Thom Hartmann mentioned something during Monday's program that is worthy of repeating.
He pointed out that, in the very first Congressional debate on the nature of impeachment, James Madison gave a very specific example of what would constitute an impeachable offense.
(Also avaiable at My Left Wing)
From the Rodino Report, issued in the runup to the near-impeachment of Richard Nixon:
An extensive discussion of the scope of the impeachment power occurred in the House of Representatives in the First Sesssion of the First Congress [in 1789]. The House was debating the power of the President to remove the head of an executive department appointed by him with the advice and consent of the Senate . . .
And guess what Madison had to say, in a manner that is almost eerily prescient vis-a-vis our current dustup over the fired federal prosecutors?
Madison argued during the debate that the president would be subject to impeachment for "the wanton removal of meritorious officers."
Oh! You mean, like firing for political reasons nine federal prosecutors (yeah, nine - don't forget about Frederick Black) who were doing stellar work? Y'mean, "meritorious officers" like that?
Yeah, kinda like that.
Here's how findlaw.com put Madison's argument:
And in the First Congress' ''removal'' debate, Madison maintained that the wanton removal from office of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment.
Back to the Rodino Report if we may. Now, here's where the wingnuts will go crazy:
He also contended that the power of the President unilaterally to remove subordinates was "absolutely necessary"-
"The pleasure of the President! The pleasure of the President!!!"
Only problem is, let's wait until the end of the sentence to see exactly why Madison believed such a thing:
- because "it will make him in a peculiar manner, responsible for [the] conduct" of executive officers. It would, Madison said,
subject him to impeachment himself, if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excesses.
D'oh! So - if Alberto Gonzales fires federal prosecutors for political reasons, even if the President did not have a hand in directing him to do so, James Madison believes the President should be impeached because, after all, he picked this Bozo® - who serves at the pleasure of the President! - and thus should be responsible for his misdeeds.
Of course, it's beginning to appear more and more likely that in fact the White House did have a hand in the firings.
But that's an impeachment diary for another day.
Wait a minute - did I just say, "Impeachment"? Or was that Chuck Hagel? It's getting harder to keep track . . .