My response to a hand-written letter from my Congressman about impeachment

[garybeck]

First the context...

A month or so ago I wrote to my Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT) about the need to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

I was amazed to receive a hand written letter in response, which stated:

Gary,
My issue with impeachment is _not_ whether Bush/Cheney deserve it, it's that pursuing it, in my judgment, would fracture the Ds and unite the Rs. This would be damaging to restoration of Constitutional Rights and ending the war. Thanks for your note,
Peter

Well that note has been sitting in a pile on my desk and I finally decided to write back to him this evening. Here is my letter (emailed, maybe I should have hand-written it...):

Dear Congressman Welch,

First I want to thank you for your hand written response to my email concerning the impeachment of George W. Bush. In my many years of writing to my representatives I have never received a hand written letter, which shows you are truly concerned about my opinions.

However I respectfully disagree with your reasoning, and please allow me to explain why. First, you said that Bush does deserve to be impeached, but this would fracture the Democratic Party and unite the Republicans. I think the opposite is true. If there were impeachment hearings, the American public would for the first time be exposed to the real truth about what the Administration has done for the last 6 years, and the already strong majority against the Republicans and Bush would be strengthened, not fractured. We can look at the example of Clinton's impeachment which clearly did not fracture the party that was doing the impeaching. In fact they were strengthened and it was the Dems who were hurt the most. The same thing would happen if Bush were impeached - the Republicans would lose even more popularity than they have already lost.

I believe it is clearly written in the Constitution -- it is your legal duty to impeach. It states only the House can impeach, and quite clearly:

"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."

Note, it says "shall be removed from Office." It doesn't say they "can be removed from Office." It is quite clear, if they have done these things they SHALL be impeached, and only the House can do it.

Since you stated that you agree they deserve it, it appears you have a legal obligation to fulfill your sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, and support any efforts to impeach George W. Bush and/or Dick Cheney. By failing to do so, you are neglecting your sworn duty.

Lastly I'd like to add, again with respect, that your reason for not impeaching has to do with politics. You state it will fracture the Dems and unite the Republicans. As stated, I do not agree with this theory, but even if it were true, please consider that it is your job to do what's right, not make decisions about important matters based on the theoretical political ramifications. It is this type of political decision-making that got us into the war in the first place and continues to keep us there to this day. Meanwhile, our soldiers and innocent civilians are dying every day.

Please consider your moral and legal duty to the Constitution and the American people. You should co-sign and support H. RES. 333, a bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. Doing so will be evidence of your strong will to do what is right regardless of the possible political fallout and will earn my likely support in future elections.

Regards,
Gary Beckwith

Perhaps I should have hand-written it... But these years of reliance on computers have made my handwriting illegible :)

[MadMaddie]

1. Gary....what a great response....

I am with you....I am tired of the Democratic pathetic response of (It's gonna hurt my career so let's not pursue this). It is their duty and obligation....and it is time for them to stop playing nice....it is time to increase the pressure on the these bastards.....

The Democratic party owes it every US citizen to stop this Administration before they attack Iran....attacking Iraq was bad...but attacking Iran will truely unite the MiddleEast in a way that this Administration is too ignorant to understand....and this is why they need to pursue Impeachment.



Great Letter my friend!

[H2O Man]

2. Very good.

Thank you for exercising your Amendment 1 rights.

[cali]

3. Nice letter.

I disagree with you on a couple of points: Welch may well be doing what he considers right. He may believe that fracturing the dems and uniting the rpukes will lead to a restoration of the repuke majority and a repuke presidency, and see that as untenable.

As far as the obligation of Congress to impeach, I don't agree with your interpretation.

I do agree that Congress needs to introduce articles of impeachment, despite arguments that it would be counter-productive, and yes I wish it would be Peter Welch. He's my rep too.

[garybeck]

4. on what point do you disagree about obligation?

I copied it word for word.... it says "Shall be impeached." It doesn't say "may be impeached" or "can be impeached." The word SHALL is equivalent to "MUST."

Note, the writers did not pick and choose words like this randomly. there are many uses of the word "may", for example:

Section 1 - Judicial powers - The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Now the writers could have used "may" in the impeachment clause, but they used the word SHALL. This was not done by accident. Welch has a legal obligation here. The only argument against it would be if Peter didn't think Bush committed any impeachable offenses. Then, my response would have been completely different. Since he stated in his own words that Bush does deserve it, it's clear, he has an obligation, stemming from the oath he took to uphold the Constitution.

[cali]

6. There was actually a long thread on this here

some months back. I don't believe there is a single constitutional expert in this area who interprets the Constitution so as to construe that shall, in this context, means must impeach.

[garybeck]

9. check dictionary :)

It even references the legal context in #3:

1. plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later.
2. will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it.
3. (in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to: The meetings of the council shall be public.


I would say that any legal expert who would interpret it otherwise has their head in the sand. Many legal documents and laws have the word "shall" and "must" in it and they are strong directives that the person or persons involved are supposed to do that particular thing, whatever it is.

If you were at a new job and someone handed you a guide of what your job entails, and it said, "on every monday each employee shall fill out a time card" would you interpret this as meaning you "can" or "may" fill out a timecard?

Shall is a very strong word and it absolutely has a strong legal implication.

Here's something to try... Google the Constitution and then search through the text for the word "Shall." You will notice that those are things that are actually done. They are not suggestions, they are not allowances. They are instructions. Then search the text for the word "may" and you will find these are all things that can be done by choice.

I disagree that legal experts would side with Shall being a choice. Virtually every other use of the word implies the imperative.

OK, I'm off my soapbox. Of course everything is open to interpretation, and I think I made my point. Peace.

[cali]

13. We disagree

Impeachment is at the discretion of the House, and "high crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever the House of Representatives say they are. This isn't exactly revolutionary thought. It's commonly known.

[Occulus]

22. The Founders did us a great disservice by not specifically stating possible impeachable offenses n/t

[defendandprotect]

60. but they did, didn't they? Even including "suspicions" of conspiracy among VP and President????

[rgbecker]

76. And don't overlook the part about.....

getting Blow jobs in the pantry, then saying you didn't have sex with that women! I know that's in there somewhere.

[defendandprotect]

77. That will be back when Hillary gets nominated and Bill's penis gets handed to them again -- !!!!

[Occulus]

82. One would THINK so, I should hope!

But remember- these people will split legal hairs until they are a nanometer wide.

Trust them not!

[OzarkDem]

27. Its not rocket science

Given the gravity of the crimes committed by Bushco, its pretty much a no-brainer.

[garybeck]

32. Well the point is, that there is no crime worse than what Bush has done, so if not now, when?

drop the 'shall' discussion for now.... but just think about it this way... the Constitution states that Impeachment is there for some type of purpose, right? If we agree on that, then what purpose is there, if it is not used now? What could a President do, that is worse than he's done? I think Peter agrees, that Bush has done many horrible and illegal things that do qualify as high crimes; that's not the question. So, that being said, I think it is a legal obligation. It's as if a sheriff knows who committed a murder and decides not to press charges. He's employed to uphold the law. In this case, it's not like it's borderline. It's not like it's a close call, as to whether or not the things he's accused of doing would constitute a high crime. It's the highest of highs; I can't think of anything worse, short of putting people into ovens based on their religion, but he has come close to that with what he's done to the citizens of Iraq. and since Peter agrees these are high crimes punishable by impeachment, it is his obligation, in my mind. and what bothers me the most is his reason that he's more concerned about the party and next election than he is about the issue and the truth. the party already has control of both houses and they are still enabling the President to go around FISA, with some of the folks in Peter's Party voting for it??? That's what we're avoiding impeachment, in order to protect the Party? Maybe this fragmentation of the party that he fears is just what we need to clean things up a bit.

[cali]

33. And there's where we agree

If they don't impeach, they are setting the bar for future impeachment ridiculously high. If bush's actions aren't worthy of impeachment, what actions would call for impeachment. It's the best argument for impeachment.

[frogcycle]

64. great letter

and bully for you for following through

I know you said drop the "shall" discussion, but I have $.02 anyway -

You quoted correctly the first time:
"shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,"

and not the second, when you paraphrased it as "shall be impeached"

the "shall" refers to removal, not to impeachment.

[Maraya1969]

73. "You shall be remanded to the state penitentiary for a period of life without

parole"


That does not sound like a suggestion to me. And interesting that the same words are used for the average joe and jane citizen.

I agree completely without. A prosecutor does not forgo a trial because they think the townsfolk will be upset!

[kestrel91316]

8. I totally agree with your thinking on this point. "Shall" leaves NO room for interpretation.

[MonkeyFunk]

35. But the constitution doesn't say

"shall be impeached". That's just made up.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. Where does the constitution

say "shall be impeached"?

Article II, Section 4

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.

[burrowowl]

5. Practice your penmanship!

You never know when it will come in handy!
Good letter!

[baldguy]

7. Is your first loyalty to your party or to the Constitution?

Works just as well with Dems as GOPrs.

[bbgrunt]

10. good letter.

[Poiuyt]

11. I'd like to know who convinced everyone in Congress that impeachment would divide

the Democrats, or unite the Republicans, or that we'd lose seats in the next election, or any of a number of bogus reasons. My guess it was Rove.

In fact, history has shown just the opposite to be true. If history is any indicator, we would probably pick up seats if we started impeachment hearings.

[garybeck]

31. I agree, the argument makes no sense. It is either sheer stupidity or

someone is playing a game with us

[B Calm]

12. Great response!! Please, let us know if he replies to this letter.

[FLDCVADem]

14. Maybe it's just me...

...but it seems pretty obvious that there no legal obligation to impeach.

The Constitution doesn't say "...shall impeach...", it says "...shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The legal obligation implied by "shall" is to remove them from office once impeached and convicted, not to impeach them to begin with.

[cali]

16. Precisely.

That's exactly right.

[OzarkDem]

18. Welcome to DU

Isn't that sort of like saying the sheriff is supposed to arrest someone for robbing a bank, but they don't have to?

Why would so-called Democrats want to let the serious crimes of the Bush administration go unpunished?

[cali]

20. No, it's nothing like it.

The Constitution says that if impeached and convicted, he/she shall be removed from office. Impeachment itself and the definition of what is an impeachable offence is at the discretion of the House.

And although I'm a proponent of impeachment, Peter Welch is a man with integrity and a conscience. I simply disagree with him on the issue, but I will gladly vote for him in '08.

[OzarkDem]

25. Exactly my point

Its up to the House to begin an impeachment investigation and proceedings. Failing to do so in the face of evidence the president and vice president broke the law is failing to enforce the law.

[FLDCVADem]

21. I don't think that's a valid analogy

The Constitution mandates, by use of the word "shall", what the punishment is IF a President or Vice-President is impeached AND convicted. I've never seen anything in the Constitution, and I've read it and studied it many times, that mandates conditions under which a Vice President or President must be impeached. It is completely at the discretion of the House of Representatives.

[OzarkDem]

26. The Constitution defines the impeachment process

and places the responsibility to enforce the law with Congress. If they fail to investigate and begin impeachment proceedings, they are failing to do their job.

Its very much the same as a law enforcement officer watching a criminal rob a bank, but failing to act. Like Congress, its not the sheriff's job to bring charges or try the bank robber - but it is his job to stop the criminal and investigate his crimes.

[tomp]

30. no, it's like saying a person shall go to jail for robbing a bank...

...but the sheriff isn't obliged to arrest him/her. obviously utter nonsense.

[Pacifist Patriot]

74. Thank you. Analogies always suffer in the translation...

but as analogies go, this one is pretty darned good.

[Mandate My Ass]

15. Perfect

I'm so tired of being lectured by elected public servants about which aspects of their job they'll choose to perform and which they won't. I'm similarly disgusted by being told that my voice in the primaries is neither needed nor welcomed; according to them I'll be filled in at the appropriate time which corporate insider frontrunner has been annointed by the party leadership. Please fill out a generous check and leave all opinions at the door.

If he is so worried about our Constitutional rights, he'd be fulfilling his oath of office rather than sending condescending -- albeit handwritten -- notes of regret about his abdication of duty to his constituents.

Fuck these people who think its within their purview to compel us to sit back and allow blatant lawbreakers rob, pillage and murder to their hearts' content, merely to continue their own complimentary ride on the taxpayer gravy train with implicit threats of "which would you prefer? them or us?" :puke:

[cali]

17. Honestly, your description of

Peter Welch as someone who is condesending and merely interested in a complementary ride on the taxpayer gravy train, is way off. And it's certainly untrue that he's issuing an implicit "us or them" threat; this is, after all, Vermont. "Them" doesn't stand a chance of winning Welch's seat.

[VP505]

19. Follow up with

a written note, but by all means make sure he receives your well written spot on response.

[pansypoo53219]

23. i have been calling bushevics nazis for a long time

but tonight, with iWan in the mix, georgie IS hitler or Hitwer if you will.(egged on by cheeney of course). what did hitler do? he invaded sovereign nations to gain advantage and what has georgie done? don't forget poland? don't forget afganistan and iWan. can you say brandenburg gate?

no more goodwin's law or whatever it is. georgie IS hitler.

[lligrd]

24. Excellent Response

Not that I am expecting much but I can't wait to hear his ext response.

[lavenderdiva]

28. Excellent response-

glad to be able to be the 11th recommend! :hi:

[simmonsj811]

29. you sir are the man

that was great:toast: :dem:

[tom_paine]

36. K & R

[Senator]

37. The Cluestick: "But Even If It Were True..."

That's what we need to keep hammering.

Perhaps you could go see him in person? It's much more effective to force them to listen to themselves spout their rationalizations for inaction.

And FWIW, I usually follow up "but even if that were true..." with a simple question: Why does "our side" get to benefit from ongoing torture and war crimes?

==

[theNotoriousP.I.G.]

38. Great letter! eom

[bananarepublican]

39. K&r! This letter could be the basis for reminding all democratic congresspeople of their...

... constitutional obligations.

Your reply was excellent.

[rhett o rick]

40. What he really said was, "If I do what is right and moral I might lose my job". nm

[cali]

41. No he didn't.

Welch is in exactly no danger of losing his job to someone from the right- or, for that matter, someone from the left, although he'll almost certainly have a Progressive Party challenge. This is Vermont, where the State Senate voted in April overwhelmingly yea on impeaching bush/cheney, where dozens of towns have passed impeachment resolutions.

[rhett o rick]

44. Then why is he so afraid? He should do what is right and believe that the

best will result. I heard him say that we shouldn't prosecute clear violations of the law because it mite anger the republicans and some Democrats. This will set a horribly dangerous precedent. Do you think we should let the BushCorp criminals off the hook??

[cali]

45. I'm for impeachment, if that's what you're asking,

I think Welch is afraid of the repukes taking back Congress. I don't think that's sufficient enough reason to not back impeachment, but it's not going to stop me from voting for him next year.

[rhett o rick]

46. Agree. I say impeach and let the chips fall where they may. nm

[rhett o rick]

42. The Republicans have the Dem's exactly where they want them. If the

Dem's prosecute them they might get mad and then there would be hell to pay. I am glad our founding fathers weren't so CS.

[MisterHowdy]

43. Wow, well said!

n/t

[rateyes]

47. Somebody help me out here...

Jefferson's Manual says that bills of impeachment, brought by a Representative, are of the highest priority and supersede all other business on the floor.

So, why hasn't this bill been brought up for a vote. Is the leadership not following House rules?

[Gman]

48. The problem is, he's right

like it or not.

This Congress' chief purposes are to stop the war and to prevent Bush from inflicting the massive destruction of the country that was planned in his last two years. There are barely enough votes (counting blue dogs) to stop the war. There are barely enough (sometimes) votes (counting blue dogs) to prevent the massive destruction. There are NOT enough votes anywhere to impeach in the House and no where near the 66 needed in the Senate to convict.

I believe there are enough votes to impeach and possibly convict a lot of lower level appointments and prevent them from ever infecting the government again, which they will the next time there is a Republic president. This is where the impeachment effort needs to focus.

[rhett o rick]

61. yeah keep your powder dry, i get it. nm

[Divine Discontent]

49. Gar-Bear you hit a HOME RUN with that one!

sorry, the bear part was out of excitement, lol. Seriously, you succinctly hammered the point home about how his decision sounds like a POLITICAL decision, and ultimately is - a cop out being perpetrated against the Constitution's orders and the will and more importantly, the PROTECTION of the American citizenry.

Thank you for such a great letter, and sharing it.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

50. -

[Rhiannon12866]

51. That was brilliant! Thank you for sharing it! K&R.

:patriot:

[AntiFascist]

52. K&R, good letter and to the point...

Welch's response is interesting in that it shows that Democrats are placing party politics above their constitutional duty. This is a very dangerous situation and where does it end? If party leaders are willing to ignore the Constitution for the sake of the party (or for their own political sake), then at what point are they also willing to break laws or allow laws in general to be broken for their own personal gain? Government in Washington DC is currently existing under a cloud of lawlessness -- this is setting a very bad example for the American people and the world at large.

[ldf]

53. apparently he has no faith in the american people

okay, sometimes i don't either.

but it's like they don't WANT the american people to find out the litany of wrongs bush, and everyone with an r behind their name, have done this country. and the only way the majority of americans will learn is through exhaustive investigations.

could it be because the american people's anger would be reflected on congress, in it's entirety, for letting this happen? (could their approval ratings go LOWER than 18%?)

that would mean he, too, would be held accountable for no action.

if these wrongs are not addressed, then the constitution is only a suggestion, to be followed when convenient.

and it will become increasingly inconvenient.

at what point will it cease to be "a living document" and become, merely, an historic footnote?

cowards. the lot of them. INCLUDING the majority of our presidential nominees.

:grr:

[onewholaughsatfools]

54. I sent a letter like this to Joe Lieberman

his response was laughable, He believes of course staying in Iraq and having our soldiers fight the civil war is good, he also thinks soldiers dying today is better than having our troops home and safe.
I asked him about the iraqi's soldiers and where they hell are all these troops that have been trained and where are they hiding. No response on that one. Point being here at least Lieberman knows he is an asshole and sells out america...

[bjobotts]

55. It is a coward who will not fight unless he knows in advance what the outcome will be.

There is no downside to impeachment. Non supporters can debunk their own arguments if they would but play devil's advocate with themselves.
Congressmen can impeach and policy make at the same time but they will not even debate the issue. Bruce Fein, a conservative republican, puts to shame every argument against impeachment but many of our Dems just close their ears and refuse to talk about it because they think it is just too much trouble. They are breaking their oath to defend the constitution and then say they don't want to talk about it. They have just stopped listening.
Why do legislators always think they are smarter than the people they represent?

[pansypoo53219]

56. the democrats

are afraid another 9/11 will happen. ignoring iWan and aramageddon is likely if they don't.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

62. If another 9/11 happens it will be the Dems fault, no matter what...

Haven't we learned anything about the Repugs yet? They are not responsible for any of the evil they do. Hell, they even had to go back to Jimmy Carter's administration to blame someone for the catastrophic results of their own actions!

The Dem's are afraid they'll be blamed if another 9/11 occurs. It doesn't fuckin* matter! If they do nothing then it'll be their fault (according to the Pres), if they do something it'll be their fault (didn't give * enough unbridled powers), if they impeach so what, if they don't impeach so what.

If we're going to lose no matter what, at least lets go down fighting. "Give me liberty or give me the opportunity to keep control of the Congress and maybe win the presidency if I don't piss people off!" does not a battle cry make.

[LiberalAndProud]

57. There are some at the 'fulcrum' of power who would stoop to

fracturing the party. Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and others truly relish the power they enjoy at the center. These so-called centrists hold a death grip on the majority, IMHO.

[WillyT]

58. Outstanding Letter !!! - K & R !!!

:kick::patriot::kick:

[defendandprotect]

59. Great response and makes clear what we get is "political" thinking on impeachment -- !!!

[roxnev]

63. all congress

wants to be rulers instead of representative. maybe the time has come to vote Republican fu@k them, if they are more afraid of the Republicans. than they are of you the voter. It is starting to look like a game, Congress does not represent the Democrats or Republican Party they Represent the people in there district and should vote accordingly.

[SlowDownFast]

65. Nailed it.

I dunno why it's so freakin hard for our reps to get it...

[GOPFighter]

66. A Standing O!

Glad you replied to Rep. Welch (and kudos to Welch for sending you a personal note. The day my Representative does that is the day pigs fly).

We all know the Dems aren't going to impeach anyone. That would require too big a risk. I'm glad you wrote back and explained why he should impeach. There are times when a leader has to do what's right, not what's safe. If Bush isn't impeached, and soon, we'll be fighting a third war, in Iran, and that's when the sh*t is going to really hit the fan!

[mod mom]

67. How wonderful to hear he actually wrote you. I get a form letter bu$hbot response

from mine. I'm envious!

Gary,

Handwritten is more heart felt. Skip the email reply-imho.

[cali]

69. I'm glad someone praised Welch for that

He really is a remarkably good guy.

[rucognizant]

81. Hey!

Our Rep, Mike Michaud, took us, local Dems, out to breakfast and picked up the tab, while essentially saying the same thing as Welsch!
At least good use of the taxpayers money!
I have two of the staff members e-mail adresses, so continuing the campaign for support of H Res. 333. ( Thanks for getting that number right!)
I also called the other day with info about {Peace One Day.}.............. I am trying to get Maine to be thef first state to honor the UN's, unanimously voted for official worldwide ceasefire, on Sept. 21. Has anyone seen the documentary?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/storyville/peace-one-day.shtml

Jeremy's scheme comes to fruition at exactly the wrong moment. Watch out for the stunning scene in which his day of peace is announced at precisely the moment when the planes hit the Twin Towers on 9/11.
The rest of the WOrld has been honoring this day for 6 years!
That's a well thought out leter!

[bluerum]

68. Agreed. 110%.

[barbtries]

70. great letter

succinct, correct, to the point. love this:

"Lastly I'd like to add, again with respect, that your reason for not impeaching has to do with politics. You state it will fracture the Dems and unite the Republicans. As stated, I do not agree with this theory, but even if it were true, please consider that it is your job to do what's right, not make decisions about important matters based on the theoretical political ramifications. It is this type of political decision-making that got us into the war in the first place and continues to keep us there to this day. Meanwhile, our soldiers and innocent civilians are dying every day."

every congressperson should be reminded of this daily.

impeachment now. amen

[Disturbed]

71. Excellent response.

Please, let us know about any follow up.

[Richard Steele]

72. K&R

[Pacifist Patriot]

75. Thank you sir.

[MrMickeysMom]

78. Wow.. How can he not respond again? Let us know if he does.

You laid out a point that should be denied. Our congress are all constitutionally bound to act on this. In fact, I'm surprized that your CM would not have seen the political wisdom (since he's so sensitive to it) of how THAT kind of a response fractures his first relationship- to his constuency.

Do you have real town hall meetings? I have fake town halls meetings, the kind where my CM calls us on the phone and invites our "participation" which is no participation at all.

Thanks for sharing this.

[eagler]

79. Failing to take action could be the downfall of the Dems in next election

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

80. Wow! I'm Not Overly Familiar With Rep. Welch But His Reply Was AWESOME!

Totally spot on, concise and of strong intellect. I can't think of a better way he could've responded that would've put the logic out so clearly. These are the EXACT reasons as to why pursuing impeachment right now would be the act of a fool. I'm just impressed he was able to make the point so intelligently in such a short letter. Good for him!

:applause: