Ted Rall : WHY BUSH IS UNIMPEACHABLE

[tocqueville]

In the new republic, Madison wrote in his seminal Federalist No. 10, political arguments should be considered on their own merits. Since candidates for and holders of political office would be judged solely as individuals, Congressmen would focus on the greater good rather than political alliances when weighing whether to impeach a president. Even when parties began to emerge as a national force in 1800, few politicians would have argued that a Democratic-Republican president should be safe from impeachment unless the Federalist Party happened to control Congress.

Another Constitutional breakdown, concerning the separation of powers, occurred in June 2004. More than a year after the Supreme Court decided in Rasul v. Bush that the nearly 600 Muslim men and young boys being held incommunicado at Guantánamo Bay were entitled to have their cases heard by U.S. courts, they remain in cold storage--no lawyers, no court dates. The Bush Administration simply ignored the ruling.

" Justice Department," Dahlia Lithwick wrote in Slate, "sees through the sophisticated legal prism known as the Toddler Worldview: Anything one doesn't wish to accept simply isn't true." Because the Founding Fathers never anticipated the possibility that the nation's chief executive would treat its final judgments with the respect due an out-of-state parking ticket issued to a rental car, the Supreme Court has been rendered as toothless as a gummy bear.

The more you look, the more you'll find that our Constitution has been subverted to the point of virtual irrelevance. The legislative branch has abdicated its exclusive right to declare war to the president, who was appointed by a federal court that undermined the states' constitutional right to manage and settle election disputes. Individuals' protection against unreasonable searches have been trashed, habeas corpus is a joke, and double jeopardy has become routine as those exonerated by criminal court face second trials in civil court. Our system of checks and balances has collapsed, the victim of a citizenry more interested in entertaining distraction than eternal vigilance.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20051025/cm_ucru/whybushisunimpeachable

[goclark]

1. kick

[malaise]

2. Serious food for thought

but I'm hoping all is not lost.

[tocqueville]

3. the question is : does the US need a NEW constitution?

many countries have rewritten their constitutions to adapt them to changes in society, to make previous mistakes more difficult to repeat...

is there any serious debate about this ?

[longship]

5. Yes, the theocrats have been talking about it for some time now

I'm sure that they'll come up with some good stuff.

Replace the Bill of Rights with the Decalogue
State religion == christianity... No OUR version of christianity
Mandatory death penalty for heresy
No women's rights
White supremacy

[geniph]

11. Sounds just like the rules in the first 13 colonies

Remember, the original Puritan settlers wanted just that - a theocracy. They didn't leave England for religious freedom, they left so they could practice their own variety of religious bigotry.

Mixing religion with politics tends to get people burned at the stake.

[Kenneth ken]

7. I think we could use a new one

but I can't imagine how we could find a group of people to do the drafting of it. The current rulers wouldn't produce something even as good as what we have; those who truly want to make this a better nation for the majority of the people wouldn't be acceptable to the current rulers.

[The2ndWheel]

8. Yeah right

The first one was written by a small group of white land owning men in a few colonies. Good luck trying to write one in 2005 America.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. We'd never get as good a deal as we got the first time

Not even close.

[Sinistrous]

28. You are correct.

The United States Constitution is the product of a confluence of genius that will probably never be repeated.

[The Roux Comes First]

13. Hey, no problem!

I hear they have quite a gem in the works over in Iraq. Why not just cut-and-paste?

[Paranoid Pessimist]

18. Gore Vidal has been proposing a Constitutional Convention for years n/t

[indepat]

27. The neocons have given us a de facto new constitution by ripping

the our Constitution to shreds as the spineless dems looked on and, all too often, participated in the carnage.

[Richard D]

4. I can imagine . . .

. . . the crimes being so large and the backlash amongst the population so great that a lot of republicans could jump ship to save their butts.

[applegrove]

6. We know he never "read" the memo. We know that.

[Porcupine]

10. The rich get to stay rich. That's the Constitution now. n/t

.

[Paranoid Pessimist]

19. They don't just get to stay rich ...

. . . they get to keep getting richer and richer as they criminally expropriate all the money that has been being spent on things they hate, like social services, worker rights and safety (and pay), environmental preservation -- all that wimpy commie stuff.

I think they want to pass a constitutional amendment that says that they should have every bit of the money and the rest of us ought to just disappear quietly without causing any trouble.

Notice that they howl "Class war" when the underclass (which is now most of us) tries to put any kind of limitation on their psychotic greed.

[ThumperDumper]

12. What does this mean for...

our ELECTION system?

-JJ

http://jaundicejames.blogspot.com/

[Paranoid Pessimist]

20. They will become what they are in dictatorships

Fake events to provide bogus legitimacy for the leadership. All dictatorships like to hold elections. The 99% yes vote is trotted out to "prove" that the people they rule fully support them.

Already the Democratic Party reminds me of those fake opponents they put boxers up against who are there to look like they might could win but are there to lose, to take a believable dive.

[ThumperDumper]

25. I like the saying...

They can't cheat if it ain't close!

.

[spooky3]

14. One ray of hope: Public opinion polls

As much as * and others claim that they don't pay attention to them, that the polls are not valid, etc., etc., etc., the reality is that they DO matter. As *'s favorability ratings fall, legislative Republicans (particularly in the Senate, where they are less protected by gerrymandered or otherwise homogeneous districts) get more and more worried about hitching their stars to a wagon sinking in the mud. They worry that the voters are finally beginning to wake up to the outrage that is this administration. And once they start worrying about that, they start to figure out that the far right legislation that they might have been intimidated into supporting previously is now more costly than beneficial to them.

According to these polls, Bush has already lost all voters except the Republicans. The independents are siding with the Democrats.

I believe that if the indictments are issued by the Grand Jury, with the pattern of all of his other screwups becoming more clear by the day, the favorability ratings will continue to drop.

Nixon was a far more competent (and generally, moderate) President than * is. Most people didn't think Watergate could take him down. But it did.

[smoogatz]

15. This is news?

Of course a Republican dominated congress won't impeach Bush. That's why we have to win back the congress in '06.

[Paranoid Pessimist]

21. Can't do that without candidates willing to take strong positions.

Strong, specific anti Bush agenda positions, with specifics.

Who are these candidates? Where are they? Why aren't they out there now getting name recognition. The market is there. When Gore or Kerry give speeches we wish they had given when they were running, the progressive blogosphere gets excited.

But then it's just one speech and they disappear again.

Of course, to be truly successful these candidates would have to be backed by a countersmear PR organization that worked nationwide, the way the Republicans do. I hope someone somewhere is organizing such a thing, but as yet I have seen no sign of it.

[jarnocan]

16. Speaking of IMPEACHment is a good sign,

"Our system of checks and balances has collapsed, the victim of a citizenry more interested in entertaining distraction than eternal vigilance".
Acknowledging the problem and the big issue-that bush likely SHOULD be impeached.
I think something can happen, if overwhelming negativity due to a REALITY check occurs. POLLs, petitions, letters, calls and ACTION www.worldcantwait.org etc. Progressive Dems are IN! All of it will help, and of course ,tomorrow, the indicments. http://www.millionphonemarch.com/impeach.htm Letter/petition Please hit this if you haven't, a good resource.
BTW I did put a couple pics up on the blog from our local vigil. http://jarnocan.blogspot.com I don't know if they want a photo thread on here right now. Hope someone checks it out other than the freepers.
I also started a Vigil photochain at CARE2.

[Paranoid Pessimist]

17. Impeachment does not mean remove from office

As Auntie Pinko pointed out recently on this site, impeachment is bringing of charges; an officeholder is not removed from office until a trial about the charges leveled in the articles of impeachment is held and a vote to convict occurs. The two presidents who were impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were not removed from office.

It has bothered me to have the whole progressive blogosphere jumping up and down, excited, saying: "Here it goes; Bush is on his way out now!"

I'm afraid they're going to be disappointed and disillusioned and will react with apathy and the Right will regroup and continue its agenda. Bush may limp a bit for the next three years, and he is likely to spearhead something stupid that may have even worse blowback than Iraq, but to think that Plamegate is the beginning of the end is optimistic wish fulfillment at its unhealthiest.

Of course, being The Paranoid Pessimist, I, as always, hope I'm wrong.

[eridani]

22. Yahoo link does not work (Midmight PDT)

And the Rall column is unavailable from any other source.

[Kenneth ken]

23. try this one

the original link still works for me, but you can try this one instad.

keepmedia.com

[eridani]

24. Yes that worked. Thanks.

The Yahoo link was a temporary one--seems to be back up now.

[lovuian]

26. Magna Carta 1215 No King is above the law and it looks like

our constitution says he is!!!

That didn't work in England in 1215 and its not going to work today!!!