A Walking Call to Impeach Bush Arrives in the East Village
John Nirenberg would walk 500 miles. And it sounds like he would walk 500 more. But unlike the persistent pop tune by The Proclaimers, he refuses to be the man who falls down at Nancy Pelosi’s door.
Nirenberg, a hearty New York City native and current resident of Brattelboro, Vermont, intends to be standing when he reaches Washington, D.C. around January 10, at the conclusion of a scheduled 40-day walk that began in Boston on December 1. This fall, the 60-year-old professor of organizational behavior and Air Force veteran decided to traverse Route 1 on foot to implore House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to begin impeachment proceedings against President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
“It was about a whole collection of issues around the Constitution and the behavior of this administration,” explains Nirenberg, who finds that his sense of outrage and jogging background help him complete 15 miles per day. “Especially the torture issue, the spying, and an illegal war. All of this, at some point, was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I decided that I needed to do something different.”
In order to channel his frustration, Nirenberg founded the non-profit organization, March in My Name, where his trek can be followed on the Web site, www.marchinmyname.org
He hopes also that by collecting photos, testimonials and petition signatures, he can show Speaker Pelosi that popular support exists for her, at the very least, to allow the House Judiciary Committee to open a hearing into the behavior of the Bush administration.
Since she assumed office after the mid-term elections in 2006, Speaker Pelosi has continued to insist that the impeachment option is “off the table.” Her position disappoints people like Nirenberg who had anticipated a more aggressive outcome from the Democratic majority in Congress. For example, they note with suspicion the change in House Committee Chairman John Conyers, an acknowledged proponent of executive accountability who appeared possibly bullish on impeachment in early 2006. Now in his new role, he cites a lack of votes and refers to the disruptive potential of the process.
“The Speaker is certainly aware of the frustration a lot of Americans feel about the conduct of this war,” said Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson. “But she believes that impeachment would be a distraction to the priorities of this Congress.” He declined to speculate whether the Speaker would meet with Nirenberg, who sent a certified letter recently to request an appointment.
Impeachment advocates, on the other hand, ask what could be more important for Congress to undertake than an investigation into the possibility that “high crimes and misdemeanors” have been committed in violation of the Constitution. They argue that uncensored abuses of executive power and subversion of the rule of law would hold dramatic consequences for the remainder of the Bush administration, and the future of the presidency.
Nearly 80 such supporters gathered at an evening rally for Nirenberg at St. Mark’s Church in-the-Bowery in late December, when he arrived after beginning his day’ journey in Harlem that morning.
“This problem is not solved by the next election,” declared speaker Liz Holtzman, who served on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 during the impeachment hearings on the activities of President Richard Nixon. “Because what is the message? It’s like saying, ‘This murderer, he’s going to die. Why do we have to go through the trouble of bringing him to justice?’”
Duty to future generations aside, immediate concerns about the election next year likely calculate into the decision of House leaders not to pursue impeachment. Democrats may fear that Republicans in the minority would attempt to portray them as obstructionist and politicized, which is precisely how Democrats painted Republicans when they proceeded with the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998 on the grounds of perjury and obstruction of justice pertaining to the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Paula Jones lawsuit.
However, three Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee remain vocal in favor of the impeachment of Vice President Cheney. On November 7, the House voted to send a resolution concerning his impeachment to the committee. Last week, Representatives Tammy Baldwin, Luis Gutierrez, and Robert Wexler published an online op-ed calling for hearings to begin. Since December 14, more than 100,000 people have signed on to www.WexlerWantsHearings.com to tell Congress to proceed.
Nirenberg urges reluctant members of the House to stiffen their spines, and embrace an impeachment impulse that he feels is widespread.
“They have to believe that they may actually be hurt by inaction,” he observes. “That’s my mission - to help them have the courage to understand that holding on to their 11 percent approval rating, or whatever it is, is not a strategy that is going to work. They may lose the White House.”
In fact, a USA Today/Gallup Poll of 1,011 U.S. adults conducted via telephone from December 14-16 found that 30 percent of respondents approved of Congressional job performance. The findings verge on historic lows.
Nirenberg may walk well-worn liberal territory in the exactly 485 miles between Boston and Washington, D.C., but the former college dean still insists that, “The numbers are ridiculous. When people choose to let me know how they feel, whether it’s the thumbs down or finger, or thumbs up and a horn, it’s probably 95 to 5 in favor. It’s unbelievable.”
And so Nirenberg will walk to relay that message to Speaker Pelosi, in the hope that she and her colleagues will act. “Without doing something,” he says, “this Congress is telling history, ‘We changed the Constitution.’”
To learn more about Nirenberg’s trip, or to offer support, visit his website.
To see a recent video, go here.
© 2007 The Village Voice
John Nirenberg is courageous for his effort. Begin impeachment proceedings against President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The sooner the better. War crimes trials to follow. Oh, what a day.
If impeachable offences have been committed by Bush and Cheney–and they clearly have, many times over–then Congress is OBLIGATED by the constitution to hold impeachment hearings. Pelosi’s refusal and the refusal of all but a very few in Congress to address the impeachment imperative makes them complicit in the Bush administration crimes and leads to the reality that we will soon face a serious crisis of legitimacy in two of the three branches of our federal government. The truth is that the government has gotten away from any real control by the sovereign American people, and therefore, down the road either we the people will stand up again or we will be enslaved by a fascist corporate system.
If Nirenberg is set to arrive in D.C. on 10 January, isn’t that about the same time as Rodriguez is to testify to the Judiciary Committee about the missing CIA videotapes?
Does Nirenberg know about the Rodriguez testimony? If he doesn’t, some person/s on his route should be educating him.
Could conditions possibly be conspiring with us now? I’m hopeful but not optimistic.
i’m not a citizen of the united states but i was inspired enough by this courageous man to donate money to his cause. good luck, john!
(now, the next time i fly to the US, will i be picked out for secondary inspection?)
I applaud and respect this man’s effort; however, I don’t think it will have ANY affect on the situation. Why? Because I have become jaded, cynical, and losing more hope everyday. Why?
We have a candidate in Dennis Kucinich who could, literally, turn this country around with his Presidency and, yet, he is blacked-out by the corporate media, dis-respected in “debates”, is not getting donations to allow him to decently compete with the money-grubbing corporate candidates because he REFUSES to be “owned” by them, and can’t even get those who call themselves TRUE PROGRESSIVES to lock on and push fearlessly for him.
The “system” has become more corrupt in the last seven years than I can remember in my 59 years with NO honest attempts (with few exceptions) to repair it from the “inside”. We, on the “outside” have no voice left it seems.
Anyway, I wish Mr. Nirenberg the very best of luck and commend him on his integrity, courage, and resolve. Had I been from the East, I would have seriously considered joining him; I’m surprised more haven’t.
Better World Links on the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/index.php?cat=3626
A central tool for information and change.
www.marchinmyname.org is his website. There’s also a You Tube video.
“We have a candidate in Dennis Kucinich who could, literally, turn this country around with his Presidency…”
I used to think this too. But then they stole the 2004 election in Ohio, in Cleveland there were 338,000 disenfranchised voters… and Kucinich has never mentioned this. Conyers (the phony piece of $#%^) had election fraud hearings, Kucinich didn’t show.
I’d love to hear why anyone anti-war American should support a man that helped to cover up the election fraud, enabling the evil bastards to continue their assault on the world.
IMHO, Kucinich is meant to lead the anti-war crowd… into obscurity.
may this man’s efforts bring popular attention to the cause. since when did impeachment have to become a cause before judiciary committee members would hold hearings? i like holtzman’s metaphor of not trying the murderer because someday he will die.
IMPEACH CHENEY! IMPEACH BUSH! HOLD HEARINGS ON THEIR LAWBREAKING!
as for kucinich leading antiwar crowds into obscurity, that image does not apply to instant runoff voting. you list your first three (or so) choices for an elected position. i’ll list mine for president: 1–kucinich 2–richardson 3–edwards. if your first choice does not reach a certain threshold (15% in the iowa caucuses), your vote goes to the second. if s/he also fails the threshold, your vote goes to the third. instant runoff voting would have kept bush from the presidency in the first place.
I would not be surprised if Nirenberg is hit and killed by a redneck in an over-steroided pick-up truck.
We have been actively following John Nirenberg’s progress and posting updates on our website(http://www.riverofmist.com ). We have been encouraged by his clarity of vision and personal courage. We have also been disappointed by how little support his March in My Name has received to date. This article in the Village Voice and its republication on Common Dreams will certainly help him gain a wider audience. Now we have to find ways to help our politicians find the courage to act on their constitutional responsibilties and impeach Bush and Cheney.
HOMEGROWN TERRORIST UPDATE
Blackwater One, Blackwater One, this is Blackwater Two. Come in Blackwater One.
Blackwater Two, this is Blackwater One. You’re loud and clear. What’s up?
Blackwater One, what’s with this Nirenerg guy? I thought you took care of him in Vermont. How’d he get to NYC?
Black Two, this is Black One. Yea, well, we employed the usual tactical maneuver for dangerous protestors but it didn’t work this time. We never got past the ID.
Say again Black One, he wouldn’t provide an ID?
No Black Two, he asked me why he had to provide an ID for walking on a public road and said the burden of proof was on me for probable cause and not on him to prove he was innocent.
So?
That was such a long sentence with big words, I had to send it out to Black Ops for processing. Sounds like something a communist from big gubmint would say … never heard it before.
While I was waiting, he also said, “So why don’t you take your Ted Nugent tatoos, uniform and play toys back to the Department of Welfare Warriors where you got them before I have your concealed carry permit pulled for mental instability.” Now that I understood.
So what’d you do Bubba .. I mean Black One? You’re not off the meds are you? We talked about the rules you know … no pills no kills … ok, so what’d you do? You didn’t shoot him in the foot like that other guy did you?
No, no Black Two, of course not. I whipped out my handy dandy pocket emergency list issued for such situations by Mark Penn, our PR consultant who also runs the Hillary campaign. Says right here on the first page:
Step One
When confronted with the truth, never respond, never debate, never cause a scene. Never allow the opposing party to control the debate with the truth. Leave the scene before any cameras arrive. It only draws more attention to the opposition. Suppress your inner-Rambo and suck it up for the team. Don’t jeopardize the funding with the truth … never, EVER jeopardize the funding with a public mistake that reveals the truth.
Step Two
If Step One applies, release the subject with polite apologies and walk away quietly.
But now we know why Pelosi took impeachment off the table. She’s up to her eyeballs in it, knowing about the “advanced interrogation” techniques conducted by the CIA. It may be impossible to ignore calls for impeachment hearings now, once the investigation into the destruction of the torture tapes shows that Bush, Cheney, et al., were aware of the tapes and authorized their destruction. I don’t think there’s a Scooter to take the fall this time.
“The Speaker is certainly aware of the frustration a lot of Americans feel about the conduct of this war,” said Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson. “But she believes that impeachment would be a distraction to the priorities of this Congress.”
Are our elected officials that STUPID? Surely they must know that all the other issues, immigration reform, social security reform, etc., etc., are the distractions away from the American people systematically losing our rights and the trashing of our Constitution, which has held the bad wolves of greed and tyranny at bay?
It is right that the Senate and Congress should share in the responsibility for this if they do nothing!
I applaud the Great American who is walking to Washington, and would like to state for the record that there are many, many, many thousands of people who support his effort, but are without the resources to “support” his efforts. His sacrifice is needed and appreciated. Nancy Pelosi would do well to heed this fact, and to “grant” him an “audience.” It is safe to say that this Congress under her leadership has a lot to answer for, and that Republican and Democrat alike will be swept from office, if impeachment continues to be off the table. It is urgent to move as quickly as possible for impeachment . . . it is the only patriotic thing to do.
“I used to think this too. But then they stole the 2004 election in Ohio, in Cleveland there were 338,000 disenfranchised voters… and Kucinich has never mentioned this. Conyers (the phony piece of $#%^) had election fraud hearings, Kucinich didn’t show.” ~ PeaceCandidates.com
———————————————————-
Dirty tricks occurred across the state, including phony letters from Boards of Elections telling people that their registration through some Democratic activist groups were invalid and that Kerry voters were to report on Wednesday because of massive voter turnout. Phone calls to voters giving them erroneous polling information were also common. – Dennis Kucinich
*Kucinich, Dennis. “A Note On The Presidential Election in Ohio”, Common Dreams NewsCenter, 2004-11-10. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.
———————————-
So, he did address it… maybe he had nothing more to add to the hearings; I didn’t follow that.
This is a great effort, but I firmly believe that the reason that Congress refuses to impeach, or to look into the shredding of the Constitution by the Cheney/Bush regime is that by doing nothing through two Congressional periods, one controlled by Republicans and the other by “Democrats” they have made a legal precedent for the current criminal government. If they leave it alone, they get to use it for their own ends. If they correct it, they will be bound by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They’ve gotten used to the “freedom” of not being bound by a Constitution and they like it.
Thomas Jefferson said, “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
Those chains have been broken, link by link, and we now have the “legalized version of the first.” Our “rulers” love it that way. We won’t see a change.
Commentarian- I must have missed that article- good job.
Let’s delve deeper:
Oct 2006 Kucinich introduced a bill to hand counter paper ballots and have the results posted at the precinct level. Yeah! There were big cheers from voting reform activists…
But since this was introduced a month before the 2006 elections, nothing ever came of it. Now it’s more than a year later, Kucinich still has not re-introduced it for this Congress. Why not? Is he waiting til Oct 2008 so he can say, “aw shucks, it’s too late again.”
Why hasn’t Kucinich ever brought up the scam elections during one of the debates?
The fascists are winning because they own the media and both parties. Kucinich is just another stooge playing his role- Give great speeches, but run a crappy campaign that will never win.
NEW YORK CITY???? Get a rope. We thought this guy was a western cowpoke.
“The numbers are ridiculous. When people choose to let me know how they feel, whether it’s the thumbs down or finger, or thumbs up and a horn, it’s probably 95 to 5 in favor. It’s unbelievable.” - John Nirenberg
I certainly hope he has a good videographer/cinematographer getting all this on camera! It would be great to show Pelosi (and perhaps all the members of the House Judiciary Committee?) the tape. Maybe THEN they’d see there is support to put the brakes on this criminal cabal.
Unfortunately, Pelosi and Conyers appear to be the conductors on the train.
Impeachment a distraction from WHAT priorities? The people want border security and immigration control, universal health care, immediate improvement in energy efficiency, alternative energy, control of corporate power, END OF IRAQ OCCUPATION and many other things
Which of these priorities have been achieved by forgoing impeachment?????
Hey, all you good people out there who cry out for justice and truth! Can we all agree on one thing? A message to ALL Democrats. The American people don’t get an impeachment; the Democrats don’t get our votes. Vote for a Green, an Independent, a Libertarian, a Socialist. Hell, vote for a librarian. Just don’t vote for any of the two party system who have taken turns screwing us for the past 60 years.
These local librarians are as reactionary as Hell. They’re all the wives of conservative preachers, lawyers, and local businessmen. So don’t vote for them. There’s a myth going around that librarians are usually liberal. I have an MLS myself and I have news for you: For every progressive professional librarian there are three big city moderates and six conservative small-towners.
raytheon parking lot is very crowded..
cruz_ctrl Yes, watch out.
RMAX She might know about it but she is sleeping with half of them anyway. She would have some thing turn up not in her favor if proceedings turned out to happen. What do you think she is hiding?
miftin- You must be the local gas station attendant fearing losing business! All Sh!t no walk?
Shakker - Nice and to the point! You always have a great point of view! I’ve missed your commentary.
John Nirenberg, you got my vote! The rest can eat my shorts.
I admire Mr. Nirenberg’s ethics/intents, also — but if I had his ear, I’d stress “Be careful what you wish-for…” (and urge a lower-profile?).
[Good-advice for many-here, also — after-all, the inevitable anarchy/chaos that would follow any Actual-Impeachment/’investigation’ in the US would be a lot less ‘fun’ (in Reality) than it sounds in the hypothetical and ‘moral-outrage’ of most keyboard/armchair-Warriors and weekend-Patriots — no Party/Department/Policy today could withstand or survive such ‘Light of Day’ or exposure]
If the Dem’s, in fact, want to creep-and-triangulate towards a ’scant-Improvement’ and slow-this-train-down for a-bit, then I’d say “you should let them”. [Conversations with any Good-Cops are easier and more-convivial than with any Bad-Cops — and they hit/taser you somewhat-less, during such…]
Pelosi taking impeachment “off the table” was and is a disgrace. It is an abrogation of the constitutional responsibilty and right of the Congress. How could she say that seriously?
By doing so, she effectively gave Bu$h & Cheney not only a pass for all their criminal activities up to that point, but a free ride until the end of their term in office.
Every American should be outraged. Pelosi should be impeeached as well, since she assisted them in trashing the “goddamn piece of paper’”, as W called it.
The title of “Speaker” is a misnomer; she does not speak for me, nor for a majority of the country. So much for the first woman Speaker of the House.
This daughter of a Baltimore political machine is worthless. I only hope that her San Francisco district sends her ass packing permanently.
John Nirenberg is a hero. Give him the Congressional Medal of Freedom.
“Every American should be outraged. Pelosi should be impeeached as well…”
Every-American should be well-bored of such crap by now, and not be surprised by ANY of this nonsense/cover-up/Mythos from either of their ‘big-tent’-Party’s and/or leadership…
You and John need to ‘grow up’, or get more ‘effective’ and ‘wise to ways of World’ (again, I approve the Ethics-involved, just not the “naivety”).
America (and thereafter Western-civilization, the World-Economy, and probably Nuclear-War) would follow ANY real-Impeachment of ANY ‘Party-leadership’ (and good-luck distinguishing between any of them ‘morally’).
Impeachment is PERMANENTLY “off the table”, and for Cause…(which extends-back well-before even 1776). If you want a simple ‘changing of the Guard’, just wait until 2008 (but be VERY careful what you wish-for!).
For you sports-fans here (’sports’ long an American-tradition for breeding team-efforts, militaristic-Competitiveness, and a ‘yearning to Win’ for cheering/mindless-Fans), you had best think of the entire BushCo-regime and all it’s successful-efforts as merely ‘laying up the ball’ for the next-Occupant — of/for that very ‘White’-house to ’score-with’, both at-home and abroad…
Go John Go. Keep on walking.
Meanwhile there are others who will be DOING our part without fear.
MeAlsoToo - With all due respect it sounds to me as if you are fearful and giving “some old history” too much weight in regards to the current time. Plus whose history prior to 1776 are you talking about? European history? Asian history? African history? Native history? Cave man history? Blue-green algea history? Honestly, there is plenty of history to go around, but the “cycle” we are in now may run even deeper than you think. Regardless, the times are a changing “big time” for humanity whether we want them to or not.
Mr. Nirenburg seems to be a man of genuine principle. The politicos in DC seem to have a void of principle, and some folks are starting to realize that we must take a stand because the choices have narrowed and only will continue to narrow the longer we sit around and do nothing.
I’m ready for some better ideas.
Mr. Nirenburg ought to run for Congress.
It is every well-informed American’s obligation to Ensure that every one of the incumbent stooges is opposed by a true Peace Candidate like Cindy Sheehan or Col. Bob Bowman. A person that is committed to ending the war and squashing the corruption in DC.
Way to go buddy, lots of us are right behind you. Stir it up !
It bears repeating I believe…
Pelosi and her bretheren have a Constitutional duty to proceed with hearings into the matters of impeachable actions taken by Cheney and Bush. These matters are not to be taken lightly (within the context of politics alone), and once offered for consideration by the voting public in convincing numbers there should be no balking on her, or other’s part.
By my count Bush/Cheney and their surrigates have brushed aside Constitutional law within the scope of numerous Articles and Amendments (Art.II sec.3&4, Art.VI, and Amendments IV,V,VI,VIII and XIV). I will continue my research to further substanciate and determine more grounds for such hearings.
jungleboy, I’m not sure what you mean by that comment. Would you please elaborate?
bakunin writes that “If impeachable offences have been committed by Bush and Cheney–and they clearly have, many times over–then Congress is OBLIGATED by the constitution to hold impeachment hearings.”
And mr. charlie says that “It bears repeating I believe . . . Pelosi and her bretheren have a Constitutional duty to proceed with hearings into the matters of impeachable actions taken by Cheney and Bush.”
And finally, libertas fugit writes, that by not voting and trying bills of impeachment Congress has “made a legal precedent for the current criminal government. If they leave it alone, they get to use it for their own ends. If they correct it, they will be bound by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”
Here are the sole provisions of the Constitution that address the matter of impeachment. It may be worth considering them before addressing the comments of bakunin, mr. charlie, and libertas fugit.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States says in full, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution says in full, “The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.”
Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution says in full, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.”
These provisions make clear that, although often stated by those who share my view that Bush and Cheney have indeed committed impeachable offenses, it is not now, and it is never, the case that “Congress is OBLIGATED by the constitution to hold impeachment hearings”. Nor do “Pelosi and her bretheren have a Constitutional duty to proceed with [impeachment] hearings . . . ”
Rather, the House is empowered by the Constitution to impeach. Not obliged. Empowered.
The Senate for its part is uniquely empowered to try all impeachments voted by the House.
Is the Senate obliged to try all impeachments voted by the House? I think the issue is arguable. What is clear is that if the Senate does try an impeachment, whether because it is obliged to do so against its will or because it chooses to do so, the nature of the trial is entirely determined by the Senate, save only for the Constitutional requirements that when trying an impeachment each Senator shall be under oath or affirmation; the Chief Justice of the United States shall preside at the trial of an impeachment of the President of the United States; and conviction shall require the concurrence of two thirds of the Senators present that the person on trial has committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Nor is it the case that, as libertas fugit writes, that by not voting and trying bills of impeachment Congress has “made a legal precedent for the current criminal government.”
To the contrary, it is of critical consequence that impeachment is not a judicial process. It is not a process governed by rules of precedent, or stare decisis. Each consideration of a bill of impeachment by the House, and each trial by the Senate of an impeachment voted by the House, takes place de novo. The proceedings are radically free from the restraints of due process of which those who call for impeachment are otherwise the greatest champions.
What if the Senate, the House having found W.J. Clinton guilty of impeachable offenses, had voted by 2/3rds of those present to convict? There would have been no appeal available. What is an impeachable offense, and whether such an offense has been committed, is determined solely by the House in the first instance and, if the House determines that such an offense has been committed, then in the final instance by the Senate.
The two houses of Congress in this respect resemble nothing so much as the equity court of the Chancellor of England. I am reminded in this regard of a question — actually two questions — asked, in my real property course in my first year of law school, by our professor, in whose case book we’d just read of the wonders of equity performed by the flexibility of the Chancellor, unbound as he was by the technical constraints of the common law courts.
Our professor was a man of both scholarly and lawyerly brilliance. He also had a deep respect for the fragility of liberty, a respect born of the experience of fleeing east out of Poland, as a boy with his mother and young siblings, over a bridge cleared moments before of Romanian border guards by German dive bombers. His question was, “Do you think it is possible, that people’s rights might have been more protected by the common law courts, with their procrustean forms, than by the Chancellor’s equity? And does it affect your answer to know that the Court of Star Chamber was an equity court?”
I do not know, and therefore neither condemn nor commend, the motives that actually guide Pelosi or her colleagues. What I do know is that there are in fact very good reasons indeed (whether they are Pelosi’s or not) to be very careful about launching so utterly unconstrained a process as the removal of the President of the United States by a Congress free to do so upon nothing more than the agreement by half the House, and 2/3ds of the Senate, that it should happen.
If the actions of this administration do not merit impeachment, than I can hardly imagine what does or what ever will. What has been “utterly unconstrained” is executive over-reach and the result has been a thrashing and trashing of the country’s founding principles. What has been utterly unacceptable is the complete failure of Congress to represent the People’s interest — time and time again.
What is on the line is the very fabric of the US of A (at least the federal entity). As it is, in my opinion, this fabric is already in tatters and whether it can (or even should) be mended is a valid question. At the federal level this country is now based on fear, pretense, and deceipt. The stain in DC runs so deep.
Impeachment of the offenders may offer a final opportunity for some remedy. Of course, it will get ugly, but the People can handle it so why can’t congress? Who is trying to hide what? If you are a congress person and you are putting your own self-interest above those whom you are supposed to represent, then I say may the shame upon you strike deep and last long. So much damage has been caused and so much senseless suffering of innocence continues unabated. How can you live with yourself?
In the absence of impeachment, DC will have sealed its fate in my humble opinion. As it is, the nails are already being driven into the coffin and there are many who I suspect are rightfully cheering. As it is governance is going to become more local and properly so because the federal entity as it exists today is BROKEN and does not serve the People’s interest. People are mad and they have every right to be because the federal government is a complete travesty through and through.
So sad for those of past generations who gave their lives for this country. So sad for the founders who were trying to establish something better. So sad for many throughout the world because as harmful as this country has been of late it has the potential to be a beacon of hope. But if those in DC cannot even stand up for the principles of this country’s founding when there can be no doubt that they have been trampled upon, then there is no way this country can ever be anything but a corrupt sham unable to accomplish any good in the future.
No offense Hector, but I’m sick and tired of those trying to defend Pelosi and others in the House of representatives who have failed so miserably. There is no excuse for how long this has gone on.
No offense taken, buffalo_ken. More tomorrow, Hector
Pelosi should be charged with aiding and abetting. Kucinich wrote the bill on impeachment - good for him. If anyone has anything better to offer, let’s hear it.
One way to make a difference would be to contact the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee. Have put an asterisk besides Wexler and the two others who recently published an opinion piece also noting co-sponsors to the Kucinich bill.
House Judiciary Committee -Democratic members
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (chair)
2426 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence Ave. and S. Capitol St. SW
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-0072
Representative Howard L. Berman
2221 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence Ave. and S. Capitol St. SW
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-3196
Representative Rick Boucher
2187 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence Ave. and S. Capitol St. SW
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-0442
Representative Jerrold Nadler
2334 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence Ave. and S. Capitol St. SW
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-6923
Representative Bobby Scott
2464 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence Ave. and S. Capitol St. SW
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-8354
Representative Melvin L Watt
2236 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence Ave. and S. Capitol St. SW
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-1512
Representative Zoe Lofgren
102 Cannon House Office Bldg
1st St. & Independence Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (2020 225-3336
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (co-sponsor)
2435 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence Ave. and S. Capitol St. SW
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-3317
Representative William Delahunt
1317 Longworth House Office Bldg
Independence & New Jersey Aves., SE
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-5658
** Representative Robert Wexler
213 Cannon House Office Bldg.
1st St. & Independence Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-5974
Representative Linda Sanchez
1007 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Independence & New Jersey Aves., SE
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 226-1012
Representative Steve Cohen (co-sponsor)
325 Cannon House Office Bldg.
1st St. & Independence Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-5663
Representative Hank Johnson (co-sponsor)
1517 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Independence & New Jersey Aves., SE
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 226-0691
*Representative Luis V. Gutierrez
2367 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence Ave. and S. Capitol St. SW
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-7810
Representative Brad Sherman
1030 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Independence & New Jersey Aves., SE
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-5879
Representative Anthony D. Weiner
1122 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Independence & New Jersey Aves., SE
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 226-7253
Representative Adam Schiff
326 Cannon House Office Bldg.
1st St. & Independence Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-5828
Representative Artur Davis
208 Cannon House Office Bldg.
1st St. & Independence Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 226-9567
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz
2303 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence Ave. and S. Capitol St. SW
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 226-2052
*Representative Tammy Baldwin (co-sponsor also)
1022 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Independence & New Jersey Aves., SE
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-6942
Representative Keith Ellison (co-sponsor)
2336 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence Ave. and S. Capitol St. SW
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-4886
Representative Maxine Waters (co-sponsor)
2344 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence Ave. and S. Capitol St. SW
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-7854
Representative Betty Sutton
2332 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence Ave. and S. Capitol St. SW
Washington, DC 20515
Fax (202) 225-2266
Hector- point well taken in your notation of the document we discuss here.
You are correct… Pelosi and others in congress have no mandated ‘duty’; I argue they do have a ‘duty’ as a matter of conscience, and respect for the Balance of Powers provisions in laws governing our federal system.
The tone of your response is very rational and well measured…
would it be so easy addressing the many people (or even a few of them) whom’s lives have been tossed around via the actions of our Executive Branch under Mr. Bush’s watch?