New Mexico Legislature to get impeachment bill

Many of you may remember the discussions we had last year about the concept of the "state-based" impeachment procedure, based on the notes in Jefferson's Manual, which indicate that impeachment proceedings may be initiated by the transmission of charges from a state legislature.

If not, a brief recap may be in order.

The transmission of charges from a state legislature must still be memorialized on the floor of the House by a Member. But if, acting on the instructions of his or her home state legislature, a Member of the House does in fact raise a direct proposition to impeach, the matter is highly privileged, "and at once supersedes business otherwise in order." It would, under the rules, be entitled to one hour of debate, after which it would be subject to a motion to table, or send to committee for further investigation (or, alternatively, death). But if the charges are carried to the floor by a Member of the House, impeachment is the order of the day. Or at least the hour.

Last year's discussion of the procedure led to the adoption of local resolutions in dozens of locations across the country, and ultimately the introduction of bills in the legislatures of four states: Illinois, California, Vermontand Minnesota (where it was introduced by then state-Rep., now Congressman, Keith Ellison).

For consideration of the political implications of bringing such a resolution to the floor, I refer you to the above-linked diary on the subject. At the moment, the focus needs to be on this:

State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino (D-Albuquerque), along with cosponsor John Grubesic (D-Santa Fe) will be introducing such an impeachment resolution when the 2007 session of the New Mexico Legislature convenes next week.

Democrats control both houses of the legislature: 24-18 in the Senate; 41-28 in the House. The signature of the Governor of New Mexico, Democrat Bill Richardson, is not required. Richardson is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008.

The resolution text follows:

A JOINT RESOLUTION

PETITIONING CONGRESS TO COMMENCE THE INVESTIGATION OF AND IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD B. CHENEY.

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired with others to defraud the United States of America by intentionally misleading congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the national security agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the foreign intelligence surveillance court of review, duly constituted by congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Chapter 113C, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Geneva Conventions, which under Article VI of the United States constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land"; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney acted to strip American citizens of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the president of a United States citizen as an "enemy combatant", all in subversion of
law; and

WHEREAS, in all of this, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as president and vice president, subverting constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of New Mexico and of the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, petitions from the country at large may be presented by the speaker of the United States house of representatives, according to Clause 3 of House Rule XII; and

WHEREAS, Section 603 of Thomas Jefferson's Manual on Parliamentary Practice and of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives states that impeachment may be set in motion by charges transmitted from the legislature of a state;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment and trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the New Mexico congressional delegation be requested to cause to be instituted in the congress of the United States proper proceedings for the investigation of the activities of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, to the end that they may be impeached and removed from their offices; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the secretary of state be instructed to certify and transmit to the speaker of the United States house of representatives and the clerk of the United States house of representatives, under the great seal of the state of New Mexico, a copy of this resolution and its adoption by the legislature of the state of New Mexico. The copies shall be marked with the word "Petition" at the top of the document and contain the original authorizing signature of the
secretary of state.

•  Are US House Reps compelled to introduce it?

  Would any or all NM Reps be compelled to introduce this if their state legislature passes it, or is it up to thier discretion?

  by Uranus Hz on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:48:42 PM PDT

  •  Good Question

    by MichiganGirl on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:49:57 PM PDT

  •  I believe it can be filed by registered mail

    Once it is brought up it initiates the process and takes precedence over all other business, hence the rush to get the six bills of the 1st hundred hours out of the way.

    by rktect on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:51:42 PM PDT

  •  No.

    That's the bottom line. And they may very well duck it.

    But if it's passed by the legislature, you're ducking the entire statewide network of elected officials, most of whom want your job.

    by Kagro X on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:52:08 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for answering.

      I am aware that Congress will do everything in their power to avoid the Impeachment, but I was wondering if there was anything that would force this issue on them. I am beginning to believe that no matter what has happened, no matter what may happen in the future... Congress just isn't going to Impeach.

      I just have this sick feeling in my stomach the last few days, that no matter what, Bush won't be Impeached. I'm also beginning to believe that Congress is just going to go through the motions and give the appearance of standing up to Bush... But in the end, it will just come down to a lot of flailing, talking, and theatrics designed to keep us happy, and make us believe they are actually doing something to reign Bush in... When in reality, they are just biding their time until 2009, and we have a new President in the White House.

      I just have this horrible feeling, that Congress is just going to give the appearance of confrontation, not real confrontation. Real confrontation would require actions that carry unpleasant consequences... and I am worried they are going to do everything in their power to avoid the real unpleasantness, that real confrontation would carry.  

      by MichiganGirl on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:03:28 PM PDT

      •  Furthermore

        Assuming you are correct (and I get that feeling sometimes myself) it will further fuel the perception the right wingers like to spread that Democrats are wussies too scared to actually stand up for what they really believe on principle.

        Don't flame me, I am not a concern troll, but this scenario DOES concern me.

        by Uranus Hz on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:24:40 PM PDT

        •  I think it worries all of us.

          But I do like the idea that Congressmen from any state that sends up such a petition will have to constantly look over their political shoulders for the next two years if they duck the issue.

          by Noor B on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:50:28 PM PDT

      •  I am in your corner on this

        I think the Dems in Congress may be stringing us along.

        They are most famous for avoiding unpleasantness.

        by Mad Kossack on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:05:08 PM PDT

      •  Non-Binding Resolutions

        Keep your eyes out for Non-Binding Resolutions

        by NBachers on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 07:31:38 PM PDT

    •  Aren't we talking about Heather Wilson here?

      Uber-republican Heather Wilson???  

      by feelingsickinMN on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:03:55 PM PDT

      •  Sure.

        And Tom Udall.

        But the day will come when Republicans need cover from George W. Bush, too.

        by Kagro X on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:06:52 PM PDT

        •  Tom Udall

          And he is as good as you can get, so he might do it.

          by herodotus on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:13:17 PM PDT

        •  but what about the NM legislature?

          I love the resolution and could almost persuade myself that Udall would introduce it in the House. But I have a hard time believing that there's enough NM Dems in the lege to get it passed. I don't know anything at all about the NM lege, that's just a gut feeling from knowing WY Dems. Do you have a read on the NM lege, kx?

          by kainah on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 06:16:18 PM PDT

      •  Change of Mind

        Heather Wilson has come out (!) against Bush's escalation. She was really scared by her near loss...

        by barbwire on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:45:18 PM PDT

      •  IIRC...

        Wilson just barely held her seat in the last election. If she wants to be part of the 111th Congress, she'll play along.

        by adamschloss on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 06:32:08 PM PDT

    •  Any chance of it passing

      the NM Legislature?  these guys aren't exactly heavyweights.  Neither has a position of leadership, not even a chair of a minor committee, and were only Senators since 2004 and 2005.  

      by hardleft on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:06:58 PM PDT

      •  In a word - yes

        It does have a chance - I'll let the locals call the odds.

        by texasmom on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:50:56 PM PDT

      •  Gerry Ortiz Y Pino

        may not be a committee chair, but he's not a lightweight either.

        Hard to say if it can pass.  While New Mexico is supposedly a blue state, in many respects, it is not very liberal.  The leadership in the legislature is fairly conservative and tends to cowtow to big business.  Often, the Governor dominates the agenda.  Nevertheless, there is a chance that universal health care may pass this year and some strides forward have been made regarding public campaign financing.

        by TheFatLadySings on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 04:49:17 PM PDT

  •  Linky?

    Help!  The only item I can find online is 10 months old.

    by Leading Edge Boomer on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:52:33 PM PDT

  •  Do you need a NM Rep to introduce it,

    or can it be ANY member of Congress?

    A comment by CarolSoprano way below has a link to an article by David Swanson says:

    One Congress Member, from the same state or any other, is needed to essentially acknowledge receipt of the state's petition. Then impeachment begins.

    (my highlighting)

    Land of Enchantment and Impeachment

    by homerun on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:54:57 PM PDT

    •  Anyone can do it.

      The most likely to do it, assuming general reluctance, would be someone who felt that it put them under direct political pressure. And that would be someone from that state.

      by Kagro X on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:52:56 PM PDT

      •  Even Kucinich, right?

        by Jim P on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 05:47:21 PM PDT

        •  Or Finegold? /nt

          by baracon on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 07:34:20 PM PDT

          •  Well, not Feingold.

            It has to be a Member of the House. Kucinich would qualify, yes.

            Whether he'd do it is another matter.

            by Kagro X on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 07:02:59 AM PDT

•  This is the begining of a Constitutional Mandate

  No matter who protests or finds this polliticly inconvenient,I believe the flood gates are begining to open .They cannot be closed!

  by kurt gubrud on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:48:52 PM PDT

•  Maybe more states can join in

  like, say, California?

  by homerun on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:49:12 PM PDT

  •  Ha!

    They're sitting on their complacent butts.  So much for California leading the nation.  I'm genuinely angry with the lot of them.

    by tovan on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:55:25 PM PDT

  •  I'd like to see several do this

    Each one getting an hour of debate on the floor... in prime time.

    by teknofyl on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:58:10 PM PDT

    •  More shots on goal

      that would be great! If the first one doesn't work...

      by bejammin075 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:01:17 PM PDT

      •  Plus... several of them arriving closely

        would put it in the media spotlight and give Reps a chance to go to town rhetorically... hearing GOP stand up and defend Bush would be funny, watching them stay seated and not would be frikkin hilareaous.

        by teknofyl on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:23:19 PM PDT

  •  Vermont.

    It could only happen in VT.  but whether the new congressman would bring it up is another story.  Damn you Bernie, where are you when we need you?  Oh yea, the Senate.

    by hardleft on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:09:51 PM PDT

    •  The new Congressman from Vermont...

      is the immediate past President of the Vermont Senate.

      If the Vermont Senate sent him such a resolution, although he would by no means be bound to introduce it, he would doubtless feel some personal pressure to do so.

      Vermont's a small place.

      by Kagro X on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:27:23 PM PDT

      •  Am I mistaken

        or did Vermont already deliver a resolution for impeachment last May?  Denny may have lost it.

        by gchaucer2 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:36:34 PM PDT

        •  They delivered local resolutions, yes.

          This spring, they're looking to deliver 40+.

          by Kagro X on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:38:55 PM PDT

      •  I bet you a million dollars

        Pete Welch would introduce it.

        by eebee on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:55:41 PM PDT

        •  Well, we'll find out.

          I expect the Vermont legislature will have a bill of their own again, shortly.

          by Kagro X on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:53:58 PM PDT

  •  Illinois also sitting on it

    While Illinois was the first state to introduce such a measure, it has been sitting in the Rules Committee (essentially tabled indefinitely) for the past 9 months.

    I wish New Mexico the best of luck getting the measure passed.

    by pascal on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:22:35 PM PDT

•  So the NM legislature passes

  it.  And a NM congressperson agrees to bring it to the floor.  Where it is immediately either (a) tabled altogether, or (b) sent to the Judiciary Committee to die a slow and agonizing death.

  This is what WILL happen, I assure you.  Assuming that the current state of affairs remains in play, very few Democrats will vote for it, and zero Republicans.

  I would recommend that no state legislature act on this bill yet, as there is no real consensus as to impeachment, at least not at the level that counts.

  That said, if Bush attacks/invades Iran and/or Syria without authorization, bring the motherfucker on.  That will create such a seismic shock to Capitol Hill that the time for an impeachment vote will immediately be ripe.

  by jsmdlawyer on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:49:33 PM PDT

  •  After an hour's debate, yes.

    And depending on when it arrives, an hour's debate on the House floor may be well worth the price.

    by Kagro X on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:54:00 PM PDT

    •  Let the sun shine on this

      Nothing bad every came of honest and good-faith effort. Begin the discussion so that it may go further and further.

      by KOTCrum on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:00:58 PM PDT

    •  50 state strategy

      One hour of debate down, 49 to go.

      by clyde on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:06:02 PM PDT

    •  It Will Get the Ball Rolling -

      And once it starts, it will turn into an avalanche.

      by johnnygunn on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:10:49 PM PDT

    •  Maybe right before the State of the Union address

      a New Mexico congressman will present it.  That way it might prempt the speech and that hour of debate could go on with prime time coverage.

      You can bet that debate would be more interesting than Dubya's speech.

      by david78209 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:14:01 PM PDT

      •  Be still my beating heart

        From your keyboard to G-d's monitor.

        by horsewithnoname on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:26:33 PM PDT

        •  Good one!

          LOL

          by texasmom on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 04:50:22 PM PDT

      •  Tom Udall

        (yes, scion of those Udalls) D-NM3, is in a completely safe seat. I actually asked him about impeachment on March 20, 2003, on the Santa Fe Plaza, during the largest political demonstration NM had ever seen, against the war way back then. He said "Bring me the votes."  He will def be hearing from his constituency on this, as will our  State Reps and Sens. The annual legislative session here begins next week.

        I'm willing to entertain the notion that Udall would bring it up in Congress, after it passes in NM.  I hope fbihop is on this, and monitors the situation. I'm not sure I'm up to it. There may come a moment when a minor blogswarm may be called for, perhaps even at the state legislative level, and there could come a time when a list of NM legislators who are wavering on this resolution, who might be persuadable, is germane to the situation.

        (great sig, BTW)

        by claude on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:04:38 PM PDT

      •  Venue

        Remember that the SotU is given in the House chamber itself.  Imagine the fun trying to reschedule!

        by catfood on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 06:51:29 PM PDT

    •  from what I've seen on cspan "debate" is usually

      one person speaking to a an empty chamber. I like your front paged idea of direct democracy.

      by simon551 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:34:11 PM PDT

      •  Watch CSPAN when something big is happening.

        The chamber tends to fill up when the issues get hot.

        Routine debate, even on an important bill, usually doesn't generate much excitement until the end, and that's only because the vote is coming.

        But an hour debate on impeachment?

        by Kagro X on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 07:04:51 AM PDT

  •  Gotta disagree this time. This is part of ...

    ...the effort toward building consensus.

    by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:56:55 PM PDT

    •  I agree about the

      need to build consensus, but sending up a bill to get shot down in flames is not the way to do that.  Build the consensus, THEN send the bill up.  Otherwise, it just comes off as a stunt.

      With that not so great precedent set, when another state, or 5 more, or 10 more, send up other bills, it looks like me-tooism.

      At the risk of looking like an idiot for thinking and typing at the same time, here's something that occurs to me.  Pass the impeachment bill in New Mexico, but do not make an effort to get it before the U.S. House -- yet.  Pass it in a substantial number of states (my initial thought is at least 10, if not more), then bring all the bills to the House floor together.  That both builds consensus and sends a far more powerful message than one state sending up one bill too soon.

      by jsmdlawyer on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:03:13 PM PDT

      •  It's up to Members of the House...

        to determine the timing.

        If the New Mexico bill arrived tomorrow, they could hold it and bring it to the floor when the time is right.

        by Kagro X on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:08:21 PM PDT

      •  Passing it in a bunch of states.

        A fine idea!  The more states that are involved, the harder it is for member of Congress, including Republicans, to ignore it.

        by Randall Sherman on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:22:28 PM PDT

      •  Having 10 or so legislatures pass ...

        ...impeachment resolutions in relatively quick succession would, I think, also be a way to build consensus. I have been, since early last year - thanks in part to Kagro X's excellent, long-running impeachment series - someone who believes that impeachment is crucial in the cases of Bush and Cheney, but I also want convictions in the Senate. So how we get to impeachment is important. The last thing I'd want to see is these guys getting some kind of vindication in a, say, 58-42 vote because Senators felt they had no national consensus behind them for voting "aye" or because the charges weren't solid enough.

        by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:25:50 PM PDT

        •  They'd call it a vindication

          if the Senate fell one vote short of the two thirds needed.  They'd say they were exonerated.

          Maybe the House needs to put this not only 'on the table' but to make it the centerpiece, by having an hour's debate on it every day, dragging the process out like a Chinese water torture, and only sending it to the Senate when enough dirt is out in the open that 67 Senators have promised to convict.

          by david78209 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:38:37 PM PDT

      •  Someone has to blaze the trail

        by Busted Flat in Baton Rouge on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:39:55 PM PDT

      •  I favor sequential states

        let NM go first, it will make some impact in the regular news and generate good discussion, then when the next and the next state pass their resolutions, each one will have more and more impact.

        But we're getting ahead of ourselves. I hope NM or some other state legislature has the courage to do what is needed.

        by bejammin075 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:05:25 PM PDT

        •  I'd love to see this

          If the states force debates and votes on impeachment every few weeks, I'd love to see the votes in favor of impeachment creep up a bit each time. That would be a media event.

          by catfood on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 06:53:32 PM PDT

    •  And building READINESS

      Hostilities in Iran could erupt at any moment.  It will be hard for political rebellion to spring full-blown with enough speed to make a difference.  The more grassroots support the better - more debate, more consensus, more bills, more media coverage, and the whole dang shootin' match.

      by lgmcp on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:04:34 PM PDT

    •  At the very least,

      a clear vote of no confidence.

      by gchaucer2 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:37:55 PM PDT

  •  I agree with you that it would be tabled or

    sent to the Judiciary Committee, but not necessarily to die.  If the House gets, what 5 more, from other states, how long can they ignore it?  What if 15 states follow suit?  I would encourage the fine folk down in NM to go for it.  There's certainly nothing to lose and at the other end of the scale we might see the removal of these odious bastards from office.

    by coloradocomet on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:57:54 PM PDT

  •  Why does he have to invade another country?

    That said, if Bush attacks/invades Iran and/or Syria without authorization, bring the motherfucker on.  

    What, the crimes in Iraq aren't enough?  Do you want us all dead first?  No thanks.

    by naltikriti on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:28:58 PM PDT

  •  What WILL Happen

    Is that Bush will have a pretext before attacking/invading Iran and/or Syria that will trump/mute the outrage enough to render your plan inoperable.

    It's politial checkmate, brother.  The fact is the American people are fed up and ready for impeachment NOW but you've got lobbyists and shills working day and night in DC and the media to maneuver the Dems into being "responsible" enough to ignore America and let Bush get on with the Iran attack.

    It's the biggest scandal of all time, and it's unfolding right now.

    by Near Vanna on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:30:51 PM PDT

  •  Its a bit late then, isn't it?

    I'd rather we didn't go to war with Iran at all, which means getting these certifiable lunatics out of office before they can hurt us more. Anyway, once the rocket's red glare is exploding in Tehran, all the pundits will say we can't impeach because it would embolden the enemy.

    by Reepicheep on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:02:57 PM PDT

  •  Until the next state legislature

    passes an impeachment resolution.

    Then, once again, all business in the US House immediately stops so that the measure can be handled.

    If the state legislatures can begin flooding the US House with impeachment resolutions, Speaker Pelosi may finally get the hint.

    by pascal on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:27:48 PM PDT

    •  Parliamentary Inquiry

      Is there anything that prevents a single state from making the resolution multiple times?

      Heh.

      by catfood on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 06:54:52 PM PDT

•  Thanks for posting this--

  A story worth following...

  by Rob Cole on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:49:41 PM PDT

•  Viva New Mexico!

  Impeach the a$$hole. Now.

  by Anglico on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:49:57 PM PDT

  •  Que Viva!

    Makes me so damn proud to be a New Mexican.

    by BoogieMama on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:19:08 PM PDT

  •  Maybe we will finally get revenge on...

    those Texans who invaded New Mexico and Arizona in 1861-62!  Col. Baylor shot the editor of the Mesilla newspaper dead and hung several "Yankee" sympathizers. He was a terrorist!

    by Desert Biologist on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 06:21:18 PM PDT

•  Can't happen too soon

  At the very least it moves the Overton Window

  Impeach the creep. Yesterday.

  by racerx on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:51:11 PM PDT

•  WOW! that is something everyone should

  get behind.  Every state and commonwealth should do this.  The Congress cannot ignore the people any longer.  It's long past time to stop the insanity.

  by oibme on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:52:09 PM PDT

•  What are the chances of it passing the . . .

  . . . New Mexico leg?  Does anybody know?

  by keikekaze on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:52:49 PM PDT

  •  Our Dem majority is strong

    but I'm not sure it's gonna fall in line with this so easily, all the same.

    by lgmcp on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:06:34 PM PDT

    •  Then everyone in New Mexico . . .

      . . . who wants to see justice done should contact their state legislators and urge passage of the bill.  And everyone in California, Illinois, Vermont, and Minnesota should do the same.

      by keikekaze on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:20:30 PM PDT

      •  All it would need to get Illinois' OK...

        ...is for Speaker Pelosi to agree to dump US Attorney Fitzgerald for some lapdog that won't go after the top crooked Dems in our state once she is President.

        I'm sorry if I'm sound cynical, but to deep six the various investigations here in Illinois that may yet reach up to Governor Rod "Sleazy" Blagojevich and Chicago Mayor Richard "DINO" Daley, the Democratic powers-that-be would likely sacrifice their own mothers.  Dumping right-wing slime like Bush and Cheney would be even easier, even though it would be for the wrong reasons.

        by Randall Sherman on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:32:27 PM PDT

    •  The NM Dem Convention passed this resolution

      Remember that in March '06 we voted at the NM Democratic Convention to approve the resolution to impeach Bush.

      "The one-sentence amendment, added from the floor to the platform's section on political and election reform, reads: "Resolved, that the Democratic Party of New Mexico supports the impeachment of President George Bush and his lawful removal from office."

      So our Democrats know it was the will of their Party membership.

      by ABQtom on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:44:07 PM PDT

•  Principled

  But a waste of time. If Conyer's finds that the House needs to proceed, then let's do it, but right now there's no stomach for it ... better the states than Congress, however.

  by Kel Pennypacker on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:53:24 PM PDT

  •  Weak stomachs?

    Or a profound failure of principled leadership?  Or both.

    by tovan on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:09:52 PM PDT

•  If several state legislatures ...

  ...passed such motions one after another, would the House have to take up each in turn for an hour debate even if a previous motion was hanging around in committee? In other words, if there were say 30 state legislatures that did this, could we have 30 one-hour debates over, say, two months?

  That might be a delicious prelude to actual impeachment.

  While many Democrats and quite a few Kossacks have objections to impeachment, I can hardly wait to hear the rightwing's side: it would be treasonous to have  impeachment in the middle of a war.

  Go New Mexico!

  by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:54:01 PM PDT

  •  My understanding is: yes.

    Any direct proposition to impeach would appear to be entitled to the highest privilege.

    by Kagro X on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:56:25 PM PDT

    •  Grassroots at its best

      And very difficult for the right wing pundits to dismiss. It is so easy for them to dismiss criticism when it comes from a single source, but with numbers comes safety. It is hard for a caustic pundit to attack an entire state.

      by KOTCrum on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:07:46 PM PDT

  •  30 One Hour Debates

    ??

    what is there to actually debate?

    1. There are-were NO WMDs in Iraq.

    2. The "president" himself stated Hussein had no connection with 9-11-01.

    therefore what needs to happen if any of these state legistlatures are serious is to present these as grounds for impeachment-- since these were the principle reasons put forth for invading and occupying a sovereign nation.

    anything less is just dicking around and wasting time.

    the states also have additional grounds for impeachment since the Constitution is fairly clear that state militias are not to enter into agreements with other nations-- in this case agreeing to use state forces (Reserves and National Guard) to fight the drug war in Afghanistan.

    by Superpole on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:02:37 PM PDT

    •  Screwing up wars and lying about intelligence

      are not necessarily an impeachable offenses.  Clearly violating specific clauses of the Constitution is, though.  It's in the Oath of Office.

      The warrantless wiretapping is the way to get him, even if it's not what bothers the public the most.

      by Cream Puff on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:18:40 PM PDT

      •  Right, and Treason?

        Plamegate?

        notice how all the clamor and back-slapping about how the big fish involved were going to get busted went away.

        by Superpole on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:21:50 PM PDT

    •  Sorry. While you and I and a host of ...

      ...others on the left may believe there is nothing to debate, that isn't the way things work in the real world of Washington politics. And the lack of WMDs and Saddam-wasn't-connected-to-Al-Qa'idah themes aren't going to bring Bush and Cheney down in the Senate. We can decry that, we can say that unless it's done our way it's a waste of time, or we can, for example, urge our state legislators to pass their own resolutions using whatever grounds they wish and actually get an impeachment bandwagon rolling.

      Me, I'm not for putting any my-way-or-fugedaboutit sticks between the spokes of that bandwagon but rather to help push it forward anyway that, in my little way, I can do so.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:34:37 PM PDT

      •  My Fellow Realist

        thanks for your take. my apology if I seem haughty or impatient here.

        if you're fifty or over you lived thru Vietnam and watergate as I did. I recall in the end it was the people that demanded and got Nixon (the night creature) impeached.

        Cox's refusal to drop his subpoena led to the "Saturday Night Massacre" on October 20, 1973, when Nixon compelled the resignations of Richardson and then his deputy William Ruckelshaus in a search for someone in the Justice Department willing to fire Cox. This search ended with Solicitor General Robert Bork, and the new acting department head dismissed the special prosecutor. Public reaction was immediate and intense, with protestors standing along the sidewalks outside the White House holding signs saying "HONK TO IMPEACH," and hundreds of cars driving by honking their horns. Allegations of wrongdoing prompted Nixon famously to state "I am not a crook" in front of 400 Associated Press managing editors at Walt Disney World in Florida on November 17.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        HONK TO IMPEACH. do we see any such populist actions or sentiment regarding bush/cheney? no, and here's why: the majority of Americans saw thru the pentagon's/U.S. powers that be's propanganda regarding Vietnam and SE Asia like so much cheap toilet paper. there was no reason for us to be there, no justification for the 50,000 plus American lives lost.

        the pentagon/powers that be sort of learned an embarassing lesson(s) from Vietnam. one was you have to be able to SELL war to the American people. the second is you have to severely limit the flow of information regarding the cost/progress of war to the people.

        so here comes bu$hco/pentagon/oilgarchy/neoclowns/Israel with their "plan" for the middle east-- a plan which has been around since the 1973 OPEC oil embargo and 1979 removal of the CIA installed puppet regime/shah of Iran via Islamist revolution.

        we know how they SOLD the war, and because of that and numerous other significant reasons-- one of the main ones being the direct complicity and cooperation by the democratic simps in the congress, there will be no impeachment.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        by Superpole on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 06:41:21 AM PDT

  •  I would have to think...

    that each would be entitled to the hour debate. Each motion could/would have different reasons for impeachment. There are so many possible reasons for impeachment that I doubt any 2 out of the 30 would be the same.

    by reflectionsv37 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:18:33 PM PDT

    •  Getting that might require some planning, however

      Everyone here has made some good points regarding timing and coordination between groups of states.  At the risk of writing something dumb while still thinking it out, let me suggest this:  

      Grouping state petitions in clusters of ten is not a good idea.  If there were say, 30 states (I know, dream on) presenting such petitions, the required one hour hearings would be done in a few days.  We want this to come up over and over and over.  This should be the issue that does not go away.  At the same time, single petitions risk being dismissed or swept under the carpet.  Clusters of three to five, depending on how many states refer petitions, would work better.  For one thing, a group of that size would be harder to marginalize.  But the real beauty of it is, if we can get enough states to pass such resolutions, is that we could see an entire week of petitions.  One hour, every day for five straight days, maybe even a couple of weeks, would make a big impression.

      Comments, suggestions?  

      by Noor B on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:07:32 PM PDT

      •  Death by a thousand cuts

        by Busted Flat in Baton Rouge on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:15:16 PM PDT

        •  precisely.

          Also called being beaten over the head with a brick bat, repeatedly.

          by Noor B on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:51:38 PM PDT

  •  Another fact

    The delegates of the Democratic Party of NM passed an impeachment resolution at its last convention. The resolution was introduced from the floor by one of our grassroots activists and was approved by a huge margin. It brought much media attention but of course many NM Dem politicos ran away from it as fast as they could. Gov. Richardson was the least critical of it.

    Check out these posts on Democracy for New Mexico about the passage of the resolution and the aftermath:

    Impeachment and More

    and

    Latest Reaction

    Working through Albuquerque's DFA group and other progressive groups, we managed to get a large number of progressives elected to Dem Party offices and we passed many excellent resolutions and motions. Getting the leadership of the state party to comply with what we passed was another story altogether!

    by barbwire on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:02:07 PM PDT

    •  How supportive do you

      think Richardson will be if this bill is intro'd and has good support?  I wonder.

      by JaciCee on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:38:51 PM PDT

      •  Doubt

        My gut feeling is that he won't be supportive as he filters everything through the lens of his presumed run for president. I don't think he'll be into making many waves. I hope I'm wrong...

        by barbwire on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:46:28 AM PDT

•  Hey, that's cool!!

  I've known Gerry Ortiz y Pino since 1988.  He's a wonderful guy, and smart as hell.  Nice, too! And his wife is badass... shall I go on?  Heh.

  Anyway, I've got to send him this post.  He'll grin and say "cool, Page".

  by Plutonium Page on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:57:08 PM PDT

•  After 100 Hours

  I swear- if someone introduces this and derails the 100 Hours plan, there will be hell to pay.

  I am still not a fan of impeachment.  I see the ideal of it and I agree it is probably something that should happen.  The reality of it is that impeachment is a PR campaign.  Republicans cannot politic; they cannot govern; they cannot be fair.  What they can do?  Run one hell of a PR machine.  Impeachment will blow up in our faces whether it is introduced via state or federal official.

  That said- perhaps it is worth having our faces blown off to at least try.  And this maneuever is pretty slick in how it is a vox populi sort of thing.  I can already see, however, that 2007 is going to be a year with many of these resolutions: even if the NM meets a silent death in committee there are others down the pike, I believe.

  by electricgrendel on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:57:12 PM PDT

  •  This would be happening in like Feb-Mar

    So the 100 hours is safely "railed".  They will have plenty of time to get their heads around it before it hits the Congress, unless they have their heads up their butts.  Likely even if it came up it would get sent to committee and sat on until death.  

    Even if they impeached, the house will want to do it itself and not be compelled by a state to do it.  But it's a nice wake up call and would get the word "impeachment" in the news cycle.

    by zot23 on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:18:45 PM PDT

  •  Impeachment Is A PR Campaign?

    It was my understanding that Impeachment was the mechanism under which the Constitution provides the legislative branch the authority to rid this country of a president who places himself above the laws and Constitution of the United States. I could be mistaken, but I don't think that our founding fathers inserted Impeachment procedures into the Constitution to provide the legislative branch with the ability to conduct a PR campaign.

    The fact that the Republican Party decided to misuse this process and turn it into a PR campaign does not IMO mean that this procedure should not be used for the purpose that the founding fathers initially intended.

    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:46:42 PM PDT

    •  That would be awesome!

      It would also be awesome if our government honored the founding principles in the Bill of Rights.  It would be awesome if this Administration bothered to constrain its ambitions according to the structures bequeathed by the Articles of the Constitution.  The world is filled with things that "should" and "would" and "could".

      The simple, hardnosed fact is that the minute a bill of impeachment hits the Judiciary Committee's docket we are engaged in a very heavy media war.  The basest definition of impeachment is the process you accessed; the ripples of that reality will carry over into every facet of the media.

      We will be maligned.  Our candidates will be attacked.  The media will heap as much ire on us as possible.  We will fight the good fight.  But you can tell which fights have the highest cost by how quickly they are labeled as good fights.

      So yes- impeachment is the removal of federal officers for the offense of high crimes and misdemeanors.  it lives a double life as an unrelenting media fiasco that will consume so much oxygen that we will not hear talk of 2008; we will not hear talk of 100 Hours; we will not hear talk of oversight or even Iraq.

      Because the GOP is going to attack attack attack attack as loudly and quickly as possible.  And since the media is only interested in selling ad space, they will take that free content and run with it.  Unless we have a very mature and ready defense for this, the minute the bill hits the docket we will be mauled whether or not what we are doing is as ethically pure as freshly driven snow.

      It's not pretty, but it's true.

      by electricgrendel on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:08:40 PM PDT

      •  I'm a lot less worried about rethugs saying bad

        things about our representatives doing their constitutional duty than I am about letting this administration take the whole country down the drain.

        by Busted Flat in Baton Rouge on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:26:11 PM PDT

        •  i'm more worried-

          About the electoral thumping we'll take if we hand them a prime election campaign.  As bad as two years of Bush is, if we give them something with which to beat us in 08, then we're even more screwed.

          by electricgrendel on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:50:54 PM PDT

          •  Right Now The Republicans Have A 50/50 Chance Of

            winning the Presidency. Let's say we do nothing about Bush's The President Is Above The Law Doctrine and a Republican is elected President. The precedent has been set for him to continue and expand the inherent right of the President to disregard the law and dismantle the Constitution at will just as Nixon, Reagan and BushII have done. The longer these policies go unchallenged, the more they are accepted and the harder it will be to fight them.

            by MO Blue on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:06:33 PM PDT

            •  Conversely-

              The longer they go unchallenged the more incumbent it is upon us to change the system that allows for the election of those people that would not limit such laws.  It is critical that the next election cycle require all candidates to state how they feel regarding the unitary executive.

              Now- if you take our fragile hold on power right now and shatter it to hell and back with some tilting at windmills expedition of impeachment: then what are we going to do?  We'll have flushed down the toilet two years in which we can build a case for 2008 and instead have turned over the megaphone to a hyperpartisanized GOP and Executive Branch.

              Any attempt at impeachment that does not come about after methodical investigation and a concerted effort to win popular support (neither one of these has happened now) will be to our detriment.  It would, in fact, be stellar if we could just wave our hands and fix the damage done to our union and to our "national discourse".  Failing to recognize the very legitimate threats posed by an impeachment fiasco is very very dangerous.

              Sure we could impeach Bush.  We could also very well lose the country for two cycles.

              by electricgrendel on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:14:43 PM PDT

              •  You Think That The Dems Taking Decisive Action

                against President Bush is the only way we risk losing our fragile hold on power. I see a definite risk if the Dems do nothing to stop Bush before it is too late. In fact, I feel that there will be a definite public backlash against the Dems if we get into another war because they have been too timid. Also, there is the risk of a backlash if more of our Constitution is eroded because the Dems fail to act. The West, the section of the country that the Dems are placing their hopes for more electoral votes in 08, tend to be very libertarian in their views. It is NM voters who trying to pass this resolution for impeachment for that very reason. There is a risk that we can lose their much needed support in 08.

                I guess, we have now agreed to disagree.

                by MO Blue on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:36:26 PM PDT

                •  That is not the only way.

                  Dems taking decisive action in a divided legislature that is