Several weeks ago I called my senators' and congressman's offices to let them know I supported a Bush/Cheney impeachment. Of course, my two senators and congressman are Bill Nelson, Mel Martinez, and Tom Feeney so at least two thirds of my activism were destined to fall on deaf ears. But it made me feel better, at least.
Then today, rather unexpectedly I find a letter from Feeney's office telling me why he doesn't support impeachment proceedings. The letter is reproduced in full below, including a couple of very interesting paragraphs...
Dear Mr. Finister
They spelled my name wrong.
Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns regarding the current administration of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. While I appreciate hearing your views on this matter, I respectfully disagree with your support for a presidentialimpeachment.
What's notable about this is that this appears to be an individual response and not a form letter, apparent right off the bat by reiterating my support for impeachment for BOTH Bush and Cheney. This becomes even more apparent a few paragraphs down.
Impeachment is a serious matter and a process that is outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution in Article II, Section 4 says, "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." Presidential impeachment proceedings have only happened three times in our history, including as you are very aware, the impeachment case against former President Clinton.
The obligatory civics lesson. Egh.
Many members of the House, including myself, feel that pursuing impeachment of the administration would create a serious distraction from the critical issues the United States is currently facing. It is a much better use of our resources to focus on issues like the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan and securing our borders both to protect us from terrorists and to halt the flow of illegal immigrants.
Note the lower case use of "war on terror" - still using the phrase we've come to know and love over the past several years while not making it "The Global War on Terror." Also let's not miss the placing of Iraq before Afghanistan and the invocation of that most terrible of demons, illegal immigration. Anybody know how Rep. Feeney voted on the immigration bill?
In fact, even the Democrat leadership in the House and Senate has not pursued articles of impeachment against the administration. Further, House Resolution 333, introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), is the only impeachment resolution filed regarding the Vice President, and has not been considered by the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary committee.
And here's that interesting paragraph (at least until we get to the next one) that specifically discusses how the various impeachment options floating out there don't address the Vice President, except for Kucinich's. Regardless of how accurate it is, I doubt they have a form response for people calling about the impeachment for Bush and one specifically for Bush and Cheney, meaning this is probably an individual response. Which, if nothing else, is surprising coming from an office like Feeney's. But alas, it's still "Democrat leadership" instead of "Democratic leadership."
Additionally, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. The Department also found that all federal civil officers except the President are subject to indictment and criminal prosecution while still in office. The president is uniquely immune from such a process; this conclusion continues to represent the best interpretation of the Constitution on this matter.
Now this is interesting. Is there any basis for this? Now would be a good time for that civics lesson - and one that goes beyond citing the Article and Section of the Constitution. Has anybody come across this before? And is it really saying what I think it's saying, that the president is immune to impeachment while in office?
Thank you again for contacting me and I encourage you to visit my website at www.house.gov/feeney for more information on issues affecting Central Florida and our nation. While you visit the website, please click on "Tom's Blog" to join your neighbors in a discussion on current news and legislative issues. If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call my offices in Washington, DC and Florida.
For all the good it'll do, I do intend to follow up, if for nothing else, to follow up on the idea that the president is immune to impeachment while in office.
Sincerely,
Tom Feeney
Member of Congress
24th District, Florida
It's also worth nothing that it does appear he signed his name personally, in print letters, no less. So, that's something.
Also, this is my first diary, though I've been lurking on here for years, since 2004. So, hello.
~Brian