The states can start impeachment!

[uberblonde]

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/01/25/10/47/blue-states-do-your-duty/

Via Suburban Guerrilla:

Oh, look! Our colleague Kagro X over at The Next Hurrah informs us articles of impeachment may be initiated by a state legislature:

And to be perfectly honest with you, this read at first like just another fringe-y, kooked-out misreading of procedure. But I just happen to have an old copy of Jefferson’s Manual here on the desk, and sure enough, that’s just what it says. The legislature of any state or territory may transmit charges to the Congress and recommend impeachment.

Now, to be sure, there is nothing that forces the House of Representatives—still the sole body capable of adopting actual articles of impeachment—to act on such charges. In fact, you can be assured that they’d do everything in their power to avoid doing so.

But what a story it’d make! A little known constitutional procedure that has lain dormant for decades, never before used against a president, and pitting the duly elected and sworn legislature of a state against a federal Congress sitting on its hands and refusing to act!

What drama! What passion!

So, where to start?

Well, clearly you’ll need to begin in a state with a strong Democratic majority in the legislature. That’s just plain fact. And while it may be complained that it puts an unduly partisan shine on things, the bottom line is that there really are no Republicans willing to consider their duty in this matter.

[KingFlorez]

1. Interesting

[greentrees]

2. The states can start impeachment!

"...the bottom line is that there really are no Republicans willing to consider their duty in this matter."

Gee ... I wonder why?

[f-bush]

3. This would be great................

Just off the top of my head I'm thinking...Maryland, Mass, Rhode Island, New York, Hawaii, Minnesota maybe California or Washington. Come on somebody step up to the plate!!!!

[gogo69]

7. Louisiana!!!

hmmmm - does the governor of Louisiana know about this????

[woodsprite]

4. I don't think Sen. BaseballCap and Sen. DLC would do it.

Great idea though. I already told hubby I'm voting ABAR this time - Anybody but a republican. Nick Berg's (Mike) father is planning on running against Cong. Mike Castle. At least that's what yesterday's paper said. Hubby thinks his running on the Green party ticket will do him in.

[bananas]

5. k&r - best news I've heard in a long time nt

[wtbymark]

6. Vermont has a super majority of democrats

[samhsarah]

8. KICK!

:kick: :headbang: :yourock: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[samhsarah]

9. What about RI?

Rhode Island has the highest chimp disapproval rating. VT is #2. I read that here a while back. I have to try to look up the link. Here it is: http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBush060117Approval.htm

[klook]

10. How about ALL Dem state legislatures simultaneously??

Give them a huge volley of shots across the bow.

[Peace Patriot]

11. California has a TWO TO ONE Democratic majority in the state legislature.

They have been a great thorn in Schwarzenegger's side. He tried to redistrict them by bought and paid for initiative, but the voters soundly rejected the idea of giving Schwarz any power over redistricting (they rightly smelled a Tom Delay move).

However, I have been uncertain of these Democrats--as to national issues and the Bush junta--ever since they failed to get Kevin Shelley's back. He's the Dem Sec of State who sued Diebold and decertified the worst of their election theft machines* prior to the 2004 election, and then was forced from office on bogus corruption charges because he had no money to defend himself with (the Bush-controlled Fed election commission was preparing to do a Kenneth Starr-type witchhunt). The old Dem leadership had recently retired en masse. The new leaders failed us completely on the Shelley matter. They should have shown spine. They didn't--in my opinion because of a combo of fear of the Bush junta (fear of its powers of retaliation), fear of corrupt county election officials who hold too much power these days,* and some kind of fear radiating from DC Dems having to do with Diebold, ES&S and the junta.

On the other hand, we have a fabulous state Senator, Debra Bowen, who is running for Sec of State and is on top of the electronic voting matter--really on top of it! (See www.debrabowen.com). SHE might go for it--although she's got her hands full trying to restore election integrity.

--------------

*(The electronic voting coup was inflicted on Calif by the Sec of State prior to Shelley, Repub Bill Jones, who, together with his chief aide Alfie Charles, now works for Sequoia, one of the big three e-voting companies--a completely corrupt "revolving door" employment situation. Shelley inherited the e-voting disaster from Jones, and was just beginning to address the worst of it--the Diebold touchscreens--and to take other clean-up measures, including forbidding "revolving door" employment, and riding herd on corrupt county election officials, when those very same officials, led by one of the most corrupt, L.A. County elections head Connie McCormack, began the campaign to drive him from office. I'm beginning to think that Dems in the Legis are afraid of people like McCormack, who now have the power to make or break them in elections, because the elections have become so non-transparent.)

-------------

Could you give us more detail on the power of state legis's to start impeachment proceedings? How does "Jefferson's Manual" empower the states to do this? (I'll go to the link--but do you know?)

[patcox2]

12. So can an individual member of congress, doesn't mean it goes anywhere.

Thats the thing. No matter that there are many ways of "initiating" impeachment, these are just the means by which it is placed in question, a majority of the house still has to vote to pursue the matter, so it just doesn't matter. Conyers has already "initiated" an impeachment investigation, for what its worth. Doesn't mean there will be one.

[Peace Patriot]

14. Patcox2, it's one thing to say that Bush's illegitmately elected "pod

people" in Congress will blockade any removal of Bush/Cheney; and it's quite another to say that "it just doesn't matter." The actions of principled men and women to remove Bush/Cheney DO matter, even if it's one or twenty or a hundred. Please be careful of using defeatist language about courageous and patriotic actions--and actions for the common good--and don't buy into the war profiteering corporate news monopolies' brainwashing illusion that the Bush junta has significant support (it does not--even according to their own polls) and that it cannot be dislodged.

Much of this Congress was elected by Diebold and ES&S, not by us.

[patcox2]

16. Okay, I will pretend I am Aragorn and we will defeat the ents.

Fantasy vs. defeatism.

Stupid name calling.

Such childishness around here as I have never seen (and such over the top melodramatic posturing, people read too much Will Pitt.)

We will take back the country by winning elections. Its dirty work, hard, it involves compromise and coalition building, not an active fantasy life and visions of bold, brave heroes taking principled stands.

[FreedomAngel82]

13. Is this true?

[Peace Patriot]

15. I've read the history of Jefferson's Manual, and it was ratified by the

House as the official procedures for Congress, but I'm not entirely sure of its status in the Senate. (Jefferson was VP at the time he wrote the Manual, thus was presiding over the Senate.) In any case, it's the House that brings articles of impeachment. And I presume that a state resolution of impeachment would have to be introduced through the state's US House reps (one of them, at least)

The controversies that were raging at the time Jefferson wrote the Manual are very reminiscent of today's political scene. The Federalists (today's Republicans) were acting like tyrants, wanting to give the Prez powers of a king, with items like the Alien and Sedition Act (squelching free speech, etc.), and were trying to get the New Republic embroiled in a conflict between England and France (war profiteers, even then?). They wanted to squash the Republicans (today's Democrats--Jefferson's party)--who opposed the Alien and Sedition Act (read Patriot Act), and strongly supported individual rights as laid out in the Constitution, which Jefferson believed would be protected by the states (vs. the fed gov't). The whole thrust of Jefferson, Madison and the Republicans was to bolster state/individual power vs. fed/kingly power. The Federalists were trying to devise ways to suppress minority views in Congressional procedure. Jefferson was firm that the rules must protect the minority, and be fair to all. Thus, his Manual of Parliamentary Procedure, or "Jefferson's Manual" (still in force today).

(Note: Jefferson was the only case in our history of a Prez (Adams/Feds) of one party, and a VP of an opposing party (Jeff/Repubs)(read Dems). Political parties were not yet very strong, organizationally--and didn't run a "ticket." Since Jefferson wasn't interested in helping Adams implement Federalist policy, he devoted his time to establishing Congressional procedure--and was later elected 3rd Prez. of the US.)

-------------------

To NAYSAYERS (those here at DU who ALWAYS predict defeat of any progressive strategy, due to the rightwing's illegitimate power):

Can you imagine how stirring it would be to have the Bush/Cheney impeachment debate occurring in state legislatures around the country?

Those who predict "defeat" on the basis of cold numbers (whatever their legitimacy) fail to appreciate how wonderfully messy history and politics are, and how "a shot fired round the world" can change everything. One man or woman standing up and speaking the truth can change everything. There IS ALWAYS that possibility--whether the change comes immediately or eventually. And it is especially true in a situation like this one where the oppressors' power is a "house of cards." (35% to 40% approval rating, all year--after having gained power by 2 stolen elections.)

NO strategy should be dismissed because we have a Diebolded Congress.

I can't tell you how important it was that ONE Senator--Barbara Boxer--challenged the Ohio electors on Jan. 6, 2005. That action, inspired by John Conyers and the Black Caucus, rippled through this land, despite every effort to suppress it in the "news." It is still resonating.

I can't tell you how important it was that ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE Senators and Congresspeople voted against the Iraq war resolution (as opposed to only ONE vote against the Vietnam war resolution back in 1964)--despite the relentless lies and warmongering by the Bush junta, and despite the corruption and collusion of half the Democratic Party leadership; and despite being anthraxed; and despite pervasive fear and blackmail and extortion and secrecy and illegal spying and official crime of every sort in Washington DC. 125!

Change may not be instant. But change WILL come, if there are people who can see, and can articulate, the change that is needed. Sometimes articulation ALONE will produce change. Sometimes more is needed--long term organization, such as state/local movements, currently in progress, to restore election transparency and our right to vote.

Again, NO strategy should be dismissed because we have a Diebolded Congress. There are OTHER centers of power--centers of progress, of majority rule and the rule of law--in this country. Town councils, boards of supervisors, state legislatures; law schools and legal groups; and more. There are other centers of news, besides the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. And there are SOME legitimately elected Senators and Congress people, who are truly representing majority opinion. ALL should be utilized to bring this junta to accountability.

State demands for impeachment should be explored. We don't know its viability and its potential until we do explore it, and get the idea around. We might be surprised how much even state political establishments hate this junta. Activists were surprised by all the town councils and other local bodies who opposed the Patriot Act--which absolutely had a ripple effect in Washington DC, where the Patriot Act got into real trouble. Resolutions of "no confidence" might be another way to go.

We should NEVER acquiesce to tyranny BECAUSE it is tyranny. The Bushites having more votes in Congress was achieved by them through NON-TRANSPARENT elections. We should not accede to that tyranny by allowing THEM and their illegitimate numbers to determine what WE say and do regarding needed change.

[Octafish]

17. Great post.

Keep hope alive.