Scott Ritter: Repudiation, Not Impeachment

[marmar]

from Truthdig:


Repudiation, Not Impeachment

Posted on May 31, 2007

By Scott Ritter

It is a question I am faced with at every public event I participate in: What are my views on the impeachment of President Bush and others in his administration? Generally, the question is preceded by an emotional statement listing the “crimes” which Mr. Bush is accused of committing, and the questioner has already found him guilty. Whether it is the war in Iraq, conspiracy theories about 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or any given variation of the theme of constitutional abuse of power, the one thing all of the questioners have in common (besides the desirable outcome) is their singular conviction that the president is guilty.

I have considerable sympathy for this stance. I myself have stated on more than one occasion that I believe President Bush has lied to Congress and the American people about the reasons for going to war with Iraq (i.e., the whole WMD/al-Qaida intelligence fabrication/misrepresentation fiasco). I also believe that the president’s sanctioning of warrantless wire-tapping, along with a litany of other abuses of power stemming from the Patriot Act approved by Congress after Sept. 11, 2001, likewise constitutes grounds for impeachment. Several Democrats in Congress are actually discussing the possibility of impeachment of President Bush and the irrepressible Congressmen Dennis Kucinich has actually introduced articles of impeachment for Vice President Dick Cheney.

Even some Republicans are getting on board the impeachment bandwagon, although with caveats. “Any president who says ‘I don’t care’ or ‘I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else’ or ‘I don’t care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed’—if a president really believes that, then there are ... ways to deal with that,” Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, said of President Bush in obvious reference to impeachment.

...(snip)...

Any effort to impeach Bush and any of his administration found to be engaged in activities classifiable as “high crimes and misdemeanors” would fail to rein in the unitary executive core of any successor. One only has to listen to the rhetoric of the Democratic candidates for president to understand that this trend is as deeply rooted among them as it is with President Bush. Americans today look for leaders without recognizing the absolute necessity of electing team players. The Founding Fathers deliberately designed the executive branch to be strong and independent, but also made sure, through an elaborate system of checks and balances, that it operated merely as one of three separate but equal branches of government.

The “in your face” efforts of the Bush administration to minimize the role of Congress and to achieve political control of the judiciary are simply more public manifestations of trends that occurred in a more quiet fashion in past administrations, Republican and Democratic alike. When America elects a leader who states clearly that he or she will work with their equal partners in governance, the Congress, for the good of the country, and who will acknowledge the supremacy of law set forth in the form of binding legislation passed by the will of Congress void of any limiting or contradicting “presidential signing statement,” then we will finally have a leader who is truly worthy of the title “President of the United States of America.”

But this will not happen of its own volition. The impeachment of President Bush would not in and of itself terminate executive unilateralism. It would only limit its implementation on the most visible periphery, driving its destructive designs back into the shadows of government, away from the public eye, and as such, public accountability. Impeach President Bush, yes, if in fact he can be charged with the commission of acts which meet the constitutional standard for impeachment (and I believe he could, if Congress only had the will to do its job). But to truly heal America, we must repudiate everything President Bush stands for, in terms of not only public and foreign policy, but also in terms of his style of governance, since the former is derived from the latter. ....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070531_repudiation_not_impeachment/

[Xipe Totec]

1. Repudiation, AND Impeachment

These are not mutually exclusive.

[Aviation Pro]

2. I agree with Ritter....

...the concept of the unitary executive (in the vernacular, dictator) is very attractive to those who view power as an aphrodisiac. Think back those Presidents who exercised this kind of authority and you'll find that some of our most beloved chief executives set the course for this inevitability (think Lincoln, think Roosevelt ). Given a psychopath like Bush, the precedent of the unitary executive is a dangerous concept indeed.

[Demeter]

3. That's Why We Need A Constitutional Update

to bring an 18th Century document into the 21st Century with all the new techniques and technologies brought into compliance with democratic principles, and gray areas defined to fulfill the original intent: by the People, of the People, for the People, with clarity that this now means all the People Equally.

[marmar]

4. "That's Why We Need A Constitutional Update"

D'accord. :thumbsup:

[Odin2005]

5. Unfortunatly too many people treat the Constitution as some untouchable holy document.

I also think we need a new constitution, but the archaistic worship of the Framers makes it a hard idea to sell.

[yurbud]

6. and it should be considered treason to use our military to extend the property rights or

increase the profits of corporations or a handful of wealthy individuals.

[pat_k]

9. And so it is, if We the People define it to be an impeachable offense.

The definition of an impeachable offense is intentionally vague. It is what We the People (through the our elected Congress) define it to be at a given point in time.

When it comes to impeachment, there is no external legal authority that can limit or trump our will. We could define dangerous stupidity as a "high crime" against our constitutional democracy. All that is required is the political will.

[pat_k]

8. There is no "grey area" that needs "updating" on impeachment

Impeachment is intended to be a political process. Just as we grant our consent through political processes, so to do we withdraw it. Impeachment is intended to be a direct expression of our will at a given point in time. The definition of "impeachable offense is intentionally vague.

In our common contract, the Constitution of the United States, we surrendered NONE of our sovereignty to any institution or office we created. We are all subject to the collective authority of We the People (and that includes the elected and appointed government officials who serve with our consent). We created the institutions and offices through which we express our will. We charge officials with certain duties. We dictate the powers delegated and forbidden.

We charge the men and women we elect to Congress with the duty to support and defend that contract. Impeachment and removal is the means by which we defend ourselves against intolerable acts that usurp OUR collective sovereign authority. As the body closest to and most responsive to our will, we gave the House the power to impeach and call on the Senate to remove an official who abuses and betrays us.

The branches DO NOT share power equally. The power of impeachment is our trump card. It is the means by which we enforce our sovereignty.

The definition of "impeachable offense" is for We the People, through our Representatives, to define. We empowered the House -- the body closest to and most responsive to We the People -- for a reason. Impeachment is not some abstract legal process. We never intended our representatives to be legal scholars. Congress -- our voice -- is the final word when it comes to impeachment and removal. There is no judicial review. It was designed to be simple, swift, and certain.(Note 1)

Each time Bush and Cheney invoke their fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive they dare our Representatives to impeach and challenge their treasonous claims against our sovereign authority. Each day that Members of the House refuse to act, they join Bush and Cheney in their treason by allowing their lies to stand.


=======================
Note 1

GQ, March 2007
The People v. Richard Cheney
Wil S. Hylton

When the Founding Fathers crafted the U.S. Constitution, they wanted to be sure that the president, vice president, and other ranking officials could be evicted more easily than the British monarchy. To ensure that the process would be swift and certain, they made it simple: Only two conditions must be met. First, a majority of the House of Representatives must agree on a set of charges; then, two-thirds of the Senate must agree to convict. After that, there is no legal wrangling, no appeal to a higher authority, no reversal on technical grounds. There is not even a limit on what the charges may be. As the Constitution describes it, the cause may be “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but even these were left deliberately vague; as Gerald Ford once pointed out while still serving in the House of Representatives, the only real definition of an “impeachable offense” is “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

[pat_k]

10. Unitary authoritarian executive is a fascist fantasy.

Something I drafted on the topic:

How to Resist the Fascist Take-Over
Banishing Fascist Fantasies from the "Marketplace of Ideas"
Yoo, Addington, Alito, and other adherents of an American unitary authoritarian executive, invoke their tortured interpretations and claims of legalistic complexity to deceive the American people into allowing their so-called "theories" into the "marketplace of ideas."

Fascist fantasies like unitary authoritarian executive are NOT ideas to be "argued on the merits." Just as intelligent design has no place in our science classes, their fantasies have no place in the "marketplace of ideas."

We must stop calling their fantasies "theories." No more debating "on the merits." The moment we engage and treat their fantasies as plausible theories, we legitimize their fantasies.

Unitary Executive: American principle v. Fascist principle

The notion that the 1973 war powers act (which was passed by Congress and can be revoked or radically altered by them) empowers the President of the United States to ignore our laws must be rejected on principle -- American principle v. Fascist principle. It is lunacy to think the Constitution for the United States of America gives (or even might give) the Presidency the power to flagrantly violate the collective will of the people codified in the acts and resolutions passed by our Congress.

You do not need an expert to weigh in. You don't need a law degree, or even a high school degree, to know that absolute power like that is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force.

This is not the first time that fascists have appealed to legalistic technicality and "complexity" to thwart the will of the people, and it will not be the last.

The law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it, Too many Americans have been deceived into believing that they are helpless in the face of legal authority. Even when we are in complete agreement that the INTENT of our law is being overruled by legalisms and cynical misuse of the courts, we have submitted to authorities who tell us, "the law is the law." The spread of this fascist view of the law has had devastating consequences.

No matter how long and complex, or how "scholarly and sophisticated" in form, when an opinion yields results that violate the intent of our laws and the principles embodied in our Constitution, the opinion is a sham.

Like the story of the Emporer's New Clothes, sometimes the "authorities" and "sophisticated" are taken in far more easily than the naive. If we are to preserve our constitutional democracy, ordinary Americans must trust their own judgment and reject the sham.

The Balance of Powers Favors Congress

Contrary to what the new American fascists would have you believe, the three branches of Government DO NOT share power equally.

When we established our Constitution for the United States of America, we yielded NONE of our Sovereignty to ANY institution we created, but we did vest more power in Congress -- our voice -- than in the Judiciary or the Executive.

How do we know we gave Congress more power? Simple. We gave Congress the Power to Impeach officials in the excecutive and judicial branches. (No authority in the exective or judiciary and impeach a Member of Congress.)

The design of our constitution anticipated the need balance conflicting interests. When the laws we pass to address specific problems (or an interpretation of those laws) conflict with each other, or with the tenets of our Constitution, we look to the judiciary to resolve these conflicts in a manner that ensures that the application of the law is the best reflection of our will that can be achieved in an imperfect world. As we strive for a more perfect union it is is the work of the Supreme Court to step in and judge whether applicable law and prior decisions are consistent with our guiding principles.

http://january6th.org/reject-fascist-fantasy.html">More. . .

Government is not some abstract entity. Our Government is nothing more and nothing less then the people who serve the functions we have defined. Our power over our government is expressed through our collective power over the people who drive it. When our power to elect officials, create law, shape the institutions through which the law is executed and applied fail to keep our officials "in line" then the power of impeachment is our fallback.

[pat_k]

7. What crap.

I am sometimes amazed at the twists some come up with to escape the ONLY step capable of declaring the fascist fantasy of unitary authoritarian power to be intolerable to our constitutional democracy.

Bush and Cheney break the law in plain sight and claim the "right" to do so. The case to impeach for that High Crime (High Treason*) against the sovereign authority of We the People couldn't be simpler.

-------------------
* High treason, broadly defined, is an action which is grossly disloyal to one's country or sovereign. (wikipedia)

More on the subject in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=992472&mesg_id=993405">this post