2006 began with Mr. Bush brazenly insisting that he can unilaterally order
wiretaps on American citizens without judicial oversight, even if warrantless
domestic wiretaps are explicitly prohibited by federal law. Under what
rationale? Mr. Bush claims the virtually unlimited presidential power to override any
laws, and even to cancel our constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties,
because the US is at war. According to his legal advisors, this imperial
presidential power supposedly comes from: (a) an expansive interpretation of the
Constitution's commander-in-chief clause; and (b) a post-9/11 Congressional
resolution authorizing the use of armed force against terrorists. [29]
This raises a question: may the president abuse an ostensible state of war to
curtail the people's civil liberties? And that raises a sub-question: is the
nation, in actual point of law, at war right now, Congress having made no
formal declaration of war?
Not surprisingly, 2006 also began with everybody talking about impeachment:
politicians; journalists; scholars; and lawyers. Their illuminating articles
and discussions have put six important questions before us:
I. Is the current talk about impeachment nothing more than quixotic tilting
at windmills, or is it a substantively-serious constitutional crisis?
II. Do sufficient legal grounds exist to warrant Messrs. Bush and Cheney's
impeachment by the House, conviction by the Senate, and removal from office?
III. If sufficient legal grounds exist, will our Democratic Congresspersons
file formal articles of impeachment in 2006?
IV. If the Democrats file articles of impeachment, will the Republican
majority leaders allow the House of Representatives to consider them in 2006?
V. If not in 2006, will Messrs. Bush and Cheney undergo the constitutional
process of impeachment after this November's mid-term elections, in early 2007?
VI. If not in 2007, who will hold Messrs. Bush and Cheney accountable to the
rule of law?
I. IMPEACHMENT: QUIXOTIC TILTING AT WINDMILLS OR A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS?
A large volume of competent scholarly and journalistic articles about
impeachment has been generated in the last month, which militates against the
conclusion that it's merely quixotic tilting at windmills. For example, the author
has found more than 70 recent articles addressing, and 14 websites advocating,
the impeachment of Messrs. Bush and Cheney (see endnotes 2 through 90, below).
Even if the current discussion about impeachment isn't dismissible as
nonsense, does it rise to the substantive level of a constitutional crisis? Many
scholars and pundits think it does. For instance, former Reagan administration
official Paul Craig Roberts contends that we're immersed in a constitutional
crisis: "Compared to Spygate, Watergate was a kindergarten picnic. The Bush
administration's lies, felonies, and illegalities have revealed it to be a criminal
administration with a police state mentality and police state methods. Now
Bush and his attorney general have gone the final step and declared Bush to be
above the law. Bush aggressively mimics Hitler's claim that defense of the realm
entitles him to ignore the rule of law." [34]
Dean Lawrence Velvel of the U. Massachusetts Law School agrees: Mr. Bush is
attempting to consolidate power in the executive branch through an
intellectually-dishonest interpretation of the Constitution's commander-in-chief clause.
Therefore, he correctly characterizes the Bush administration's power-grab as a
constitutional crisis: "Almost daily it becomes ever more clear that we are
faced with an attempted constitutional coup d'etat, an attempted constitutional
revolution. ... Led by Cheney, protected on his flanks by Fawkesian legal
outriders, the 'profoundly mediocre man' who is president seeks to become
all-powerful in the name of protecting his subjects, the citizens of the United
States." [12]
Any reader who still doubts that Mr. Bush's power-grabs are based on
unconstitutional sophistry should consult UCSD constitutional scholar Peter Irons'
book, "War Powers: How The Imperial Presidency Hijacked The Constitution" (New
York: Metropolitan Books, 2005). Professor Irons presents powerful historical
and legal evidence which proves: (a) that the Framers drafted the
commander-in-chief clause solely to rein in military authority by placing it under civilian
control, and NOT to allow the president to gain additional powers during an
"emergency"; and (b) that the commander-in-chief clause has been interpreted in
accordance with the Framers' intent by every Supreme Court and every
president, except the imperial presidents Richard M. Nixon and George W. Bush (unlike
them, the earlier imperials - Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin
Rooselvelt - were dealing with an ongoing civil war or a full-fledged world war).
Four decisions by the US Supreme Court imposed limits on presidents who'd
invoked the commander-in-chief clause during wartime to expand their "emergency"
powers:
(a) Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall. 2) (1866) [President may not invoke
commander-in-chief powers during wartime to try civilians in military courts,
if civil courts exist.];
(b) Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) [President
may not invoke commander-in-chief powers during wartime to nationalize the
steel industry.];
(c) Rasul v. Bush, 124 S. Ct. 2686 (2004) [President may not invoke commander-in-chief powers during wartime to deny US courts the right to hear writs of
habeus corpus from prisoners incarcerated overseas; however, the Senate
recently passed the Graham-Levin Amendment to repudiate Bush v. Rasul, thus enabling
Mr. Bush to ignore writs of habeus corpus and hold prisoners indefinitely,
without a hearing, in his overseas gulags.];
(d) Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 597 (2004) [President may not invoke commande
r-in-chief powers during wartime to claim the unchecked authority to imprison
anyone he deems to be an "enemy combatant."].
Finally, juxtapose these excerpts from US Supreme Court opinions against Mr.
Bush's notorious quest for unlimited presidential power during the undeclared "war on terror":
1) "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people,
equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all
classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving
more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any
of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of
government." [Justice David Davis' majority opinion in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866) at 120-121.]
2) "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not blank check for
the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." [Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor's majority opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, (03-6696) 542
U.S. 547 (2004).]
Of course, Messrs. Bush and Cheney vehemently disagree with the
aforementioned opinions. Hence, it should be clear that the USA is immersed in a
constitutional crisis.
II. DO SUFFICIENT LEGAL GROUNDS EXIST TO SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT AND CONVICTION?
The short answer is "yes, sufficient legal grounds do exist." First, let's
define the term "impeachment." When the Framers distributed the Constitution's
checks and balances, they granted the legislative branch the right to conduct
impeachment proceedings to remove members of the executive and judicial
branches for egregious misconduct:
* Article II, Section 4, states who can be impeached, and on what grounds: "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." Legal commentators agree that
impeachable misconduct need not necessarily be "criminal," in the sense of the
criminal law. Nevertheless, they have identified intelligible categories of
"high crimes and misdemeanors." [See Chapter II, pp. 67-78, in Harvard Law
Professor Raoul Berger's outstanding book, "Impeachment: The Constitutional
Problems" (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1973).]
* Article I, Section 2 assigns the impeachment power: "The House of
Representatives shall ... have the sole power of impeachment." Members of the House
must submit articles of impeachment, debate the merits of their charges, and then
vote. A simple majority vote in favor of impeachment sends the case to the
Senate for trial.
* Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6, assigns the power to try impeachment
cases and describes the trial: "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all
impeachments. ... 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." Today, the two-thirds majority vote is
called a "supermajority."
* Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 7, states the consequences of a conviction
by the Senate: "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than
to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of
honor, trust, or profit under the United States, but the party convicted shall
nevertheless be liable and subject to [future] indictment, trial, judgment
and punishment, according to law."
In the case of President George W. Bush, the narrow legal issue is: whether
Mr. Bush acted within the law when he overrode a law passed by Congress, thus
bypassing its clear-cut requirement of judicial oversight, so he could
authorize the National Security Agency ("NSA") to conduct warrantless domestic
wiretapping on American citizens?
The broader constitutional issue is: whether Mr. Bush committed an impeachable offense, such as abuse of executive power, attempting to subvert the
fundamental laws and substitute arbitrary power, violating the constitutional
system's separation of powers by encroaching on Congressional prerogatives, or
violating its checks and balances by encroaching on the judiciary's prerogatives?
With all due respect to the many journalists who've already concluded, in
their eloquent essays, that Mr. Bush has committed an impeachable offense, it
nonetheless would be helpful to know what the legal experts are thinking. And the
overwhelming consensus among constitutional scholars is that Mr. Bush has,
indeed, committed serious felonies. For example, three distinguished law
professors - U. Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey Stone, Georgetown U. Law Professor
David Cole, and U. Massachusetts Law School Dean Lawrence Velvel - agree: "Some
legal questions are hard. This one is not. Mr. Bush's authorizing of the NSA
to spy on Americans is blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional." [12] [35]
But is it an impeachable offense? George Washington U. Law Professor Jonathan
Turley is one of our foremost experts on national-security law, and he agrees
with Stone, Cole and Velvel. Professor Turley hastens to add that: (1) Mr.
Bush has committed an impeachable offense; (2) Mr. Bush is the first president
ever to admit that he committed an impeachable offense; and (3) the opposite
opinion - that Mr. Bush's warrantless domestic wiretapping program is legal, as
contended by his lawyers - simply cannot be taken seriously. Indeed, it's so
erroneous that "it's not even close." [57]
Moreover, federal judges and prosecutors reject Mr. Bush's chief defense -
that the government must act quickly, without a warrant, in its pursuit of
terrorists - because it's legally-meritless poppycock. Here's why: the 1978 Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") is quite flexible about its
requirement that a warrant must be obtained for domestic wiretaps; so much so that it
allows the government to retroactively obtain a court warrant within 72 hours
after commencing a domestic wiretap.
Did you get that? FISA already provides for exigent circumstances, like
stopping a terrorist cell, by allowing the NSA to wiretap any suspected terrorist
immediately, and then get a court warrant three days later. Hence, Mr. Bush's
ulterior motive for the ongoing evasion of FISA's warrant requirement must be
foreknowledge that the courts would deny the NSA's warrant requests because it
isn't collecting foreign intelligence, but rather randomly spying on American
citizens without adequate justification.
That's why US District Court Judge James Robertson - who, as a member of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts ("FISC"), was responsible for
adjudicating those domestic wiretap warrants - resigned last month in livid protest
against Mr. Bush's four-year-long violation of the FISA warrant requirement.
[67] And that's why AG Ashcroft's Justice Department refused to sign off on
Bush's warrantless domestic spying program. [12]
Additionally, former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean states that
more-than-sufficient legal grounds exist for Bush's impeachment [39], and eminent New
York trial attorney Martin Garbus agrees [46]. As does conservative AEI
scholar Norman Ornstein, who recently argued on a radio talk-show that Mr. Bush
should be impeached if he continues to defiantly contend that he can authorize
warrantless domestic spying. [79]
Finally, former Reagan administration Deputy AG and constitutional scholar
Bruce Fein recently warned us that: "President Bush presents a clear and present
danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war on
terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive
abuses." [79] Therefore, Fein urges Americans to reject Bush's unconstitutional
claim of "wartime omnipotence." [23]
These are only a few examples of the overwhelming consensus among legal
experts that Mr. Bush has committed a highly-consequential and impeachable offense
by defiantly violating a federal statute, and its underlying Fourth Amendment
guarantee against warrantless searches. Furthermore, this is only the tip of
the submerged evidentiary iceberg, because we haven't considered Mr. Bush's
other impeachable offenses.
For instance, it's the overwhelming consensus among international law jurists
and scholars that Mr. Bush committed: (a) the supreme war crime when he
ordered the commencement of his elective war of aggression against Iraq [31]; and
(b) additional war crimes by encouraging and condoning the torture of civilian
detainees and prisoners of war by US personnel and, through "extraordinary
rendition," by foreign personnel [21]. Although many Americans couldn't care less
what the world's international law experts think, the author implores them to
reconsider, as the law of nations and universal human rights are, quite
rightly, held in high regard almost everywhere else on the globe.
Therefore, it's fair to conclude that sufficient legal grounds exist to
support the impeachment and conviction of Mr. Bush (and the shadow president, Mr.
Cheney).
III. WILL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSPERSONS FILE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT IN 2006?
US Representative John Conyers (D-NY) has already filed an "impeachment
resolution" (H.R. 635), plus two motions for censure (H.R. 636 and 637), in the
House Judiciary Committee. [81] His impeachment resolution (H.R. 635) will create
a select committee to investigate the Bush administration's
potentially-impeachable offenses: intent to invade Iraq prior to Congressional authorization;
manipulation of pre-war intelligence to create a casus belli under false
pretenses; encouraging and countenancing torture; vindictive retaliation against the
administration's critics; to which he should add Mr. Bush's authorization of
the NSA's warrantless domestic spying program. Finally, the select committee
will recommend grounds for possible impeachment.
Hence, the Conyers impeachment resolution lays the foundation for bipartisan
impeachment proceedings, but should not be confused with formal articles of
impeachment. One author contends that John Conyers' impeachment resolution and
motions for censure are the WRONG constitutional remedies; instead, she
recommends that the Democrats promptly file formal articles of impeachment. [73]
Therefore, it remains to be seen whether the Conyers impeachment resolution
will embolden timid Congressional Minority Leaders Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy
Pelosi (D-CA) enough to file formal articles of impeachment. They appear to be
reluctant to muddy the waters by commencing impeachment proceedings, perhaps
because they believe the voters are poised to "throw the rascals out" in the
2006 mid-term elections.
IV. WILL THE REPUBLICANS ALLOW THE HOUSE TO CONSIDER IMPEACHMENT IN 2006?
The answer is "no, they won't," for two reasons. First, the House Republican
Majority Leaders are Bush ideologues who've rubber-stamped every move he's
made toward a police state. They'll never allow articles of impeachment to be
taken up by the House, even if they know the charges rest on rock-solid legal
grounds. Second, even if a minor miracle occurred and the articles were taken up,
the lemming-like House Republican majority almost never breaks ranks to vote
according to their conscience. So the Reps, unlike the Dems who voted for Bill
Clinton's impeachment, cannot be persuaded on the merits to cast honest votes
in favor of impeachment.
Therefore, Messrs. Bush and Cheney deserve to be impeached in 2006, but
simply cannot be impeached this year for practical reasons - that is, UNLESS the
national impeachment movement swiftly snowballs into a massive avalanche which
buries the Republicans' misplaced loyalty to Bush and Cheney over
the Constitution.
V. WILL BUSH AND CHENEY UNDERGO THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IN EARLY 2007?
Everyone knows that the impeachment process begins in the House of
Representatives, which is under regressive Republican control. Therefore, the
progressive Democrats cannot seriously hope to impeach Messrs. Bush and Cheney UNLESS
they can retake majority control of the House. If the 2006 mid-term elections
produce a Democratic House majority, its new leaders should be amenable to
filing articles of impeachment, so Bush and Cheney could end up being impeached in
2007.
If Bush and Cheney are impeached by the House, they must undergo a trial by
the Senate, and they must be convicted by a two-thirds "supermajority" before
they can be removed from office. However, the same analysis applies: this
GOP-controlled Senate will never convict them; so Bush and Cheney simply cannot be
removed from office - that is, UNLESS the Democrats retake majority control
after the 2006 mid-term elections.
Therefore, the prospects for impeachment depend on the will of the people: is
it foreseeable that the voters will elect a Dem majority in the House and
Senate?
Yes, it's foreseeable that the blue-state voters will elect a Democratic
majority. They know that "Bush has deceived the public and Congress in order to
invade Iraq, illegally detained Americans, illegally tortured detainees, and
illegally spied on Americans. Bush has upheld neither the Constitution nor the
law of the land. A majority of Americans disapprove of what Bush has done." [34]
Yet they know the Democrats will be muted spectators so long as they're the
minority party. And they know we're approaching the point of no return, where
any minimally-diligent Congress already would have impeached this
out-of-control president to defend our constitutional system's checks and balances,
separation of powers, and inalienable rights.
What will the red-state voters do? On the one hand, red-staters might vote
for a Democratic majority if they've finally realized that: (a) their supposedly "anti-Big Government" Republicans have cynically promoted the fearful
overreaction to 9/11 as a pretext for granting the executive branch enormously
expanded powers, like the intrusive power to secretly spy on the average American's
e-mail and phone calls without judicial oversight; (b) even conservative
scholars think the Republicans' domestic spying program is "blatantly
unconstitutional" because it's a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee
against warrantless government searches [79]; and (c) Bush and Cheney are diametrical opposites of freedom-loving Benjamin Franklin, for there is no freedom that
they won't sacrifice on the altar of "national security" [82].
On the other hand, red-state voters might not vote for a Democratic majority
because they're cynical about the kind of defense the milquetoast Dem leaders
can muster against the Rep's totalitarian encroachments on their civil
liberties. Red-staters must be convinced that the Dem leaders are kindred spirits -
which is to say, principled and vigorous civil libertarians who'll not only "talk
the talk" but also "walk the walk." [17] [22]
Hence, the composition of Congress after the 2006 mid-term election cannot be
foreseen with anything approaching clarity until the red-staters decide
whether they want to reject one-party totalitarian rulership by voting in a
Democratic majority, so they can impeach Bush and Cheney in 2007.
Meanwhile, the Dem leaders can help the red-staters to decide wisely by
emphasizing: (a) that we shouldn't be squeamish about implementing the impeachment
process, because it's neither too cumbersome nor too acrimonious, but is the
Framers' intended remedy for precisely these circumstances; and (b) even if the
Senate ultimately cannot achieve the requisite supermajority for conviction,
a successful impeachment by the House will constrain this president's
unconstitutional attempts to assume dictatorial powers.
VI. IF NOT US, WHO WILL HOLD BUSH-CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE RULE OF LAW?
It's certainly possible that we have a frightened Congress whose members will
simply abdicate in this constitutional crisis, allowing the president to
assume dictatorial "emergency" powers that are likely to be surrendered only in
the distant future, when his undeclared "war on terror" has passed - or perhaps
never wholly given up.
However, we can't blame Congress alone. The public has been inexcusably
tolerant of the Bush administration's law-breaking. We don't need patience. It's
time to call for impeachment. We should be disgusted by Bush and Cheney's
deliberate lies, through which they got us to invade Iraq, allowed Osama Bin Laden
to escape, keep our troops quagmired in a bloody guerrilla war, promulgate
torture in our overseas prisons, strip the federal coffers of taxpayer monies for
domestic programs, feed billions in cronyist payola to Cheney's Halliburton,
illegally suspend the writ of habeus corpus for thousands of people, trash our
civil liberties with the Orwellian "Patriot Act," and defiantly authorize
warrantless domestic spying on ordinary American citizens.
When an imperial president intransigently asserts the legally-meritless claim
that he can violate any clause in the Constitution because he holds
dictatorial powers under the commander-in-chief clause, impeachment is the proper
remedy. Just as Richard Milhous Nixon was forced to resign under the looming threat
of impeachment for his Watergate felonies, so too is impeachment the most
effective remedy for George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney's
highly-consequential crimes in office.
Resorts to the finality of impeachment might seem harsh to some, but
impeachment becomes necessary in circumstances like these, when the Constitution must
be defended from a presidential usurper. We, the people, can either check this
unrestrained imperial president now or continue our headlong tumble into
fascist dictatorship. We're rapidly approaching the point of no return, but the
choice is still ours to make, so we must promptly demand that Congress impeach,
convict, and remove Messrs. Bush and Cheney. [90] ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE
THE CONSTITUTION A CHANCE.
________________________________________________________________
ENDNOTES
[1] The Framers - Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike - warned that a
militarist president would try to use war, and the "emergency" excuse it provides,
to expand his symbolic commander-in-chief power, thus transforming the
republic into a monarchy.
The Framers' prescient admonitions are amply illustrated by Alexander
Hamilton's comments in "The Federalist" No. 8: "Even the ardent lover of liberty
will, after a time, give way to [war's] dictates. The violent destruction of life
and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a
state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to
resort, for repose and security, to institutions which have a tendency to
destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length are
willing to run the risk of being less free."
"The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and ... They would,
at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the EXECUTIVE arm of
government, in doing which, their constitution would acquire a progressive direction
towards monarchy. It is the nature of war to increase the executive at the
expense of the legislative authority. ... Thus we should, in a little time, see
established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which
have been the scourge of the Old World."
[2] Retired British Army General Michael Rose's 1-10-06 CD/Guardian essay, "Enough Of His Excuses: Blair Must Be Impeached Over Iraq" ["The only way
Parliament can regain the trust of disaffected voters is to admit that it was wrong
to support the war" by impeaching Blair. The same impeachment logic applies to
Congress and Bush.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0110-35.htm
[3] Jim Ferlo's 1-10-06 ADS open letter, "State Senator Supports Bush's
Impeachment" [Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo supports US Rep. John Conyers'
(D-NY) impeachment resolution.]:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6626/print
[4] Brian Foley's 1-10-06 CP essay, "Congress And Executive Power: Playing
With Fire" [Congress passed the unconscionable Graham-Levin Amendment, which
should be unconstitutional because it gives the executive branch unchecked power
to hold and torture prisoners, thus repudiating Rasul v. Bush and rendering
the McCain Amendment dead letter.]:
http://www.counterpunch.org/foley01102006.html
[5] Ivan Eland's 1-10-06 CD essay, "An Imperial Presidency Based On Constitutional Quicksand" [Explains why it's unconstitutional for Bush to claim that he
has unchecked presidential authority during "wartime" under an expansive
interpretation of the commander-in-chief clause.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0110-40.htm
[6] Theodore Fuller's 1-9-06 Roanoke Times essay, "Bush Believes He Is Above
The Law" [The author, a sociology professor sociology at Virginia Tech,
concludes: "I urge both houses of Congress to immediately censure President Bush for
abuse of power and further urge that the House of Representatives begin
impeachment proceedings against President Bush."]:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6604/print
[7] Dave Lindorff's 1-9-06 ADS essay, "What We Don't Know Can Hurt Us"
["There is a bill in Congress to investigate Bush for impeachable crimes. Did you
know that?"]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6603/print
[8] Matthew Cardinale's 1-9-06 Atlanta Progressive News article, "Senators
Kennedy, Feingold Keep Bush Impeachment On Table" [They won't rule out
impeachment.]:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6574/print
[9] Martin Garbus' 1-9-06 CD/HP essay, "Angry And Furious At The
Collaborationist Democrats" [Why? Because "collaborators" Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, and
Jay Rockefeller knew about, but failed to check, Bush's warrantless domestic
spying program.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0109-23.htm
[10] Dave Swanson's 1-9-06 WISCTV News (Wisconsin) article, "Madison Group
Wants To Impeach Bush: Urging Citizens To Rise Up And Take Action" ["The group
said if their move for impeachment fails, they plan to focus on helping to vote
in more Democratic congressmen to take another go at it next year."]:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6579/print
[11] Shay Totten and Kathryn Casa's 1-8-06 Vermont Guardian article, "Feingold Won't Rule Out Bush Impeachment" [Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) says
impeachment's a possibility to hold Mr. Bush accountable for his warrantless domestic
spying program.]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6538/print
[12] Lawrence Velvel's 1-7-06 LR essay, "Congress And The Constitutional
Coup D'Etat" [This is a must-read essay. Velvel is Dean of the U. Massachusetts
School of Law.]: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/velvel2.html
[13] Eric Lichtblau and Scott Shane's 1-7-06 CD/NYT article "Legal Basis For
Spying In U.S. Is Doubted" [The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan
arm of the Library of Congress, issued an official report criticizing Mr.
Bush's authorization of the NSA to spy on Americans without a court warrant
because his rationale rests on shaky legal grounds.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0107-02.htm
[14] Lawrence Velvel's 1-7-06 ADS essay, "The NYT's Unconscionable Decision
To Sit On The NSA Story For A Year" ["No wonder Bush was so desperate that The
New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency
eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the
administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surv
eillance Act. Bush...knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker."]:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6508/print
[15] Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith's 1-6-06 TN essay, "The Limits Of
Power: Questions For Alito" [Excellent questions expose Bush's impeachable
offenses. Naively concludes that the Senate can resolve this constitutional crisis
during Judge Alito's confirmation hearings, where the nominee will dodge the
Senators' questions.]:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060123&s=questions_for_alito
[16] Kimberly Wear's 1-6-06 Eureka Times Standard article, "Arcata Calls For
Impeachment" [The Arcata (California) City Council's impeachment resolution
charges Bush and Cheney with four violations of international and constitutional
law, then requests that their US Representative introduce articles of
impeachment in the House of Representatives.]:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6486/print
[17] Chris Elliott's 1-6-06 CD/OS essay, "Public Inexcusably Tolerant Of
Bush's Law-Breaking" ["If only for his flouting of the Constitution, regardless of
any other facts in the case, the president's impeachment should be
considered."]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0106-27.htm
[18] Stirling Newberry's 1-6-06 Daily Kos essay, "Got Impeachment?":
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6466
[19] Nick Turse's 1-6-06 CD/TomDispatch essay, "What Year Is This, Anyway:
Rollback To 1214 AD?" [The strking historical analogy between the Magna Carta's
history and current events reveals that the Bushites are, at bottom,
monarchists who undermine the democratic rule of law so they can replace it with the
despotic rule of men. The last paragraph's clear implication is that we should
be demanding the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0106-20.htm
[20] Kagro X's 1-6-06 Daily Kos essay, "A Message To Impeachment
Non-Believers" [Why the seemingly far-fetched national impeachment movement really does
make sense.]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6467
[21] Charlie Savage's 1-5-06 CD/BG article, "3 GOP Senators Blast Bush Bid To
Bypass Torture Ban: Reject Assertion He Has Right To Waive Rules To Protect
US Security" [Republican Sens. Warner, McCain and Graham issued statements
rejecting Mr. Bush's assertion that he can override Congress' new law banning
torture simply by exercising his "wartime powers," which Bush says are based in
the Constitution's commander-in-chief clause. Congress could impeach Bush for
unconstitutionally violating the separation of powers, but Mr. Savage deems that
remedy "politically unlikely."]:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0105-01.htm
[22] Tim Wheeler's1-5-06 PWW article, "NSA Spy Plot Fuels Call To Censure
Bush And Cheney" [The article's facts are accurate, even if the left-wing
extremist publisher is questionable.]:
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/8329/1/302
[23] Bruce Fein's 1-4-06 Washington Times essay, "If Men Were Angels" [The
analysis is good, even if the right-wing extremist publisher is questionable.]:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm
[24] Don Simpson's 1-4-06 Toledo Blade essay, "Bush's Bugs Are An Abuse Of
Executive Power" [Notes that impeachment cannot happen so long as the
Republicans control Congress. However, "Mr. Bush cites war as his basis for breaking the
law. The question is, war on whom? Could it not equally be argued that the
most credible threat to Americans' liberties comes from its leaders who break
its laws?"]:
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060104/OPINION04/601040383/-1/OPINION
[25] Tom Englehart's 1-4-06 TD essay, "A Cult Of Presidential Power: The
Unrestrained President" [His closing remarks recommend impeachment by implication
but not overtly.]: http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=46791
[26] Russell Berman's 1-4-06 New York Sun article, "Activist Group Calls For
Bush, Cheney Impeachment" [Reports on ImpeachPAC.org's efforts to create a
national impeachment movement.]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6333
[27] Bob Fertik's 1-4-06 ImpeachPAC.org open letter, "Hey Ken Mehlman, Why
Not Debate Impeachment?": http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6328
[28] Charlie Savage's 1-4-06 TO/BG article, "Bush Could Bypass New Torture
Ban: Waiver Right Is Reserved" {Bush reserves the right, under his expansive
interpretation of the commander-in-chief clause, to bypass the recently-passed
McCain Amendment's clear-cut ban on torture.]:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010406A.shtml
[29] Tom Regan's 1-3-06 CSM article, "Debate Over Eavesdropping Grows: Bush
Defends Program Again, But Critics In Senate Still Vow To Hold Hearings" [Mr.
Bush contends that his warrantless domestic surveillance program is legal, but
when the Senate holds hearing on this issue, it will discover that the top
legal scholars disagree.]: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0103/dailyUpdate.html
[30] David Wallechinsky's 1-3-06 Huffington Post essay, "What Is The Bush
Administration Trying To Hide?" [Raises serious questions about Mr. Bush's
ulterior motives for conducting warrantless domestic spying in defiance of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA") and the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Courts ("FISC"), which had been reviewing these activities for
the past 24 years.]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6303
[31] James McWilliams' 1-3-06 Register Guard (Oregon) essay, "Making The Case
For A Bush Impeachment" [Rightly contends that the supreme war crime, for
which Bush should be impeached, is misleading Congress and the public into an
illegal aggressive war under the false pretense that the USA had to defend itself
from an imminent WMD attack - "in the form of a mushroom cloud" - by Iraq.
It's Bush's most consequential crime. Nevertheless, our complicit Congress won't
impeach him solely on that war crime. Just as Al Capone, the murderous mafia
boss, was convicted for the less consequential but more provable crime of
income-tax evasion, so too will Bush, the bloodthirsty commander-in-chief, be
impeached for the less consequential but more provable crime of warrantless
domestic spying.]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6306
[32] Greg Mitchell's 1-3-06 Editor & Publisher article, "Newspapers Urge
President To Quit" [It's not taboo for an American newspaper to call for Mr.
Bush's resignation before Congress moves to impeach him. Afer all, there are
precedents: when Bill Clinton was the subject, newspapers across the USA weren't
shy in calling for his resignation.]:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6309
[33] Doug Thompson's 1-2-06 CHB column, "Time To Impeach A President" ["I've
always felt impeachment is the nuclear option of politics; a drastic action we
call in after all else fails. That's why I've been reluctant to call for the
impeachment of President George W. Bush. No longer. The reckless, arrogant
actions of the man leave me with no choice but to consider that final solution.
Time to impeach the son of a bitch."]:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7935.shtml
[34] Paul Craig Roberts' 1-2-06 CP essay, "A Gestapo Adminstration: Bush's
Witch Hunt Against Truth-Tellers" ["Why is the Justice Department investigating
the leak of Bush's illegal activity instead of the illegal activity committed
by Bush?"]: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01022006.html
[35] Geoffrey Stone's 1-2-06 HuffingtonPost.com essay, "Bush's Spy Program
And The Fourth Amendment" [The author, who is a U. Chicago law professor, states
that Bush's warrantless domestic spying program is "blatantly unlawful and
unconstitutional."]:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060102/cm_huffpost/013167
[36] ImpeachPAC.org's 1-2-06 IP article, "ImpeachPAC Forms Citizens
Impeachment Commission" [A commission of scholars, lawyers, journalists, former
government officials, and activists have dedicated themselves to the impeachment,
conviction and removal of Messrs. Bush and Cheney.]:
http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=node/192
[37] Matthew Cardinale's 1-1-06 Atlanta Progressive News article, "Bush
Impeachment Inquiry Has 8 House Co-Sponsors": http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6223
[38] Hazel Trice Edney's 12-31-05 Wilmington Journal article, "Domestic
Spying Prompts Talk Of Impeachment": http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6208
[39] John Dean's must-read 12-30-05 CD/FL essay, "George W. Bush As The New
Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally And Impeachably" [Bush has
underlined that his presidency cannot be checked because it is utterly beyond the law.
Hence, there are disturbing parallels between the Bush and Nixon
administrations: both claimed that a president may violate Congress' laws to protect
national security; however, both were impeachably wrong.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1230-39.htm
[40] Madison Capital Times' 12-30-05 CD/MCT editorial, "Talking About
Impeachment" [Calls for Congress to hold Mr. Bush accountable for his
executive-branch wrongdoing.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1230-34.htm
[41] Rosa Brook's 12-30-05 CD/LAT essay, "Is Clinton's History In Bush's
Future?" [What's wrong with this picture: Mr. Clinton was impeached for perjurious
deposition testimony about a collateral sex scandal; contrastingly, Mr. Bush
has not been impeached despite having committed multiple grave criminal
offenses against the US Constitution, federal law, and international law?]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1230-30.htm
[42] Molly Ivin's 12-29-05 CD/WFC essay, "Big Brother Bush" [Especially see
her last paragraph.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1229-20.htm
[43] ACLU's 12-29-05 New York Times ad, "The President Lied to The American
People and Broke the Law" [Explains the strong historical analogy between the
crimes committed by Richard M. Nixon and George W. Bush under the pretext of
"national security," then recommends that Congress appoint a special counsel to
investigate the latter's warrantless domestic spying program.]:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23271res20051229.html
[44] Brattleboro Reformer's 12-28-05 CD/BR editorial, "Beginning Of The End"
[Mr. Bush's fall is imminent because he's overstepped constitutional bounds
into executive-branch lawlessness.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1228-31.htm
[45] Geov Parrish's 12-28-05 WFC essay, "The Constitutional Crisis Of 2006"
[Another must-read analysis.]:
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20120
[46] Martin Garbus' 12-28-05 HP essay, "Impeachment Is Now Real" [New York
trial lawyer explains why there are solid legal grounds for the impeachment of
Mr. Bush.]:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-garbus/impeachment-is-now-real_b_12972.ht
ml
[47] Doug Giebel's 12-28-05 Scoop essay, "Impeaching President Bush: A Game
Of Ambiguity": http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00274.htm
[48] Katrina vanden Heuvel's 12-27-05 CD/TN essay, "The 'I' Word" [As 2005
closes, everybody's writing about the nation's duty to impeach George W. Bush.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1227-28.htm
[49] Ruth Conniff's 12-27-05 TP essay, "Impeachment Buzz" [Reports on
impeachment efforts by various politicians and groups.]: http://progressive.org/mag_rcb122705
[50] John Nichol's 12-27-05 CD/CT essay, "Censuring Bush Requires Citizens'
Help" [Rep. John Conyers (D-NY) is sponsoring two bills - HR 636 and HR 637 -
in the House Judiciary Committee that will censure Bush and Cheney for illegal
conduct, and which could lead to their impeachment.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1227-29.htm
[51] Thomas Donlan's 12-26-05 Barrons Online article, "Unwarranted Executive
Power: The Pursuit Of Terrorism Does Not Authorize The President To Make Up
New Laws" [Contends that Mr. Bush's four-year-long warrantless domestic spying
activities are not only illegal but also a potentially impeachable offense.]:
http://online.barrons.com/article_email/SB113538491760731012-lMyQjAxMDE1MzI1NDMy ODQ0Wj.html
[52] Marty Luster's 12-26-05 CD/IJ essay, "On Bush: It's Time To Say
'Enough'" [A call for Messrs. Bush and Cheney's impeachment and removal from office.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1226-21.htm
[53] Elsy Fors' 12-26-05 Prensa Latina essay, "First Step To Impeachment":
http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B9BABC363-A14C-4F1B-9CBC-1903DBE6A887%7D&language=EN
[54] Dave Lindorff's 12-25-05 ThisCantBeHappening.net essay, "Time To Dump
Keller And Bush" [Calls for the removal of NYT Editor Bill Keller and President
Bush from their respective offices.]:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5993
[55] Ron Jacob's 12-25-05 CP essay, "When Impeachment Was Taken Seriously:
Here's To The Land You've Torn The Heart Out Of":
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs12242005.html
[56] James Carroll's 12-25-05 Louisville Courier-Journal essay, "A Few
Democrats Say It's Now Time To Impeach Bush":
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5991
[57] Ralph Nader's 12-24-05 CD essay, " Bush/Cheney Have Disgraced Their
Office: They Should Resign" [An excellent overview of the case against Bush and
Cheney.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1224-23.htm
[58] Andy Ostroy's 12-24-05 OpEdNews.com essay, "It's Time To Impeach Bush
For These Blatant Violations Of The Law" [Lists nine grounds for impeachment.]:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5973/print
[59] The Rev. William McGinnis' 12-23-05 LoveAllPeople.org essay, "Bush
Impeachment Process Will Begin Early January, 2006: Conservative Republicans Will
Join Democrats To Remove The Dangerous, Out-Of-Control President-King Before He
Does More Harm": http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5949
[60] Stephen Crockett's 12-23-05 OpEdNews.com essay, "Impeach The
Liar-In-Chief":
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5948
[61] Nicholas Benton's 12-23-05 FCNP.com essay, "Impeachment As Imperative":
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5937
[62] James Ridgeway's 12-22-05 CD/VV essay, "Bush Impeachment Not Out Of The
Question: From Spying To Plame, Congress Riled Over Abuse Of Power":
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1222-29.htm
[63] Jonathan Schell's 12-22-05 CD/TN essay, "The Hidden State Steps Forward"
[The "above-the-law" Bush administration is a dictatorship in embryonic form.
Congress' only possible answer is to inform Mr. Bush forthwith that if he
continues to defiantly ignore the Constitution and laws passed by Congress, he
will be impeached.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1222-36.htm
[64] The Editor & Publisher Staff's 12-22-05 E&P article, "'Impeachment'
Talk, Pro And Con, Appears In Media At Last":
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001736558
[65] Joe Conason's 12-22-05 New York Observer essay, "Bush's Abuse Of Power
Deserves Impeachment": http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5872
[66] William Rivers Pitt's 12-22-05 TruthOut.com essay. "The Breaking Strain"
[Advocates impeachment.]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5855/print
[67] Helen Thomas' 12-22-05 Salt Lake Tribune essay, "Bush Goes Too Far When
He Bypasses Wiretap Court": http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3333762
[68] John Nichols' 12-21-05 CD/TN essay, "Raising The Issue Of Impeachment":
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1221-24.htm
[69] The Olympian's 12-21-05 CD/TO editorial, "Bush Must Be Held Accountable:
George Bush Cannot Protect Democracy By Destroying It":
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1220-35.htm
[70] Santiago Times' 12-21-05 ST editorial, "Impeach Bush: No President Is
Above The Law; Not In Chile, Not In The U.S." ["Bush's slippery slope leads to a
police state, plain and simple."]:
http://www.tcgnews.com/santiagotimes/index.php?nav=story&story_id=10503&topic_id=1
[71] Mark Leno's 12-21-05 San Francisco Bay Guardian essay, "Horror, Lies,
Deceit, Death And Destruction" [A California state legislator calls for Bush's
impeachment and removal from office.]:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.com/?q=node/5897
[72] Jerry Mazza's 12-21-05 Online Journal essay, "Patience, Mr. Bush? How
About Impeachment, Now?":
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_353.shtml
[73] Bev Conover's 12-21-05 OnlineJournal.com essay, "Here We Go Again With
The Censure Nonsense" [Forget censure! It's the wrong remedy. Explains why
impeachment is the correct constitutional remedy for the many serious felonies
committed by President George W. Bush.]:
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_354.shtml
[74] Howard Fineman's 12-21-05 MSNBC.com essay, "Spying, The Constitution,
And The 'I Word': 2006 Will Offer Up Nixon-Era Nastiness And A Chorus Of Calls
To Impeach Bush": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561966/
[75] Amy Goodman's 12-21-05 Democracy Now article plus transcript, "First
Steps Toward Impeachment: Conyers Introduces Bill To Censure Bush And Cheney":
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/21/1447240
[76] Bob Fertik's 12-21-05 blog article, "CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Jack
McCafferty Discuss Impeachment": http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=node/101
[77] Jonathan Alter's 12-20-05 CD/Newsweek essay, "Bush's Snoopgate" ["If the
Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of
impeachment introduced."]: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1220-20.htm
[78] David Swanson's 12-20-05 CensureBush.org essay, "Censure And
Impeachment" [Explains that censure and impeachment aren't mutually exclusive remedies,
and why both are worth pursuing. But see Bev Conover's dissenting essay at
endnote 73 above.]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5782
[79] ThinkProgress.org's 12-20-05 essay, "Conservative Scholars Argue That
Bush's Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense" [Conservative constitutional
scholar Bruce Fein and AEI scholar Norman Ornstein argued, on the Diane Rehm Show,
that Congress should impeach Mr. Bush if he defiantly continues the NSA's
warrantless domestic spying program.]:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/conservative-scholars-argue-bush’s-wiretapping-is-an-impeachable-offense
[80] Marie Cocco's 12-20-05 Newsday.com essay, "Bush Shows He Believes He's
Above The Law" ["This is a president who believes no law applies to him. The
president simply disregards the Constitution, save for the one clause he uses to
justify his violation of so many others. He is, he says, commander-in-chief.
This power trumps all."]:
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-opcoc204558361dec20,0,3978167.column?coll=ny-news-columnists
[81] US Rep. John Conyers' 12-20-05 The Nation essay, "A Motion For Censure":
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/motion_for_censure
[82] Doug Ireland's 12-19-05 CD/DI essay, "A Time To Impeach" ["And when a
president commits a crime in violation of his oath of office swearing to uphold
the Constitution, it's time to impeach."]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-34.htm
[83] Senator Barbara Boxer's 12-19-05 press release, "Boxer Asks Presidential
Scholars About Former White House Counsel's Statement That Bush Admitted To
An 'Impeachable Offense'": http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5739
[84] Associated Press' 12-19-05 AP Atlanta article, "Congressman Calls For
Bush's Impeachment" [US Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) has called for Mr. Bush's
impeachment.]: http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=69123
[85] Ron Hutcheson's 12-19-05 Knight-Ridder article, "Bush Says Spying Will
Continue: Democrats Reject Rationale For Domestic Surveillance, Say President
Has Abused His Power" [See GWU Law Professor Jonathan Turley's expert opinion
in the fourth paragraph.]:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=5624
[86] David Savage's 12-17-05 LAT article, "'78 Law Sought To Close Spy
Loophole: Congress Acted To Prohibit The Kind Of Domestic Surveillance That Is Now
At Issue":
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-legal17dec17,1,6257251.story?coll=la-news-a_section
[87] Hilzoy's 12-16-05 Washington Monthly guest column, "Above The Law 2":
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007789.php
[88] Doug Thompson's 12-9-05 CHB essay, "Bush On The Constitution: 'It's Just
A God-Damned Piece Of Paper'" [Bush to GOP Congressmen lobbying him in the
Oval Office: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned
piece of paper!"]:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7779.shtml
[89] Ralph Nader & Kevin Zeese's 8-31-05 Boston Globe essay, "The 'I' Word"
[Ample grounds existed for Mr. Bush's impeachment well before the NY Times
broke the story on 12-16-05 - which it had suppressed for one year - about his
authorization of the NSA's warrantless domestic spying program.]:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/th
e_i_word?mode=PF
[90] At least 14 websites advocate the prompt impeachment, conviction and
removal from office of President George Walker Bush and Vice President Richard
Bruce Cheney:
[a] http://impeachbushcoalition.blogspot.com
[b] http://www.impeachpac.org
[c] http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=taxonomy/term/17
[d] http://www.votetoimpeach.org
[e] http://www.impeachbush.org
[f] http://www.impeach-bush-now.org
[g] http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/
[h] http://www.thefourreasons.org/
[i] http://impeachbush.meetup.com/
[j] http://www.topplebush.com/
[k]
http://elandslide.org/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=impeach&refer=home
[l] http://impeachthesonofabitch.com/
[m] http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/
[n] http://impeachcentral.com
_______________________________________________________________
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., is the Executive Director of the American
Center for International Law ("ACIL"). His essays have been published
worldwide by more than 30 websites. Editors, please feel free to publish this essay
without activating its
103
URLs.
Readers, please feel free to forward this essay to relatives, friends and
colleagues.
© 2006 EAP III
_______________________________________________________________
