|
The President is Not
Above the Law
A Case for Impeachment Now
Send a letter and
sign onto the statement
The National Park Service is being flooded with
letters demanding that no new restrictions be placed by the Bush
Administration on protest assembly on the National Mall. The
Statement in Defense of Free Speech Rights on the National Mall has
received an incredible 7,500 signers in its first days. Join the
campaign and send your letter or sign onto the statement --
you can do so by clicking here. |
Although you would not know it from the mass media, the momentum for
impeachment continues to grow across the country. We are less than 7,000
votes away from reaching the one million mark for those who have voted
at ImpeachBush.org. City councils around the country are on record
supporting impeachment. Between now and the end of March, impeachment
supporters will be taking to the streets in anti-war protests marking
the 5th anniversary of the start of this criminal war.
Members of Congress are feeling the pressure from their
constituencies. As you can see below, the impeachment movement is
gaining supporters in Congress.
You can support this movement right now, by
making a much needed donation. Please
click this link to make as generous a contribution
as you can either by credit card or for information if you prefer to
write a check.
Elizabeth Holtzman, a leading figure in the impeachment proceedings
against Richard Nixon, has issued the well-publicized argument
explaining why the impeachment of George W. Bush is imperative even now.
Holtzman served on the House Judiciary Committee during proceedings
toward Nixon's impeachment. She coauthored the 1973 special-prosecutor
statute, and cowrote (with Cynthia L. Cooper) the 2006 book "The
Impeachment of George W. Bush."
Judiciary Committee
Should Move to Impeach Bush and Cheney
By Elizabeth Holtzman
Since mid-December, members of the House Judiciary Committee Robert
Wexler (D., Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) and Tammy Baldwin (D.,
Wis.) have called for hearings on the impeachment of Vice President
Cheney.
This should not be surprising, given the strength of the case for
impeachment. What's surprising is that it took so long for members of
this committee, normally tasked with holding impeachment proceedings, to
call for them.
They face huge political resistance on Capitol Hill. But they aren't
alone. Other Democratic members are joining them. Former senator and
Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern recently published an
op-ed demanding impeachment proceedings for both Bush and Cheney. Bruce
Fein, a Republican who served in the Reagan Justice Department, and many
other constitutional scholars also argue for impeachment.
There is more than ample justification for impeachment. The
Constitution specifies the grounds as treason, bribery or "high crimes
and misdemeanors," a term that means "great and dangerous offenses that
subvert the Constitution." As the House Judiciary Committee determined
during Watergate, impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself
above the law and gravely abuses power.
Have Bush and Cheney done that?
Yes. With the vice president's participation, President Bush
repeatedly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which
requires court approval for presidential wiretaps. Former President
Richard Nixon's illegal wiretapping was one of the offenses that led to
his impeachment. FISA was enacted precisely to avoid such abuses by
future presidents.
Bush and Cheney were involved in detainee abuse, flouting federal
criminal statutes (the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the anti-torture Act)
and the Geneva Conventions. The president removed Geneva protections
from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, setting the abuse in motion, and may have
even personally authorized them.
The president and vice president also used deception to drive us into
the Iraq war, claiming Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in cahoots, when
they knew better. They invoked the specter of a nuclear attack on the
United States, alleging Hussein purchased uranium in Niger and wanted
aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, when they had every reason to
know these claims were phony or at least seriously questioned within the
administration. Withholding and distorting facts usurps Congress'
constitutional powers to decide on going to war.
Can a commander-in-chief disobey laws on wiretapping or torture to
protect the country in wartime?
No. The Constitution requires the president to "take care that the
laws be faithfully executed." The Supreme Court ruled Harry S. Truman
could not seize steel mills to prevent a strike, even during the Korean
War. Nixon's claim of national security as a justification for illegal
wiretaps was also rejected in impeachment proceedings against him.
What then is the justification for taking impeachment "off the
table"? Congressional leaders don't defend the administration, nor do
they contend that its actions are unimpeachable or less serious than
Nixon's. Instead they argue there is no time, or that impeachment
proceedings would distract the Congress from other work, or divide the
country. The subtext seems to be fear that impeachment could undermine
Democratic election prospects in 2008.
But even these "pragmatic" arguments are wrong. Let's take them one
at a time:
Insufficient time. In the case of Nixon, the House
officially instructed the Judiciary Committee to act in early February
1974. The committee finished voting on articles of impeachment July 29,
less than six months later. No presidential impeachment proceeding had
taken place for almost 100 years, so the committee had to start from
scratch, analyzing the Constitution and developing procedures for the
impeachment inquiry. Now that the relevant legal spade work is done and
a road map for proper impeachment proceedings exists, Congress might
conduct them even faster than in 1974.
Distraction. During Watergate, the impeachment
inquiry didn't prevent Congress from getting its work done. In fact, the
House Judiciary Committee also worked on other matters during
impeachment, just as the Senate did during its impeachment trial of
former President Bill Clinton.
Divisiveness. True, President Clinton's impeachment
was a highly partisan process that divided the country - because most
Americans didn't support it. They believed his conduct was
reprehensible, but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment therefore had
negative repercussions for the Republicans who instigated it.
Nixon's impeachment united the American people. The process was
bipartisan, demonstrating this wasn't just a Democratic ploy to undo an
election. The fairness of the process, the seriousness of purpose, the
substantial evidence - all gave the public confidence that justice had
been done.
This reinvigorated the shared value that the rule of law and
preservation of democracy are more important than any president or
party.
This value is again asserting itself in grassroots impeachment
movements across America. The Vermont Senate, several state Democratic
parties, and many municipal governments have adopted resolutions
supporting impeachment. More state legislatures would have acted except
for pressure from Washington. Many polls show a majority of Americans
support impeaching Cheney (a Nov. 13 American Research Group poll says
70 percent of Americans believe he abused his office), and slightly less
than a majority support impeaching Bush.
Stonewalling such widespread public sentiment is itself divisive,
leading at least half the country to feel their concerns about upholding
the Constitution are being ignored. Only a serious airing of evidence in
hearings would heal the split.
Undermining election prospects. When the impeachment
process began, Nixon had just been reelected in one of the largest
landslides in history. Few, if any, worried about whether impeachment
was a political winner for Congress or the Democrats. Public opinion
simply forced Congress' hand when Nixon fired Special Prosecutor
Archibald Cox. After the Judiciary Committee conducted impartial
hearings and voted on impeachment, Congress' approval ratings soared.
Republicans were swamped in the November 1974 elections.
Whether or not they bring electoral rewards in 2008, impeachment
proceedings are the right thing to do. They will help curb the serious
abuses of this administration, and send a strong message to future
administrations that no president or vice president is 'EVER' above the law.
Please
make a donation
We are making great progress, but cannot succeed without
your help. Bush is on a crusade to shred the Constitution. Impeachment
is necessary not only to punish the high officials who engage in
criminal conduct, but also to send a message to all future presidencies.
It is not too late to impeach Bush. Please
make a generous donation right now to help impeach Bush. | 
