Many of you are by now familiar with the concept introduced on Daily Kos in this diary, written a few days ago by arbortender, entitled
"IMPEACH THEM NOW: It only takes ONE STATE!!!"
The diary raised a point of parliamentary arcana that caught the interest of enough readers to keep the diary on the recommended list for most of the day:
NOTE: Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House. This
refers to Jefferson's Manual-the House uses it as a supplement to its
standing rules.>>
In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion:
[...] by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469)
Let's take another look at that, and give ourselves an important update on developments on this front.
I'd like to restate here what I originally said about the subject at
The Next Hurrah, both to bring new readers up to speed, and to make a rough connection between this concept and the
series of posts I'm currently working on regarding the
necessity of impeachment. And although I'm working a more coherent answer for those who were interested in knowing what strategies I propose in order to complement the necessity, this post may serve as a partial answer.
Arbortender's diary linked back to another blog, where the idea apparently originated. 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.
With that, then, let's examine the state of the states, and partisan control of the state legislatures. The handy-dandy chart in the link shows us that the legislatures of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia all have Democratic majorities in both houses. But Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont have got overwhelming majorities. Veto-proof majorities (though that may not be a necessary requirement).
Hawaii's 51 House seats are occupied by: 41 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
Hawaii's 25 Senate seats are occupied by: 20 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
Massachusetts' 160 House seats are occupied by: 139 Democrats, 20 Republicans and 1 independent.
Massachusetts' 40 Senate seats are occupied by: 34 Democrats and 6 Republicans.
Rhode Island's 75 House seats are occupied by: 59 Democrats and 16 Republicans.
Rhode Island's 38 Senate seats are occupied by: 33 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
Vermont's 150 House seats are occupied by: 83 Democrats, 60 Republicans, 6 Progressives and 1 independent.
Vermont's 30 Senate seats are occupied by: 21 Democrats and 9 Republicans.
That's pretty good odds, at least based solely on partisan affiliation. Lots of leeway for "conscientious objections."
One curious side note: All four of these states have Republican governors -- some for the first time in decades. How weird is that? Will it matter? Not sure. Not only are these veto-proof majorities, but if these states abide by parliamentary rules similar to those used in Congress, a concurrent resolution approved by both houses is not subject to executive signature, and therefore not subject to veto.
But what else do these states bring to the table?
Well, according to a recent SurveyUSA poll, the states with the three very worst approval ratings for Bush are: Rhode Island, Vermont and Massachusetts -- in all of which Bush draws at least 64% disapproval. Rhode Island actually puts Bush below 30% approval, splitting 29/68!
That's another notch in the columns of those three, then.
Now, any of those states would make a great place to start. Massachusetts has a famous Democratic tradition, of course. And it doesn't hurt that it's the home state of the last Democratic presidential candidate. But what captures my interest is that they were one of the states (along with Vermont, as a matter of fact) whose presidential electors voted to transmit additional messages to Congress, calling for an investigation of voting irregularities in the 2004 presidential contest.
These are people who are on board with the concept of breaking tradition, and utilizing a bit of arcana when appropriate.
Vermont, of course, has a number of things going for it in this sweepstakes. Need national players with the clout to get the story heard? Vermont provides plenty: Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Pat Leahy; the only independent in the Senate (and a former Republican at that), Jim Jeffords; the only independent in the House, Bernie Sanders; and of course, Democratic National Committee Chairman and former governor, Howard Dean.
Overly concerned about partisan taint? In addition to the independent status of Jeffords and Sanders, Vermont has a relatively robust third party presence in its legislature -- the Progressives, generally a liberal-leaning bunch, but without the complicating ties of membership in the Democratic Party.
Add to that the Vermont Legislature's resolution of May 29, 2003 disapproving of the USA PATRIOT Actand calling upon Congress to repeal specific provisions of it, and you've got a real contender.
But let me just throw in one quick plug for Rhode Island. It's got the legislature. It's got the low -- and I mean low -- Bush approval ratings. But it's also got Lincoln Chafee, one of a dying breed of "moderate" Republicans, who faces what's looking like an uphill battle for reelection this year.
Would Chafee -- who has broken from the president recently on some key votes, including judicial nominations -- have it in him to stand by Bush when the I-word is on the table, the man's approval ratings are in the toilet, and his home state's legislature has sent instructions to impeach?
I don't know, but I'd love to find out!
So, is it all just some crazy pipe dream? Well, if you're asking me whether the Republican-controlled House is likely to be persuaded to move articles of impeachment at the behest of a single state legislature, the answer is obviously no. But as I said, what a story it'd make!
What would the House do with such a charge? Well, clearly it'd have to be delivered in some formal fashion. Perhaps memorialized by a motion from a sympathetic Member. At the very least recited aloud by the Reading Clerk, live on C-SPAN. But the House would have to dispose of it somehow, most likely by immediately moving to commit the charges to a committee -- likely Judiciary -- and let it rot there, or to table any motions brought seeking to recognize the transmission of the charges.
But that's just fodder for the media. "Congress Ducks State's Impeachment Charges," the headline might read. (OK, maybe that's the pipe dream.) Still, it's a story. And what if more than one state sent such charges?
But another beauty of this is that Jefferson's Manual also instructs us:
A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business. It may not even be superseded by an election case, which is also a matter of high privilege. It does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been made at a previous time during that same session of Congress, previous action of the House not affecting it.
State legislatures take note, however:
A resolution simply proposing an investigation, even though impeachment may be a possible consequence, is not privileged. But where a resolution of investigation positively proposes impeachment or suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege.
The resolutions referred to above are actually those which would be proposed in the House, memorializing the receipt of a state's petition, but it could only help matters for state legislatures considering transmitting such charges to be explicit in framing their document in terms of impeachment. It'd be a much tougher sell to convince the House Parliamentarian that a resolution brought in the House seeking to memorialize a state legislature's resolution calling for impeachment did not actually constitute at least a resolution of investigation positively proposing impeachment. Not that the House GOP Leadership wouldn't consider overruling the Parliamentarian, of course.
Now, here's the "update" part.
In a subsequent conversation on the issue, Elwood Dowd asked some cogent questions about Vermont that help clarify its place in this drama:
For those who'd rather have it spelled out here, a transcript:
Elwood Dowd: One thing that puzzles me about the state-led impeachment proposal is, any individual Congressman can file a charge of impeachment, and it is a privileged motion that the leadership can't quash, correct?
So there is no need to start with a state, unless there is not a single Congressman willing to file charges? But if that's so, state-filed charges won't build much momentum.
What am I missing?
Kagro X: The dynamics that make it difficult for even a committed House Member to bring impeachment charges of her of volition are not present, or at least come from very different sources, for state legislators.
Everything from risking pending legislation (even just the table scraps Dems are allowed these days) and appropriations earmarks, to pressure from more cautious and conservative colleagues not to "make the Dems look bad" might be enough to keep House Members quiet.
But among Democrats who are part of an overwhelming majority, in a completely different setting, with completely different players, that all changes.
And a safe House Dem who receives such "instructions" from his home state legislature might find new reason to act. While she would still be subject to considerable pressure and/or backlash in Washingotn, there's a certain amount of cover that such an instruction would provide. Not to mention the competing political pressures on the home front that would be implied by an act of the legislature.
Elwood Dowd: Well, in this instance where the diarist is proposing Vermont, that effectively means expecting more willingness to be an outsider from Peter Welch (for example) than from Bernie Sanders.
I see the general dynamics of your point. But if there are no Congressmen whatsoever willing to file, the value of a state resolution seems pretty marginal. Especially when the previous use was in impeachment of a federal judge based in, and with jurisdiction limited to, the state that proposed impeachment.
I suppose Vermont could stand on its record of most Iraqi deaths per capita, and file impeachment on misleading us into war... that would provide some basis for claiming a special role.
Kagro X: That's not necessarily so crazy, to me. There are a number of reasons why, at this juncture, Peter Welch might be more willing to do this than Bernie Sanders -- though I'd prefer not to wait long enough to leave it up to Welch.
For one thing, Sanders is on his way out of the House and, with continued good luck, into the Senate. Dropping the I bomb with one foot out the door might not win you any friends in a town where you're already viewed with more than a little suspicion just for being independent.
For another, the threats that could be brought to bear against Sanders by nervous Dems are very different from those which might be leveled against Welch. Sanders has a long-standing but informal and tenuous relationship with the Democrats in the House, and must establish that relationship anew with Democrats in the Senate. He depends to a certain extent on their willingness to allow him to accrue seniority (for committee placement purposes) as though he were a Dem. So while some Congressional Democrats might well be upset with Welch, doing something about it that would have a substantial and noticeable impact to an incoming freshman would be considerably more difficult than punishing Sanders.
Consider also that Welch is the Vermont Senate President Pro-Tem. Passing a resolution like this in Vermont would make it very awkward for Welch if he were to decide against memorializing it on the House floor once he switched jobs.
It should also be pointed out that it's not clear that there are no Members of Congress willing to make an impeachment motion. John Conyers has introduced a resolution styled: Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment. So he's clearly on the path, if not yet ready to move impeachment directly.
And of course, ultimately it must be admitted that the primary purpose of such an act would be its PR value. The GOP House would doubtless do everything in its power to stifle such a movement. But therein lies the story. Direct appeals for the impeachment of a president, made by the duly elected legislatures of the several states (how Revolutionary-sounding!), swept under the rug by the Republican culture of corruption.
I'll take that.
Odum (A Vermonter): Welch needs this election to be about Bush. When the Vermont bubble is put around an election, Republicans can and do win. This gives him away to break the bubble down. He might well be into it.
But wait, there's more! How about this late-breaking news from... where else? Vermont!
Lawmakers urge Douglas to denounce domestic spying
February 2, 2006
By Darren M. Allen Vermont Press Bureau
MONTPELIER -- More than half of Vermont's legislators have signed a letter requesting that Gov. James Douglas' Homeland Security Advisory Council denounce President Bush's domestic spying program.
"Vermont has always had a tradition of vigilance in matters of security and vigilance in matters of protecting individual rights from an overreaching government," said the letter, which was drafted in mid-January and delivered to the governor's desk late Tuesday. "Vermonters have managed in the most trying of times to balance the needs of both, when demands of one were not sacrificed for the needs of another."
[...]
That news came on the heels of an NBC News report that showed the Pentagon had targeted antiwar demonstrations conducted by Quaker organizations in Vermont as potential terrorist links.
"As Americans, this should be disturbing news," said Sen. Matt Dunne, D-Windsor, a candidate for lieutenant governor, who wrote the letter and sought support for it over the last two weeks.
[...]
In the letter, signed by 104 lawmakers from all parties, the governor is called on to "assert that all searches and surveillance of American citizens be conducted according to the rule of law, and we ask you to publicly call on the powers that be in Washington to cease such unconstitutional activity in Vermont at once."
And if that's not enough, here's another, via a tip from wtmesq:
02/02/2006
R.I. candidate calls for Bush impeachment
Jim Baron , Times staff reporter
PROVIDENCE - Declaring that President George W. Bush "has repeatedly lied to our Congress and Americans, broke our laws and abused his executive authority with impunity," U.S. Senate candidate Carl Sheeler called for Bush's impeachment at a Statehouse news conference Wednesday.
On Friday, Sheeler plans to have a billboard posted off Exit 18 of Route 95 at the Thurbers Avenue curve that says "Be Patriotic, Impeach Bush."
These are signs from God, dude. There's no other way to say it.
Discuss?