Monday, February 20, 2006

The Case for Bush's Impeachment

Many Americans are salivating at the possibility of impeaching Bush as communities and activists around the country organize to get mostly symbolic referendums on their spring election ballots in 2006, however is impeachment a realistic option? In a well reasoned op-ed, a Professor of Constitutional Law makes the case:

Impeach: Yes, But...

Jamin B. Raskin (jbr@jaminraskin.com ) is a professor of Constitutional Law at American University and Director of its Program on Law and Government. He is also a Democratic candidate for the Maryland State Senate in the 2006 elections.

Excerpt
The key is to think of impeachment not as a single event but as a series of steps to restore the rule of law and reassert the practices of popular democracy that have been trampled ever since the Republican Party and five collusive Supreme Court justices derailed the presidential election in 2000. We should follow these three specific steps to restore constitutional law and order:

1. Moral Impeachment: One meaning of impeachment is to charge with malfeasance in office, but the other is "To challenge or discredit." We can debunk the administration's policies all over America, especially with the excellent work done by Rep. John Conyers and his staff on the fraudulent rush to war. Institutions with moral authority like universities, municipalities, unions and churches should conduct their own "Impeach-Ins" to impeach the various frauds and policy deceptions of the administration. The Federalist Society and others who support Bush should be invited to defend the constitutionality of Bush's actions.

2. Electoral Impeachment: We should nationalize the coming elections and use them to "impeach the Republican Party," which has been captured by its most extreme elements and now poses a real threat to the Republic. The Abramoff-soaked Republicans in Congress have presided over dangerous political corruption, deficit spending, violation of civil liberty, and military and national security lawlessness. The 2006 elections must become a nationwide referendum on corruption and restoration of the rule of law at every level of government.

3. Congressional impeachment: If the Democrats recapture Congress or at least one chamber in 2006 and evidence of the administration's law-breaking continues to mount, the moral, political and legal predicate will have been laid to introduce articles of impeachment that can actually be heard and passed. If President Clinton can be impeached (though not convicted) for lying about sex, why can't President Bush be impeached for lying about weapons of mass destruction, for spying illegally on Americans, for violating the Constitution and international treaty obligations, and for criminal dereliction of duty before, during and after 9/11, the invasion of Iraq and Hurricane Katrina?

3 Comments:

Blogger Max Chapman said...

I’m not a supporter of George W. Bush, but talk of Impeachment is a waste of time. The Republican controlled Senate couldn’t remove President Clinton, because they needed a super majority. Now the House did pass articles of impeachment with a simple majority, but what did that accomplish? Democrats need to focus on first gaining majorities in the 2006 mid-term elections. Then they must do what the Republicans haven’t done, which is pass legislation that helps the American people. Remember sky rocketing health care costs, the quagmire in Iraq, and jobs leaving the country. Impeachment is a waste of time and energy. Would making Dick Cheney President, improve things? I know some of you believe Cheney is the President already! The way to take the White House back is through the 2008 Election. The Democratic candidate will have a great chance against an untested Republican nominee. Focus on the future our country.

11:34 AM  
Blogger IFK Editor said...

I agree, activists and party leaders/candidates should focus on 2006 as a referendum on Republican corruption, contrasted with democratic solutions, which they do need to push more vocally.

However if the Dems take back the House in 2006, I strongly urge them to use all means necessary to promote their agenda for America. No options should be taken off the table if Bush and Co. refuse to play ball and act on the will of the American people. Republicans have abused their power since day one in office and call me crazy, but I doubt they'll play nice even if Democats take the House.

If Republicans continue their power plays and erroneous policies in the face of overwhelming American disapproval then they're asking for Impeachment of their President. Only time and the 2006 election will tell.

12:05 PM  
Blogger MNBluestater said...

You can't possibly talk about impeachment or changing things in 2006 or 2008 UNLESS the vote actually is what it appears to be. Currently, it is not--and won't be--unless citizens take action now to ensure that voting systems are secure, computers are secured, and tampering cannot occur. Groups like blackboxvoting.org are working hard on this issue.

GOP election officials all over the country are pushing for implementation of Diebold systems or other manufacturers that do NOT meet criteria of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, essentially because they don't have to if the state opts not to take federal money to implement. In California, a GOP-appointed Secretary of State has decided, without adequate public comment or completion of testing, to recertify Diebold as a valid system to use.

Without adequate oversight in "critical states" deceptive voting tallies will result. The GOP is focusing efforts on those states that will make the crucial decisions in electing the Congress and next President.

Ask yourself. What is your own state doing ? Are you sure that your state's voting tallies will not be secretively altered in the next election ?

10:49 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home