James Madison - “Impeach Bush Over Purgegate!”
According to James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” if a President were to order or allow the “wanton removal of meritorious officers” such as US attorneys, such an action “would subject the President to impeachment and removal from his own high trust.”
The issue of the firing of people within the Executive branch for political purposes came up during a debate in 1789 about how to create agencies within the Executive branch that would be consistent with Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, which says that the President can appoint people (like US Attorneys/prosecutors), but they couldn’t take office unless the Senate votes to confirm each individual appointment:
He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
But if the President can nominate, and the Senate confirm somebody like a federal prosecutor, who can fire one? And what if they’re fired for politcal purposes?
Madison’s logic was straightforward, and came about in one of his first major speeches before the House of Representatives, on 17 June 1789, just a few months into his first term as a Congressman (he would later become Secretary of State and President). A bill was put forward to create what is today known as the State Department in a more formal fashion than had existed when George Washington had become the new nation’s first President just three months before and appointed Thomas Jefferson as his Secretary of State Affairs.
As with other agencies brought into law by Congress, this new Department of Foreign Affairs being debated would have to exist under the oversight and supervision of the Executive Branch of government, led by the President. And, as such, how, Congress wanted to know, could they make sure that no President would ever allow good members of his various departments (”meritorious officers”) to be fired for purely political purposes (”wanton removal”)?
The Congressional Register from that day lays out Madison’s entire speech. Because it’s thorough and detailed, and offers a brilliant insight into the thinking of the most important of the Framers of our Constitution (Madison), I reproduce it in its entirety below. Because it’s rather long, however, I’ve also bolded and italicized those parts that get right to the nub of the matter so you can skim it first, and then go back and read the entire thing in context.
The essence of the debate is over whether Congress or the President would have the power to fire people employed below the level of a Cabinet officer in the George Washington and future administrations. The conclusion of the majority - and thus the way the law is today - is that Congress felt that the Senate’s approval of the hiring of federal officers was critical (a power the Patriot Act took away, and the Senate voted last week to restore), and that when it comes to firing them, the President has the power. However, if the President were to abuse that power to fire federal officials through the “wanton removal of meritorious officers,” he should be immediately impeached.
This was particularly relevant since, in 1789, there were no federal crimes that had yet been defined. So when the Constitution said that a President could be impeached for “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” there were none specified at the time. (The first federal crime was specified in 1790.) So Congress, at this point, was in the process of both creating new executive offices and of defining impeachable “crimes.” They were establishing precedents, and this was a grave matter. It would echo forward for centuries.
The Congressional Register 17 June 1789 The house went into a committee of the whole on the bill for establishing the department of foreign affairs, and resumed the consideration of the clause “to be removable by the president.”
Mr. Madison [is called upon to speak].
However various the opinions which exist upon the point now before us, it seems agreed on all sides, that it demands a careful investigation and full discussion. I feel the importance of the question, and know that our decision will involve the decision of all similar cases. The decision that is at this time made will become the permanent exposition of the constitution; and on a permanent exposition of the constitution will depend the genius and character of the whole government. It will depend, perhaps, on this decision, whether the government shall retain that equilibrium which the constitution intended, or take a direction toward aristocracy, or anarchy among the members of the government. Hence how careful ought we to be to give a true direction to a power so critically circumstanced. It is incumbent on us to weigh with particular attention the arguments which have been advanced in support of the various opinions with cautious deliberation.
I own to you, Mr. chairman, that I feel great anxiety upon this question; I feel an anxiety, because I am called upon to give a decision in a case that may affect the fundamental principles of the government under which we act, and liberty itself. But all that I can do on such an occasion is to weigh well every thing advanced on both sides, with the purest desire to find out the true meaning of the constitution, and to be guided by that, and an attachment to the true spirit of liberty, whose influence I believe strongly predominates here.
Several constructions have been put upon the constitution relative to the point in question. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Sherman) has advanced a doctrine which was not touched upon before. He seems to think (if I understood him right), that the power of displacing from office is subject to legislative discretion; because it having a right to create, it may limit or modify as is thought proper. I shall not say but at first view this doctrine may seem to have some plausibility: But when I consider, that the constitution clearly intended to maintain a marked distinction between the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government; and when I consider, that if the legislature has a power, such as contended for, they may subject, and transfer at discretion, powers from one department of government to another; they may, on that principle, exclude the president altogether from exercising any authority in the removal of officers; they may give it to the senate alone, or the president and senate combined; they may vest it in the whole congress, or they may reserve it to be exercised by this house. When I consider the consequences of this doctrine, and compare them with the true principles of the constitution, I own that I cannot subscribe to it.
Another doctrine which has found very respectable friends, has been particularly advocated by the gentleman from South-Carolina (Mr. Smith). It is this; when an officer is appointed by the president and senate, he can only be displaced from malfeasance in his office by impeachment: I think this would give a stability to the executive department so far as it may be described by the heads of departments, which is more incompatible with the genius of republican governments in general, and this constitution in particular, than any doctrine which has yet been proposed. The danger to liberty, the danger of mal-administration has not yet been found to lay so much in the facility of introducing improper persons into office, as in the difficulty of displacing those who are unworthy of the public trust. If it is said that an officer once appointed shall not be displaced without the formality required by impeachment, I shall be glad to know what security we have for the faithful administration of the government. Every individual in the long chain which extends from the highest to the lowest link of the executive magistracy, would find a security in his situation which would relax his fidelity and promptitude in the discharge of his duty.
The doctrine, however, which seems to stand most in opposition to the principles I contend for, is that the power to annul an appointment is in the nature of things incidental to the power which makes the appointment [e.g. the President]. I agree that if nothing more was said in the constitution than that the president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, should appoint to office, there would be great force in saying that the power of removal resulted by a natural implication from the power of appointing. But there is another part of the constitution no less explicit than the one on which the gentleman’s doctrine is founded, it is that part which declares, that the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States. The association of the senate with the president in exercising that particular function, is an exception to this general rule; and exceptions to general rules, I conceive, are ever to be taken strictly.
But there is another part of the constitution which inclines in my judgment, to favor the construction I put upon it; the president is required to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. If the duty to see the laws faithfully executed be required at the hands of the executive magistrate, it would seem that it was generally intended he should have that species of power which is necessary to accomplish that end. Now if the officer when once appointed, is not to depend upon the president for his official existence, but upon a distinct body (for where there are two negatives required either can prevent the removal), I confess I do not see how the president can take care that the laws be faithfully executed. It is true by a circuitous operation, he may obtain an impeachment, and even without this it is possible he may obtain the concurrence of the senate for the purpose of displacing an officer; but would this give that species of control to the executive magistrate which seems to be required by the constitution? I own if my opinion was not contrary to that entertained by what I suppose to be the minority on this question, I should be doubtful of being mistaken, when I discovered how inconsistent that construction would make the constitution with itself. I can hardly bring myself to imagine the wisdom of the convention who framed the constitution, contemplated such incongruity.
There is another maxim which ought to direct us in expounding the constitution, and is of great importance. It is laid down in most of the constitutions or bills of rights in the republics of America, it is to be found in the political writings of the most celebrated civilians, and is every where held as essential to the preservation of liberty, That the three great departments of government be kept separate and distinct; and if in any case they are blended, it is in order to admit a partial qualification in order more effectually to guard against an entire consolidation. I think, therefore, when we review the several parts of this constitution, when it says that the legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States under certain exceptions, and the executive power vested in the president with certain exceptions, we must suppose they were intended to be kept separate in all cases in which they are not blended, and ought consequently to expound the constitution so as to blend them as little as possible.
Every thing relative to the merits of the question as distinguished from a constitutional question, seems to turn on the danger of such a power vested in the president alone. But when I consider the checks under which he lies in the exercise of this power, I own to you I feel no apprehensions but what arise from the dangers incidental to the power itself; for dangers will be incidental to it, vest it where you please. I will not reiterate what was said before with respect to the mode of election, and the extreme improbability that any citizen will be selected from the mass of citizens who is not highly distinguished by his abilities and worth; in this alone we have no small security for the faithful exercise of this power. But, throwing that out of the question, let us consider the restraints he will feel after he is placed in that elevated station. It is to be remarked that the power in this case will not consist so much in continuing a bad man in office, as in the danger of displacing a good one.
Perhaps the great danger, as has been observed, of abuse in the executive power, lies in the improper continuance of bad men in office. But the power we contend for will not enable him to do this; for if an unworthy man be continued in office by an unworthy president, the house of representatives can at any time impeach him, and the senate can remove him, whether the president chuses or not.
The danger then consists merely in this, the president can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the motives which the president can feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the first place, he will be impeachable by this house, before the senate, for such an act of mal-administration; for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust.
But what can be his motives for displacing a worthy man? It must be that he may fill the place with an unworthy creature of his own. Can he accomplish this end? No; he can place no man in the vacancy whom the senate shall not approve; and if he could fill the vacancy with the man he might chuse, I am sure he would have little inducement to make an improper removal.
Let us consider the consequences. The injured man will be supported by the popular opinion; the community will take side with him against the president; it will facilitate those combinations, and give success to those exertions which will be pursued to prevent his re-election. To displace a man of high merit, and who from his station may be supposed a man of extensive influence, are considerations which will excite serious reflections before hand in the mind of any man who may fill the presidential chair, the friends of those individuals, and the public sympathy will be against him.
If this should not produce his impeachment before the senate, it will amount to an impeachment before the community, who will have the power of punishment by refusing to re-elect him. But suppose this persecuted individual, cannot obtain revenge in this mode, there are other modes in which he could make the situation of the president very inconvenient, if you suppose him resolutely bent on executing the dictates of resentment. If he had not influence enough to direct the vengeance of the whole community, he may probably be able to obtain an appointment in one or other branch of the legislature; and being a man of weight, talents and influence in either case, he may prove to the president troublesome indeed.
We have seen examples in the history of other nations, which justifies the remark I now have made, though the prerogatives of the British king are great as his rank, and it is unquestionably known that he has a positive influence over both branches of the legislative body, yet there have been examples in which the appointment and removal of ministers has been found to be dictated by one or other of those branches.
Now if this is the case with an hereditary monarch, possessed of those high prerogatives and furnished with so many means of influence; can we suppose a president elected for four years only dependent upon the popular voice impeachable by the legislature? little if at all distinguished for wealth, personal talents, or influence from the head of the department himself; I say, will he bid defiance to all these considerations, and wantonly dismiss a meritorious and virtuous officer? Such abuse of power exceeds my conception: If any thing takes place in the ordinary course of business of this kind, my imagination cannot extend to it on any rational principle.
But let us not consider the question on one side only, there are dangers to be contemplated on the other. Vest this power in the senate jointly with the president, and you abolish at once that great principle of unity and responsibility in the executive department, which was intended for the security of liberty and the public good. If the president should possess alone the power of removal from office, those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; the lowest officers, the middle grade, and the highest, will depend, as they ought, on the president, and the president on the community. The chain of dependence therefore terminates in the supreme body, namely, in the people; who will possess besides, in aid of their original power, the decisive engine of impeachment.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Madison yielded the floor to Mr. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, who argued against impeaching a President for firing an honorable man. “It is said that the president will be subject to an impeachment for dismissing a good man,” Gerry noted. “This in my mind involves an absurdity.”
Gerry then went on to build a case that no President would do such a thing, because his new appointment would also be subject to confirmation by the Senate. When the Senate considered the new appointment, it would be able to ask what had happened to the last person, thus bringing accountability of the President into the picture.
Mr. Gerry, of course, had not foreseen a day when a certain Senator Specter would be forced by ideologues in the White House to hire a right-wing operative. He never imagined such an operative could then slip into law over Senator Specter’s name (but, according to the good Senator, without his knowledge) a change in the Constitutional requirement of Senate confirmation of presidential appointments to the position of federal prosecutors known as US Attorneys. And Congressman Gerry (after whom Gerrymandering would later be named - no saint himself) would, no doubt, have been boggled at the idea that that same operative would then would himself end up as a federal prosecutor.
Madison was prescient. The remedy for this High Crime against American democracy is impeachment.
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are “The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight,” “Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights,” “We The People: A Call To Take Back America,” The Edison Gene, and “What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return To Democracy.”
James Madison was indeed a prescient individual who was able to look at complex issues and arguments from every immagnable angle. He possessed a great knowledge of history and he knew full well that times change but human nature does not. And so he and others produced a truly remarkable, living document to define our form of government. Thank you for reproducing his speech on this day so long ago.
The constitution is the guide we are all obliged to turn to and use to clarify just what is and isn’t permitted in this great republic. And it is very clear that our 43rd president, vice-president, and other high officers are to be impeached. Their crimes are numerous - too numerous. For the life of me I can’t understand how all (or almost all) of our elected representatives haven’t begun impeachment proceedings years ago.
It is clear that it is now up to we the people to force the issue and end this travesty. We have the right and the power to do so. It’s in the constitution and we need more than just a few states and cities to make it happen. Our elected leaders have failed to uphold the constitution they swore to defend against enemies both foriegn and domestic. The people in government serve at our pleasure and not the pleasure of powerful lobbies which don’t represent the people.
Impeach the criminals who have disgraced this once great land. To not do so is treason.
Just one more reason. The time is now.The county bleeds. The only way to start the healing process that will take decades, is to convict this adminastration for the crimes they have comitted on the American and Iraqi people and remove these capitalist thugs from office. UNITE!
This history lesson provides several insights. First, there is currently no person in the federal government with Madison’s virtue and intelligence; there are probably only a handful in the whole country. Second, only the handful of legislators pursuing impeachment are upholding their oath of office; the remainder by not acting have committed a felony by lying to congress and the people by refusing to comply with their oath; thus, we have the enormity of congress being run by felons–and not for the first time. Third, congress by not impeaching Bush and Cheney, primarily, is providing them with a de facto pardon for the crimes against humanity they’ve committed, thus perpetuating the doctrine of presidential impunity established during the Reagan administration. Fourth, those justices of the Supreme Court that installed the current abomination also deserve impeachment.
Will congress reverse its felonious behavior and impeach? I doubt it very much. As in the movie Star Wars, the Empire has murdered the Republic.
Sorry but I’m not impressed. Clinton did the same thing of firing judges would we really have wanted Clinton’s impeachment to have been successful over that issue? Let’s keep our focus on Bush’s immoral war of aggression, and blatant violations of the Bill of Rights with illegal wiretaps and suspension of habeas corpus. Those are issues worth pursuing impeachment over, and impeachment of Cheney first I’d add.
Hi Crow,
It’s been pretty well documented that the Clinton administration essentially perpetuated the policy direction of Reagan/Bush, all three of whom should have been impeached and removed. We have had criminal government for over a generation now (I would argue the time period is much longer) to which the citizenry is inured and increasing the level of cynicism. At this point, regaining citizen control over the federal government would amount to a revolution and a needed reversal of direction. If that is the goal, we must use whatever tools are at hand.
Stop dreaming, folks. No one in Washington D.C. is capable of or interested in bringing up the subject of impeachment, much less carrying it out. We lost the battle in 2000. No one cares. No one cares.
Everyone keeps talking about the issue of impeachment. No new violations are needed. Make no mistake about it, Bush could be impeached tomorrow, all it takes are politicians with the will to do it.
Bush violated the 1978 FISA act, and in so doing violated the 4th amendment to the Constitution. He has admitted to the violation in public and a record of that admission is available.
Get on with it and do it instead of talking it to death.
Quit the talk, talk, talk, and act, act, act.
Lobo Gris
Hartmann’s essays are always worth reading closely, in particular when he is writing about Constitutional matters and the mind-set and understanding of its framers.
“Impeach” is really not all that hard to either spell or pronounce. But jail time for both of those bozos at the top of the food chain is what we really need.
Do we really want Cheney as President while giving them the ability to put a potential presidential candidate and successor in as Vice President?
I prefer Congressional oversight. Keep Bush in office and spend time shining light on their failures and corruption. With this strtegy, we can make 2008 a complete impeachment of the entire Bush Administration and their supporters.
So, how many talking points on impeachment are needed, 5? What are the 5 main talking points? If a Congressional Rep. can, at the height of the Neocon juggernaut, recite practically word for word on the evening news what Neocon spokesperson Bush said on the noon broadcast, can Progressives and true American Democrats and Republicans come up with one shared set of emotionally charged talking points to spread out to and engage the general public with?
In response to Nathan’s comment, yes we would rather have Cheney. It isn’t about Bush. Just like Madison was thinking, it’s about the future. Cheney will be fully aware his predecessor was removed. So will all his successors. If impeachment isn’t at least tried, future presidents will have to be even worse than Bush before they can face impeachment. Without the warning of the removal of Bush, or at least Gonzales, they may merely get better at hiding the politicization of functions that should be above politics.
This is BS! What a side show! The entire Bush oligarchy should be brought down on charges of war crimes! PurgeGate? Impeachment and a pardon will not wash the blood and shame this tyranny has rained down upon us!
Impeachment is a MUST no matter what for all of the reasons in all of the posts here. Furthermore, during the impeachment of Bush, everyone else in this corrupt and evil administration will fall with him. The evidence will be overwhelming. No more waiting! No more stratigizing and triangulting! No more lives lost while the Congress dithers on and on to the next election! IMPEACH NOW!
P.S. We can run the War Crimes trials at the same time that Impeachment proceedings are going on. Great idea Zeit…
I’m with you all, but gsemsel has his/her finger on the reality pulse. Impeachment will not happen because our politicians will first protect their own 2008 intentions.
Our only opportunity is to replace all Reps/Dems in 2008 with Independents, or if we cannot wait, General Strike. Only a revolution can bring change.
The only impeachable thing Bush hasn’t done is lie about a BJ. He has (along with his politburo)abused the office in ways that make Nixon’s crimes miniscule. In fact, Ford’s pardon of Nixon, in light of the crimes this administration has committed, seems not only reasonable but morally justified. Convicting this bunch of profiteers might be the only way we Americans can cleanse our collective souls.
I have come to believe that there may be a dime’s worth of difference between the Rethuglicans and the Democrats, but there isn’t a dollar’s worth. I think a majority of those who voted Democratic in the last election voted to impeach the bastards and get the hell out of Iraq ASAP. The Democratic leadership has effectively taken both of those goals off the table.
I fear that there is at least a 50-50 chance that there will either be no election in November 2008, or if the results do not go the GOP’s way Bush will gin up an excuse to either negate the election or declare Martial Law or both. A plurality of Americans believe that there was involvement of this administration at some level in the events of September 11, 2001, and I think those are good instincts. I think that there is a high probability of some kind of “crisis” or “attack” on the U. S., or our interests that will give Bush the opportunity to hold onto the power they worked so hard to steal.
It’s time to throw the money changers out of the temple. Flood the offices of your senators, congressman, and speaker of the house with one word over and over again: IMPEACH !!!!!!!!
karlof1 says “At this point, regaining citizen control over the federal government would amount to a revolution and a needed reversal of direction. If that is the goal, we must use whatever tools are at hand.”
and i says - Right!
US Constitution is a piece of document which provides guidelines pertaining to ways and means of governance or management of the affairs of our representative democracy. Common law of human group interactions dictates self-interest, even in a representative democracy such as our; thus to insulate “elected officials” from undue outside pressures and influences. The Judiciary branch of the US government by strictest prescription of the law is decreed to remain independent from social and political pressures.
Like the rest of the nation judges who are political appointees are guaranteed first amendment rights. But, their political views and preferences based on party affiliation or not, may not render assistance to the affairs of arbitration. For it may be in contrast to the doctrine of judicial fairness based on applicability of the law. In matters of arbitration, judges examine evidences, and rule based on merit of the case according to the established law. An obvious matter to all, such exercise exists to ensure fairness in dispensation of justice to all based on stare decisis.
To doubly ensure judicial independence, life-time bench appointments, and near to adequate salaries are meant to free judges from apprehension of loosing their means of sustenance, thus giving into social and political pressures. What the office of the President chose to ignore is that judges by prescription are independent bodies, not the hand-fed puppies. Meddling with the independence of the judiciary branch is denial of justice to all. Let us keep judiciary independence by our side lest reversion to the rule of tyranny. Mary Dean
So…who will call this General Strike? The word would have to be spread across all 50 States. I am afraid there aren’t even 50,000 people who would pay enough attention to such a call…
#
lover of peace March 28th, 2007 12:43 am
“So…who will call this General Strike? The word would have to be spread across all 50 States. I am afraid there aren’t even 50,000 people who would pay enough attention to such a call…”
What might have legs is to organize a sick out. Have everyone who supports impeaching the tyrant in the white House call in sick for one day, the same day for all.
Who is willing to give just one day to save the country?
Lobo Gris
The whole gist of this excerpt from the federal register is that Madison thought it was unlikely for the president to ever be of such bad character that he would fire fed officers for political purposes. Part way down, some of the plain text (not bold) makes for interesting reading:
“But when I consider the checks under which he lies in the exercise of this power, I own to you I feel no apprehensions but what arise from the dangers incidental to the power itself; for dangers will be incidental to it, vest it where you please. I will not reiterate what was said before with respect to the mode of election, and the extreme improbability that any citizen will be selected from the mass of citizens who is not highly distinguished by his abilities and worth; in this alone we have no small security for the faithful exercise of this power.”
Clearly, Madison never imagined a W. In fact his whole speech turns on his naïve (for today) assumption that the President would never do such a thing. This may, in fact, be the origin of the naivete that brought us George Bush. Almost as a an exercise in improbable futility he continues in another plain section:
“But what can be his motives for displacing a worthy man? It must be that he may fill the place with an unworthy creature of his own. Can he accomplish this end? No; he can place no man in the vacancy whom the senate shall not approve; and if he could fill the vacancy with the man he might chuse, I am sure he would have little inducement to make an improper removal.”
Actually, yes he can, as the article indicates, when the Patriot Act said he could. Again, clearly Madison never conceived a George W Bush. The man that is W was not even an ontological possibility in 1789. Little inducement for improper removal? Madison is assuming the worthy man was removed for a worthy reason. It’s almost like he can’t imagine a removal for base political reasons.
“Let us consider the consequences. The injured man will be supported by the popular opinion;”
True.
“To displace a man of high merit, and who from his station may be supposed a man of extensive influence, are considerations which will excite serious reflections before hand in the mind of any man who may fill the presidential chair.”
Again, he didn’t imagine dubya.
“If this should not produce his impeachment before the senate, it will amount to an impeachment before the community, who will have the power of punishment by refusing to re-elect him.”
Written before the two-term limit. But Madison could not have known how much damage a president can now do in 4 years.
“But suppose this persecuted individual, cannot obtain revenge in this mode, there are other modes in which he could make the situation of the president very inconvenient.”
Not when you have Karl Rove working for you.
“If any thing takes place in the ordinary course of business of this kind, my imagination cannot extend to it on any rational principle.”
Bingo, and bingo again.
This is all great, but what Mr. Hartmann isn’t saying is that Madison never intended this to be a contingency. He was making a case FOR executive firing privilege, never once thinking it was conceivable that a president would act dishonorably.
However male-centered and chauvinistic it sounds, the founding fathers really were geniuses, but you can’t expect crystal-ball infallibility. They were worldly creatures, not Nostradamus.
It’s almost like those labels on electrical appliances: If you go tinkering with them the manufacturer isn’t responsible for your safety, and you void the warranty. Well, we’ve voided the warranty on the Constitution of the United States of America.
That’s right kids, we’re on our own.
But cheer up, this only strengthens the case for impeachment.
Apologies for the length of this post.
It would seem that the idea of Impeachment as something to be taken seriously is getting into the mainstream.
Last night Wolf Blitzer brought up the subject without a smile on his face as a question posed to a representative, as to worthier or not it should be pursued.
Crow: Clinton did not do the same thing. All 93 attorneys submitted their prepared resignations when Clinton took office (this is an ordinary procedure for all appointed officials at every changing of administrations).
Clinton only accepted ONE of those 93 resignations, retaining the other 92. Clinton did NOT dismiss any attorneys for political reasons.
I’m not defending Clinton (who lied to a grand jury, unlike Bush who lies to Congress about everything). I’m just clearing up a misconception regarding attorney firings that the right-wing has tried to perpetuate in order to give cover to their crime boss Bush.
There are many reasons to impeach Bush (and Cheney and Gonzales). All of them should be added to articles of impeachment which should be brought forth and prosecuted.
The remedy for this High Crime against American democracy is impeachment.
I just read something about how much corporations have been Marking Up The Reconstruction.
It’s just so frustrating!
That title was supposed to linked so others could read about how they have been overcharging. Here is the link if it will let me input it:
http://coanews.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=1764
This is a real good topic. The weakest argument against any crime is that “he did it first”. Referring to Clinton and his firings causes us to continue a backwards march through Presidential history which is totally a waste of time. We must now operate in the present moment since this is where we are today. Clinton could have been impeached for firing the US attorneys, but he was not the first, and not the person in office today. The reality is that this Congress, the Supreme Court and the Executive branch ALL deserve prison sentences at least. Remember the penalty for treason is still death by hanging. The law has never been changed. The Supreme Court ruled in Gore v. Bush in 2000 that their ruling on the case could not be used as precedent. That action alone makes the case defunct since the Constitutional authority and purpose of the Supreme is to set legal precedent. It is the first and so far only case to have such a condition. Also in the ruling was the legally accurate statement that Florida citizens do not have the right to vote for Presidential Electors; the Electoral College. So the FL State Legislature would have had legal grounds for holding an emergency session to determine who would win that States Electoral votes. this is why Gore allowed the Supreme Court to overstep its Constitutional authority. FL was going to Bush legally no matter what happened. The Legislator was majority Republican. Another significant Supremem Court case in 2000 was Mineta v.Alexander. Basically Alexander sued the US government for failing to honor taxation with representation. DC citizens have no elected representation in Congress that can vote on the House or Senate floor. The ruling was that the Constitution does not guarantee a citizens right to taxation with representation. This was before Judges Alito and Roberts were confirmed. Then in 2002 the Congress ceded its own authority to declare war to the President in the Iraq War bill. All who voted for it committed Treason. So with all 3 branches of government now operating outside of the Constititution we can fall back to our Declaration of Independence and use the clause “when the government no longer follows the will the people” it must be replaced by the citizenry. It is our duty to remove all these criminals from power legally or otherwise or we shall suffer the consequences - tyranny. How does tyranny feel so far? Don’t try to blame one party or the other either since the reality is that all our elections are paid for by the same K street lobby groups run by the same corporations. Republicans are no longer small govt Big business, Democratsd are no longer Big govt and the little guy, both have become BIG govt and BIG business. A collapse is emminent unless we take it all back from the felons in power now.
“At this point, regaining citizen control over the federal government would amount to a revolution and a needed reversal of direction. If that is the goal, we must use whatever tools are at hand.”
Yes karlof1, I’m afraid this is where we find ourselves. I think all rational people see this once they’ve run out of all other solutions. Well, we’ve run out of all other solutions.
Let the “needed reversal” start right here…right now.
Finally…gsemsel - if no one cared, I wouldn’t be writing this and you wouldn’t be reading this.
Excellent post iammyself!! The revolution will not be televised and is ongoing now… just the mere fact we are all posting our thoughts online without fear of prosecution should let you all know that change is already in progress. Witness the unravelling of the current rogue regime in office now.
Reg; Chuck Cliff…
“Impeach” is really not all that hard to either spell or pronounce. But jail time for both of those bozos at the top of the food chain is what we really need”.
Impeachment and Jail Time are not enough for Bush and his Cabal. I will donate the Timbers and Construct the Scaffolds to hang the whole bunch from the Capital Steps. I’m sure that I have the support of 100.000+ DEAD …IRAQ’S and their families for this Just Punishment for this Bunch (And I don’t believe in Capital Punishment).
Return Government to the People… NOW!!!……… A KNESAL
IMPEACH NOW!!! But while your working on trying to make that a reality, let’s all start working on fixing the system that got these corrupt and evil monsters in office in the first place. If we don’t do this it is just bound to happen again!
Until there is election and campaign finance reform, the votes of the people will not matter and we will NEVER have truely representative government. We will just keep getting candidates that represent the monied interests and the industrial/military complex. There is a huge amount of legislation already being presented, debated or passed to reach these ends in both the States and the in Congress.
Senators Durbin (D) and Spector (R) have filed the “Fair Elections Act Now” This legislation would let candidates run on their ideas, not how much money they can raise. Candidates would qualify for public financing by raising small donations from enough voters to show they have real grassroots support. If their opponent opts for private fundraising, publicly financed candidates would receive extra funds to match dollar for dollar. The money for the Fair Elections system would be raised by charging a new fee to big media companies. Media companies use the public airwaves to make huge profits from political ads every election season. Go to commoncause.org and moveon.org and sign their petitions. The write your representatives in Congress. Tell ALL your friends to sign. We might even be able to get this bill enacted before the next election cycle.
And when your done with that, go on over to fairvote.org and nationalpopularvote.com and get active with all of your current representatives in Congress and your State legislatures and make true election reform happen. Currently 47 States have signed on to the “Interstate Compact for Agreement Among States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote” which would eliminate the Electoral College and another debacle like Florida or Ohio. Many States have already passed the legislation needed. In Oregon we are having our first public hearing today.
Okay. So now you have helped on campaign finance reform and getting rid of the Electoral College. NOW, march yourself out there and get Instant Run off Voting (IRV) off the ground. IRV makes the whole “spoiler” concept go away and also gives third parties and independents a shot at being elected. Lots of activity here as well on the State level.
Now, when your done with that, move on to promoting “Open Primaries” in your State. This would mean that we could have any combination of parties and candidates on any ticket. This would enable us to actually vote for the individual canditate instead of just a party platform. What a concept.
So, you want change? You want to help systemically fix our broken system? Don’t ever want to see the likes of Bush et. al. in public office ever again? GO!!! Get to it!
Raise hell! Make your voice heard! LOUDER!! And don’t forget to have a good laugh every day.
Regard; Rebel Farmer and “IMPEACH NOW!!!”
“So, you want change? You want to help systemically fix our broken system? Don’t ever want to see the likes of Bush et. al. in public office ever again? GO!!! Get to it!”
…………………………………………………………..
Trouble is that very few are getting to it and were up against Lying Liars and their Lies, a Passive Citizenry, a Meek Press and Congress, and Corporate Money. We have our work cut out for us and we can’t give in, to much is a Stake.
It’s amazing to me how many People who are against Bush and the War believe some of the Lies and Spin puked by this Administration and their Operatives. We need to hit the Streets more enmasse and Write our Newspapers and Representative OFTEN!
From “Little Beirut” ……… A KNESAL
A KNESAL
Don’t give up! It really is happening! WE ARE GOING TO OVERCOME!
Hang in people!
Rebel Farmer March 28th, 2007 11:34 pm
“A KNESAL
Don’t give up! It really is happening! WE ARE GOING TO OVERCOME!
Hang in people!”
I’m with you Rebel Farmer! We will overcome!
Thank you, Thom Hartmann. Madison saw clearly and he saw well. Why can’t we? Impeachment must happen. My own most recent argument for it, “Note to U.S.: Impeach or Die,” is at http://www.ericlarsen.net/foodforthought9.1.0.2007.html
The emergency is greater than I ever thought it might become. The very republic lies in the balance, not to mention stability of the world. And time is running out.
Eric Larsen
http://www.ericlarsen.net
Pelosi needs to be tarred and feathered. How DARE she use extortion on Congressmen to force them to defy the people’s Will?
…and equally: how dare THEY obey her instead of the Constituents they are SWORN to represent? We WANT and NEED impeachment!
The pathetic excuses Pelosi makes for NOT impeaching are enough to gag a maggot.
“Impeachment would be too divisive” DU-uh! “We can’t afford to distract from the ‘08 election” CRAPP on cornbread!
If we continue to allow Bush to be “the Decider” in the White House and Pelosi to be “the Decider” in Congress… what the HELL are we giving all our tax money to the rest of them for?
….who in HELL will vote for Dems who defy the Will of the People?
Isn’t it time for ALL of us to QUIT BOTH Partys ?? (the two heads of the same snake)
Read “Rep. Danny Davis to Constituents: Make Me Impeach Bush” - Mr Lindorff’s article today pretty much describes the twisted thinking that puts Congressmens “Party-Loyalty” ahead of their SWORN duty. (and let’s be clear about the meaning of ‘Party Loyalty’ = that means they place their personal career advancement & oportunities for committees ABOVE their duty to represent We The people.
Here is a list of the TURNCOATS who DEFRAUDED the Voters in order to get our votes last Novenmber:
As of November 2006, the bill had the following 38 co-sponsors (with
sponsorship date)
THIRTY EIGHT !
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) - 1/31/2006
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) - 1/31/2006
Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) - 12/22/2005
Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.) - 3/9/2006
Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) - 1/31/2006
Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) - 3/30/2006
Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) - 2/7/2006
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) - 4/27/2006
Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.) - 3/30/2006
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) - 2/7/2006
Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif) - 2/8/2006
Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) - 4/27/2006
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) - 12/22/2005
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) - 2/1/2006
Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) - 2/7/2006
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) - 2/7/2006
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) - 3/14/2006
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) - 1/31/2006
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) - 2/7/2006
Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) - 2/14/2006
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) - 1/31/2006
Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.) - 2/1/2006
Rep. John Olver (D-Mass.) - 2/16/2006
Rep. Major Owens (D-N.Y.) - 1/31/2006
Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.) - 12/22/2005
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) - 12/22/2005
Rep. Steven Rothman (D-N.J.) - 9/6/2006
Rep. Martin Sabo (D-Minn.) - 3/2/2006
Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) - 3/9/2006
Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.) - 1/31/2006
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) - 1/31/2006
Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) - 2/16/2006
Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) - 2/14/2006
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - 12/22/2005
Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) - 11/14/2006
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) - 12/22/2005
Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.) - 3/14/2006
Additionally, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) co-sponsored the legislation
on December 22, 2005, but withdrew on January 31, 2006.
AFTER THE ELECTION EVERY ONE OF THEM (INCLUDING cONYERS HIMSELF) RENIGED!!
IF YOU LIVE IN THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ANY OF THEM - PPLEASE CALL THEM AND LET THEM KNOW THAT WE WILL BE WORKING HARDER THAN EVER TO REPLACE THEM WHEN THEY COME UP AGAIN!!
Get Serious, folks! http://pledgetoimpeach.org
It’s always refreshing to be reminded how such a brilliant mind and balanced perspective could lay out the rules of a republic that has and lasted and prospered so long.
As for Pizzed, “we the people” haven’t agreed with you entirely yet:
http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-polls
What was the outcome of this debate? Did it produce legislation that can actually be used to bring Articles of Impeachment against President Bush?