At the Heart of Who We Are As a People
Suppose you hire a person to check groceries but, instead of doing so, he tells customers to put their items back on the shelves. Do you fire him? Of course you do.
Now suppose we hire a president whose constitutional job description is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Instead, he issues more than a thousand signing statements saying, in effect, he’s not going to execute parts of the very laws he has signed. Do we fire him? Of course we do.
Impeachment is not a political issue. It’s a constitutional issue. The U.S. Constitution describes impeachment more fully and carefully than practically any other power delegated to Congress. Impeachment is mentioned six times in the Constitution as the remedy for any misbehavior of our high officials. Yes, President Clinton’s impeachment was a political circus, but impeachment of President Bush is necessary to maintain our government’s separation of powers, our checks and balances, our Constitution’s integrity.
While The Oregonian’s recent editorial (”The emptiness of impeachment,” Sept. 29) opined that impeachment would be “pointless,” my view is that it is essential because, after all, the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.” What could be more important than preserving the rule of law? It is the bedrock of our democratic society.
Let me give you an example of a signing statement, this one issued on March 9, 2006, when Bush signed the renewal of the USA Patriot Act. Part of the signing statement says: “The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . which could impair the deliberate process of the executive.” In other words, Congress cannot expect the reports of FBI activities that the law requires. Not only will President Bush not enforce the law, but he also has told Congress to pound sand.
As The Oregonian points out, Congress has “waived its own oversight responsibilities.” But just because Congress is weak-kneed doesn’t mean that we ought not to require it to execute its constitutional duties — for the House to impeach and the Senate to try President Bush on the basis of his refusal to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
There may not be much time left. There may not be much political will among our elected representatives. But this issue goes to the very heart of who we are as a people. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are nothing.
President Bush has taken the oath of office prescribed for him in the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Instead, he has engaged in a concerted course of constitutional vandalism.
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
John Frohnmayer, a Corvallis lawyer and former head of the National Endowment for the Arts, is running as an Independent Party candidate for the U.S. Senate.
Republicans impeached Clinton to try to discredit a Democrat, and by extension, discredit all things that are “liberal”. Monica was convenient for them, but the goal (as always) was to try to restore conservatives to power for reasons of money and corporations.
The goal of a Bush/Cheney impeachment, if one was to occur, would be to restore respect for the Constitution.
It is a more noble cause, but lacking enough true liberals in Congress to succeed. Not all Democrats are liberals, even though we wish they were. And all Democrats, though we wish they weren’t, are dependent upon a certain amount of support from corporations in order to be in office. To win impeachment, every last Democrat in the Senate would have to vote for it. And some would, but some wouldn’t. Too bad, but still a reality.
Thank you, Mr. Frohnmayer. You make the case for impeachment superbly. And thank you also for running for the Senate on the Independent Party ticket. As far as I’m concerned, the more candidates and the more parties involved in politics the better.
It’s too bad the Democrats don’t get your message. We can only speculate on their reasons for refusing to even attempt impeachment (or ending the war, as they could do), but the reasons they give are blatantly false. Since they are politicians, we can only deduce that they see political advantage in keeping Bush in office and the war going until the elections next year.
For the same reason, it’s a wonder there aren’t more Republicans doing as you have done (non-Oregonians may not know that you are historically a Republican) and calling for impeachment for their own self-protection. They have a dead, stinking albatross hung around their necks, and they must be secretly eager to have it removed. If anyone is spineless, they are. The Democrats, on the other hand, are staunchly standing up to intense pressure from their own constituents to keep Bush in office.
You know that duck on the TV commercial?
Just keep repeating “AIPAC”.
To understand the mind of a Democrat, look no further than the remarks of Daniel David, the first post in this thread. Every single sentence has an element of truth to it; yet every single sentence is drenched in euphemisms & feeble excuse-making. The Dems are “dependent upon a certain amount of support from corporations.” That’s a euphemism for “totally controlled by corporations.” Impeachment is “a …noble cause,” but can’t succeed because “Not all Democrats are liberals, even though we wish they were. That’s a euphemism for “The Democratic Party has utterly betrayed and abandoned what used to regarded as liberal principles.” To impeach, all Senate Dems would have to vote for it — “And some would, but some wouldn’t. Too bad, but still a reality.” That’s a euphemism for “None of the Democrats have the guts to impeach Bush, or to stand up to him in any way. Precisely ZERO Senate Dems are calling for impeachment; when ONE of them, Feingold, merely called for censure, he couldn’t get a single colleague to stand with him.”
Daniel David October 3rd, 2007 11:39 am
“To win impeachment, every last Democrat in the Senate would have to vote for it. And some would, but some wouldn’t. Too bad, but still a reality.”
The House is the one that impeaches and it only takes a simple majority to do so. If they do impeach the Senate has to conduct a trial, they have no choice in the matter. To convict it requires a 2/3 majority, 67 votes.
The bottom line is that the Dems can impeach, they have enough of a majority in the House to do so but they might not be able to get a conviction in the Senate.
Impeachment is still a winner for the Dems though. Once the people see the egregiousness of the charges, and the failure of the Republicans to support conviction, it would lose them votes and mabe seats in 2008.
Lobo Gris
Where the hell was I when the Office of the President of the United States became the “unitary executive branch?”
Search back and you will find that bush never, ever repeats his “oath” when explaining to us retarded children what “his job” is: “My job as Pres-dent is to pertect the ‘Mercan peeeple.”
“My job as Pres-dent is to sort of catapult the propaganda.”
“My job as Pres-dent is to protect the homeland.”
Not once has he ever said: “My job as Pres-dent is to pertect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.” Or any such variation. What’s that tell y’all?
As my Democratic representative states ‘until I am convinced of guilt of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, I will NOT vote to impeach.’ Interesting that all of Pelosi’s lackeys state it exactly the same way.
‘Nuff said.
What would Colonel Walter E. Kurtz do.
RichM,
Indeed I am working on having “the mind of a Democrat.”
So I’m hanging out here with progressives to learn good ideas on how to be a better Democrat, not to secede from politics altogether as I hear some as much as saying they want to do.
Lobo Gris,
I stand corrected on the 2/3 vote needed to convict in the Senate. You’re right about that. To my way of thinking, though, that’s all the more not to waste time with it. Half or more of the evidence that ought to be presented against Bush is classified and would never see the light of day. As for Americans caring about his crimes, most already know and many don’t care. In an impeachment, they’d just want to see a “smackdown”, then be disappointed they didn’t get one and berate the liberals for losing. The impeachment we need is at the ballot box in 2008 with many Republicans gone from Congress and no Republican in the White House. Some are offended if I ask for a Democrat there, so I won’t. Just NO Republican.
“As for Americans caring about his crimes, most already know and many don’t care.”
I greatly disagree with this assertion as essentially zero discussion has taken place in the corporate media about them, which is where the great majority of Americans get their info. And compare this zero discussion with the 24/7 discussion of Clinton’s sexual transgression. I rest my case.
“Just NO Republican.” Would that include Hillary Clinton or other “Democrat” candidates with essentially Republican agendas, like Obamna?
curmudgeon,
“As my Democratic representative states ‘until I am convinced of guilt of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, I will NOT vote to impeach.’ Interesting that all of Pelosi’s lackeys state it exactly the same way.”
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, that’s nearly the same wording from my Dem rep, but his said “I would be glad to vote for impeachment the moment we have any evidence that they’ve been committed.”
These people must eat breakfast with the-Holocaust-wasn’t-as-bad-as-reported bunch.
“So I’m hanging out here with progressives to learn good ideas on how to be a better Democrat, not to secede from politics altogether as I hear some as much as saying they want to do.”
The system in operation is not a “political system” at all, but a PR & advertisement system which has replaced political work and struggle altogether. What goes on in the House & Senate is only aimed at maintaining the appearance of democracy, but it’s substantively the sme as all the rest of the commercials produced by the same lot of people who advertise during the SuperBowl or Saturday cartoons or prime time.
Anyone running for any elected office in the U.S. government should have to pass an intense test on the Constitution. They should know it backwards and forwards and upside down. It is the foundation that upholds the government they are vying to become part of. Knowing the Constitution is Understanding the Constitution and understanding the Constitution is the key element to maintaining a stable and freely democratic state. I would suggest the Mr. Byrd monitor the test. He appears to be one of the few remaining old timers who still get exactly what the Constitution is all about.
I would love to see a bunch of Congressmen try to prove me wrong by proving that they do indeed understand the Constitution and will plan accordingly to uphold it. If it means impeachment is back on the table then by all means begin the procedure provided to implement it. It is all there in black and white. One only has to have the ability to read to start the process.
Bush should not be impeached. Even if successfully impeached he would only lose his job…and Cheney would take over! Both Bush and Cheney should be turned over to an international tribunal for a fair trial. Hugo Chevez could oversee the tribunal to ensure that it is fair. After a fair trial, such as was given to Saddam, then Bush and Cheney could be hanged. And the whole world would breath a sigh of relief.
“Either we are a nation of laws or we are nothing.”
Define nothing. Perhaps we should start considering what exactly we would be if we do become ‘a nation without laws’.
Sadly we may become a nation of OTHER laws and ones we regret like the patriot act.
A signing statement may have had limited precedent but under Bush they have become standard practice. Bush uses them as royal edicts and decrees. Congress may write a law but like an autocrat, Bush the decider, decides whether or not HE will ALLOW it to have validity.
At the heart of who we are as a people … an as yet undefined fear chills our collective soul. We become afraid that we are not who we thought we were. Something should have been done long ago before it all got this bad and we all sense that is true. But nothing was done and it is THAT which chills to the bone. Like a man who had never been called to be brave and spent his life believing in his own bravery until one day when confronted by a dire challenge… he realized that when it counted that he was not brave at all.
We are afraid to find out that we are not the land of the free and the brave. That would take courage to face that and we are afraid to KNOW that we are … afraid.
So we do nothing, rather than face the intolerable notion that we are actually afraid to do stand up for our rights. So we do nothing rather than face that we aren’t really who we thought we were. Right now we sense with great unease that it will be up to us and despite all the bluster and boasting of our love of freedom, there is a fear growing in our hearts that we never really loved freedom all that much. At least not enough to defend it.
We do love freedom as long as it is free. If it costs us nothing personally to have it. It is oft mentioned that the cost of freedom is paid in blood. Sometimes it indeed has been that way, like during the American Revolution blood was shed to acquire freedom but that is the extreme.
When you have freedom what is the cost to preserve it? When there is no need for blood but a need for courage just the same. A need to make an effort to preserve and defend our constitution without blood but at increasing cost nonetheless. As those costs become more onerous, we find sadly, that we are not so brave. Some don’t want trouble, some don’t want to bother and some don’t want to have to face that they remain deluded by the illusion that they are still brave.
But the ones who are afraid most of all, are those who say - So what if we lose some freedoms, we have too much. To paraphrase a famous quote… The only fear we need be afraid of …is that of us becoming afraid of our own freedoms.
Those who are afraid of their own freedom will not be the ones to defend it.
We are afraid to face that we may have to do something ourselves to preserve our own freedoms… and we are afraid of that.
Forget impeachment! The Dimocrats do not have an attack dog like Tom Delay, so it is not going to happen, even though this is the most lawbreaking president in the country`s history. Better to concentrate on things that are possible to accomplish such as never letting the electorate forget his veto of the childrens health care bill. That from Mr Right to Life!! Now watch him blow another 200 billion over in Iraq.
Bravo Mr. Frohnmayer, very eloquent and painlessly concise.
And Bugs, you are on to something as well.
I am tired of knowing exactly the nature of the disease, but seeing few who will help, and have the courage to be free.
Those of us writing here are in the minority.
I never thought I would live during times like these. I thought we were “beyond this.” I thought we would not repeat errors of the past, like preventive wars and power mad executives. These times are the times that come BEFORE the times that try men’s souls. Power grabs unchecked, as we are now witnessing, with the acquiescence of a lulled population and a stupidly calculating and fearful Congress, can only lead to corrupt power absolutely played out in ugly fashion. In fact, it is our responsibility to see that these power addicts get the proper treatment, which impeachment would bring forward.
It is true that if all Democrats would vote for impeachment we would be able to see the ugly horror that this government has probably become.
It is also true that if several people or groups who can catalyze changes toward impeachment, who work in government, would do so, the icebergs would crash into the ocean. The fate of democracy literally rests in their skilled, deft, and discreet hands. (I am thinking of the potential Daniel Ellsbergs of today).
And it is equally true that some members of Congress know just how horrible the truth really is, how filthy and wretched is the long-term mess we are in, and are afeared for their country, for the future, and for themselves. And thus, they choose by default in their office to do nothing, to hide behind the publicly acceptable facade held up by the mainstream media which lets them get away with saying “we don’t have enough votes” etc.
Here’s the rub: If there is no impeachment and exposure of crimes in a legal forum, then whoever becomes president (and it will surely be a “Democrat”)will have as his or her heritage the holding of an office that was corrupted and never brought to account; which means that the office will remain corrupted. And we all know this.
People, get creative. I’m sure there is a non-violent way to solve this thing — as that is the only way anything will ever get solved. Put your thinking caps on.
Daniel David October 3rd, 2007 5:47 pm
“To my way of thinking, though, that’s all the more not to waste time with it. Half or more of the evidence that ought to be presented against Bush is classified and would never see the light of day.”
Sorry, but you’re wrong again. Only one charge has to be filed to impeach and a Federal court is already on record as ruling that Bush broke the 1978 FISA law and violated the 4th Amendment when he repeatedly reauthorized the NSA spy program.
“As for Americans caring about his crimes, most already know and many don’t care. In an impeachment, they’d just want to see a “smackdown”, then be disappointed they didn’t get one and berate the liberals for losing.”
I don’t know of any American that wouldn’t be pissed off if they knew that they had been spied on by the Government. An impeachment trial would be very public and bring that fact front and center to the TV set of millions. As for them blaming the Dems for losing, I think it much more likely that they would condemn the Repubs for refusing to convict, if they did refuse.
Lobo Gris
“Those of us writing here are in the minority.”
Revolutionaries are always in the minority. The quesiton is whether we live up to the demand of revolution or whether we’re content with reformism, which leaves fundamental injustices untouched.
Who actually believes that G-dub has even read the Constitution?