Several good points were raised in Bill Moyers' recent show examining the case for impeachment. Let me start with a key point. Inaction has consequences.
As Bruce Fein so aptly noted, if nothing is done to correct the abuses of this administration NOW, you are "setting precedents that will lie around like loaded weapons" for anyone to pick up and use.
This administration does not have a record of restraint when it comes to loaded weapons. They have no problem shooting first and asking questions later. Actually, they have no problem shooting first and ignoring questions later. In a multitude of ways, this administration has declared itself above the law. That is a clear and present danger to the republic. As Ari Fleischer often stated, we should be "very worried about the horrible consequences of inaction." This is particularly true given this administration's well-documented program of constitutional overreach.
Overreaching is serious business in a government designed to be ruled by checks and balances.
When he says that all of the world...is a military battlefield because Osama bin Laden says he wants to kill us there, and I can then use the military to go into your home and kill anyone there who I think is al-Qaeda ... that is overreaching. That is a claim even King George III didn't make.
~Bruce Fein, Conservative Constitutional Lawyer
I'm sure one reason George III didn't make that claim was he didn't have the firepower to back it up. As we all know, George Bush does have the firepower and he is not shy about using it.
As long as Congress cowers before the Executive, how in the world can you expect to oversee the use of this sort of force? How will you exercise your authority over unknown people in undisclosed locations controling squadrons of aerial hunter/killer platforms based on secret presidential findings? The "power of the purse" has no meaning if no one can account for the money being allocated.
This administration has made it painfully clear that for them "oversight" means "overlooked." Is there any question of this administration's contempt for Congress? Forget about Alberto Gonzales' testimony, chances are he already has. Consider instead, Harriet Miers' response to a subpoena. What is the sound of one subpoena ignored?
What you see documented here is nothing less than criminal contempt. What you see here is nothing less than a president exercising unconstitutional powers. What you see here is a private citizen flaunting community standards at the direction of her former employer. What you see here is an officer of the court refusing to fulfill her obligations and oath of office. What you are looking at is unambiguous evidence of criminal behavior.
Make no mistake, you are looking down the barrel of a loaded weapon and it is pointed at your face. It is every bit as dangerous as a live grenade in your lap. The actions of this administration have been consistent and clear. The unilateral foreign policy enshrined in the National Security Strategy of 2002 is part and parcel of a unilateral domestic policy, a unilateral legislative policy, a unilateral treaty policy and a unilateral judicial policy. The President and his administration are sending an unambiguous message to all and sundry. They will not be bound by anyone.
The Unitary Executive is the logical result of enabling these unilateral policies to continue unchecked. Concentrating that sort of unfettered power in the hands of one man doesn't make the president a king. It makes him The Decider ®. Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers never put any limits on that position, so The Decider ® is free to pursue anything he decides is worth pursuing. The only things standing in his way is a goddamned piece of paper and a reality check.
Inaction has consequences. We don't want the "smoking gun" to come in the form of an "outdated Constitution." (h/t to offgrid)
SENATOR FEINGOLD AND FRIENDS, STOP WAITING FOR HELP TO ARRIVE.
WE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR.