Republican Senators criticized the vote of no confidence in AG Gonzalez as a meaningless piece of political theater, which had no precedent and no consequence.
Their arguments are correct. We DO NOT have a parliamentary system. The president IS NOT obligated to replace cabinet secretaries who fail confidence votes. But of course, that's not the point.
The "no confidence vote" is merely a novel device of OVERSIGHT. It's purpose is not legislative, but investigatory. The "no confidence vote" is a measure of SUPPORT for the Attorney General, who has committed NUMEROUS impeachable offenses which carry serious penalties as violations of the law.
He got 38 votes. Without an impeachment investigation, without a vote to pass articles of impeachment in committee, and then in the House, he got 38 votes. Do you think that many votes will muster for him during a trial in the Senate? I DOUBT IT.
And now we know. That was the purpose of the "no confidence vote." It's to let the president know that his cabinet secretary is likely to be forceably removed from office if he doesn't resign. It's to let the Senators know what level of support the AG would have during impeachment and removal procedings.
Many of you know the impeachable offenses. They are well documented, and more are being discovered weekly, if not daily. But aside from the actual violations, some of which carry the DEATH PENALTY, the AG has brazenly displayed, in hearings before Congress, a breathtaking contempt for the rule of law in his explanations of his radical, fascist legal theories.
Here is just one example:
Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.
"There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.
Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.
"Wait a minute," Specter interjected. "The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?"
Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion."
"You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense," Specter said.
Common Sense is the title of the pamphlet circulated by Thomas Paine making the case for the political independence of the United States.
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
It is this very confoundation that is at the heart of Gonzales' arguments with regard to habeas corpus. I cannot believe that someone who is a lawyer, let alone the top law enforcement officer of the United States, could MISTAKE the rights enjoyed by society under common law, the POSITIVE assertion of habeas corpus, with the constitutional prohibition on it's limitation, the NEGATIVE restriction on government power in the constitution.
If this were one, isolated gaffe in public speech, it could be excused as such. But Gonzales means to assert a positive power of the government to selectively deny common law rights outside of any constitutional authority to do so, and he has expounded this theory before a hearing in the legislative body, for which he prepared his remarks beforehand. That is not simply a mistake, it is a deliberate declaration of treason.
The Constitution does not GRANT any rights, it merely guarantees them by prohibiting the government from denying them. If the United States government disappeared tomorrow, we would still have the rights that we have. We would simply have to erect another government to carry on our affairs, and presumably one which guarantees our rights.
Alberto Gonzales pretends that the Constitution is the SOURCE of our rights, rather than the guarantor of them, and then compounds this corruption by asserting that rights not positively granted by the constitution are selectively enjoyed by the people at the pleasure of the government.
There is a name for a philosophy that places an office of authority over the rule of law, and the instrument of the rule of law at the disposal of offices of authority. The name properly given to such a philosophy is AUTHORITARIANISM. To declare such authoritarian powers before the legislative body is not simply a statement of legal opinion, it is an anti-republican declaration of war.
For Alberto Gonzales to place the authority of the Justice Dept and the presidency behind such statements asserting authoritarian powers is a clear intent to use the authority of office to enforce such authoritarian powers, and thus LEVY WAR on the sovereign power of the United States.
Need we wait til the intent and opportunity express itself in overt acts? And, I would point out, the Attorney General gave his remarks to justify OVERT ACTS.
Calls for him to resign is at best a mild rebuke for a person who deserves execution under our duly enacted laws. The language in the statute on treason:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
There can be no other name but ENEMY given to those who assert an anti-republican authoritarian philosophy and act according to it, corrupting the powers of the government to install tyranny in the place of liberty. In exercising powers of office outside the limitations of the constitution and according to an authoritarian philosophy hostile to it, Alberto Gonzales is engaged in open acts of treason against the People of the United States.
The no confidence vote was a good intrument of investigatory oversight, but we are at the end of such devices. If a case can be made for prosecution for war crimes and treason, need we ask whether IMPEACHMENT is justified?