance of powers was intended to include the relationship between the national and state governments. The Jeffersonian ideals found in the Articles of Confederation were to be protected by the more Hamiltonian Constitution. Yet we know from Jefferson's 3-15-1789 letter to Madison that while his immediate concern was the strength of the federal legislature, he predicted that "the tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period."

Thus, in the 65th Federalist paper, we find Hamilton calling the power to impeach "a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive." It was not intended to be a purely political tool, as it was when the republicans abused it in the Clinton years. Still, it was placed squarely with the congress and not the federal courts.

The House of Representatives, which is intended to serve as the investigative branch of congress, was given the sole power to impeach the president. The Senate was given the power to try all impeachments. There has been, over the years, some significant conflicts concerning the power of the House to investigate suspicions of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" that could result in impeachment. This was largely as a result of two often related issues: the House's responsibility to investigate other issues, and the executive's need for secrecy in cases involving national security.

In the 1807 trial of Aaron Burr for treason, the conflict between the federal courts and the executive came to a head when Jefferson was called to provide the court with documents that he did not feel he was obligated to. He took the stance that he could not be forced to testify. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled, "That the president of the United States may be supoenaed, and examined as a witness, and required to produce any papers in his possession, is not controverted." As it turned out, Jefferson produced documents, but did not appear.

This, however, is distinct from a House investigation. Presidents have attempted to use it to avoid complying with House investigations that do not include impeachments. This is especially true in cases that they claim involve "national security." We think of the Iran-Contra hearings as a recent example of the executive branch getting away with withholding information on a massive scale.

Any investigation on impeachable offenses allow the House unrestricted access to, in the words of James K. Polk, "penetrate into the most secret recesses of the Executive departments. It could command the attendance of any or every agent of the government, and compel them to produce all papers, public or private .."

This is the significance of the call, outlined by Boston constitutional attorney John C. Bonifaz, for the House of representatives to issue a formal Resolution of Inquiry. Those who have outlined this request -- and, again, go to Raw Story and enjoy! -- know EXACTLY what they are doing. This is powerful. It is an attempt by those with an appreciation of the beauty of the Constitution demanding that the House fulfill its historic duties.

Our job is to support their effort, and to spread the word. It goes without saying that the administration will fight this effort, tooth and nail. Let's examine the best way to knock that tooth right out!