Daily Kos

Impeachment a la Shumlin

Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:32:59 AM PDT

This Saturday morning, Vermont State Senator (President Pro Tem) Peter Shumlin will address the Democratic State Committee - where he will discuss one of the most important issues facing our country - the Constitutional crisis posed by an out of control President.


Senator Peter Shumlin may discuss other topics as well - such as the property taxes that affect us all, but he also plans to ask the committee to urge the legislature to begin the solemn process of repairing the US Constitution. For this, he will ask the committee to urge the legislature to transmit an impeachment resolution to the US house.


Senator Shumlin has opened a dialog with House Leader Gaye Symington, urging her to let the bill (which seems to be under lock-down) in the House Judiciary Committee to come to the floor.


Follow me below the fold...


[cross posted on Green Mountain Daily]

[update: State Senator, not State Rep, heh...]

The following resolution is on the agenda for the State Democratic Committee meeting:

WHEREAS, on April 8, 2006 the Vermont Democratic State Committee by unanimous vote adopted a resolution calling for the impeachment, trial and removal from office of George W. Bush, President of the United States, and directing the State Committee Secretary to send the resolution to the Vermont General Assembly for "appropriate action", and


WHEREAS, twenty-one members of the Vermont House, including many Democrats, are co-sponsoring Joint Resolution 15 (JRH 15) that incorporates substantially most of the April 8, 2006 State Committee resolution, and


WHEREAS,  on February 15, 2007 JRH 15 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it awaits action, and


WHEREAS, on March 6, 2007 more than three dozen Vermont towns passed resolutions calling for the impeachment, trial and removal of George W. Bush as President of the United States, and


WHEREAS, the State Committee recognizes that a President can abuse his or her authority and power, thereby oppressing the people, diminishing

their liberties, imperiling their lives and impoverishing their substance in illegal wars and conflicts, all in subversion  of the Constitution and the rule of law, and


WHEREAS such abuses and subversions can, and should, be checked and restrained by the Constitutional engine and remedy of impeachment,


NOW THEREFORE, the Vermont Democratic State Committee strongly supports and advocates, as "appropriate action" early passage of JRH 15 for the State of Vermont, under Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, for the US House of Representatives to submit as soon as possible impeachment charges against George W. Bush for his trial and removal as President of the United States.

There will likely be a friendly amendment when it's introduced, adding Vice President Cheney to the list of impeachable characters.


The bill in the House had an identical twin sitting ready in the Senate (it's a joint resolution - meaning it comes from both halves of the legislature).


Oddly enough, THAT version has also been stuffed into committee to die with no action.


The committee chairs in both houses swear they will not let the resolution see the light of day. They will not allow the people we elected to discuss and vote on this essential piece of legislation, legislation that the people of Vermont asked them to write.


Rumor has it that the pressure on them has come from above - Senators Leahy and Sanders, who have served us so well at the national level over the years, don't want to have to deal with the messy process of permanently ending the precedents set by this President. Precedents such as:

  • Invention of the Magical Signing Statement Pen - which Mr. Bush believes gives him the power to legislate from the oval office, even though the Constitution says that's illegal.
  • Ignoring Article 6 of the Constitution, which turns any treaty we sign - even the Geneva Conventions against torture - into Federal Law.
  • Taking away the right to freedom of speech, having people arrested or barred from events because of the words on a shirt, or the bumper stickers on a car, or the political party to which they belong.
  • Taking away the right to freedom of assembly, by stuffing people in to mini-prisons, and insultingly calling them "free speech zones."
  • Taking away not just the right to a speedy trial, not just the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, but your right to a trial at all, your right to know the charges against you, and your right to see or hear the evidence against you.
  • Taking away your right to privacy, and worse doing so in direct violation of the law that was passed in direct after Nixon's out-of-control spying on innocent people, and even worse, doing so intentionally, and even worse, when he got caught, saying he'll continue to break the law.
  • Diverting troops and funds from a war to capture those who attacked us to a new, one against innocents, killing and wounding thousands upon thousands, and causing grave injury to our Democracy.
  • And so much more ...

As a matter of fact, there are so many ways in which this President has violated the law and threatened the Constitution - the only protection between us and dictatorship - that entire books are required to catalog them all.


Some are afraid that using tough love on President Temper-Tantrum will be unpopular, that it could cost them votes. But in those places around the country where a few brave souls ran for office with a "get tough" stance, they've won. Even in our neighboring red state, New Hampshire, the "Live Free or Die" state, Carol-Shea Porter handily beat Jean Shaheen, her much better funded Democratic opponent. Shea-Porter beat the candidate who played it safe, the one followed the conventional wisdom that said "don't stand strong against this President."


It turns out that the "wisdom" derived from fear was unwise. The people see what the media doesn't report. The talking heads on TV may spin and smear, but they DO NOT speak for us.


So thank you to Senator Peter Shumlin for taking a stand against the very conventional "wisdom" that failed Jean Shaheen, is failing our legislators, and is failing our country.


Speaker Symington needs to let the existing bill out of committee, allow the House to vote on it, and get the little waiver needed to send it to the Senate.


In the Senate, the bill also needs to emerge for a vote.


And then the Joint Resolution needs to be sent to our Freshman Congressman, Peter Welch, who can take his place in history, by beginning the process of healing our wounded Democracy.


It's time to put this administration on the short leash.

Tags: Impeachment, Vermont, Peter Shumlin, Peter Welch (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 22 comments

  •  As we teeter on the brink of a new war (9+ / 0-)

    Against another country that poses no threat, it's time to let this administration know they're done.

  •  I agree we should start on the road to (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mataliandy, bejammin075, kestrel9000

    impeachment. That said, it is a long hard slogg till the end. If we don't impeach all those power grabs spill over to the next President. 08 will be fought hard by the repubs because they know what is at stake. Their fight will include cheating any way they can. We will catch some but not all.  If a repub is elected the power continues and becomes president. As much as I hate to say it, impeachment might be our only way to a better, more fair and balanced Gov.

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:46:51 AM PDT

  •  This is a travesty (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mataliandy, blueoasis, MarketTrustee

    A similar thing happened in Illinois, where a call for impeachment was drafted and introduced, but allowed to die with the last state legislative session without being brought to the floor for a vote.  

    Is there anything to substantiate the rumor that pressure from Leahy and Sanders is responsible for the suppression of the resolutions in VT?  It makes me a little nervous to blame them based on rumor.  Even if they did lean on VT state legislators, it may be because they want to base impeachment on the results of ongoing investigations into abuses of power by the Bush administration.  

    Whomever is responsible for burying these resolutions, I hope they realize they are refusing to listen to the voice of the people.

    John McCain, Master of the Purpose Driven Lie.

    by DWG on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:54:12 AM PDT

    •  The same in Washington state recently (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      mataliandy, DWG, Predictor

      where influential Democratic Party members have lobbied state legislators to shut down the voting on impeachment bills.

      Also, New Mexico, but I don't know the current status there.

      Strange that our party in Washinton can agree to oppose this issue so unanimously, not even wanting to discuss it theoretically, while at the same time express such divergent views on the war and other major issues.

      Those bipartisans seem to have a considerable influence on not taking corrective action.

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it *if* you can succeed." Speaker Pelosi

      by blueoasis on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:00:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, DWG

        I don't remember checking the box next to any candidates with "BI" listed as their party, just "D" (ok, and one "I").  

        Curiously, though, it seems an awful lot of those "D"s changed affiliation post-election.

      •  I know the current status in New Mexico. (3+ / 0-)

        It's dead. That's the current status.

        Why?

        The resolution cleared three committees in order to be considered for a floor vote. And in all three committees, Republicans ran for cover, choosing to hide out elsewhere rather than actually show up and either defend the president, or explain why they thought the resolution was a bad idea.

        Mind you that all along, nervous Democrats have been insisting that the political backlash of considering such a bill would come in the form of vicious attacks from cornered Republicans. But when push came to shove, the Republicans weren't there! They wouldn't show up, at least not in numbers, to defend this "administration."

        So when the bill cleared all three committees, imagine the surprise when nine Democrats joined with the minority Republicans in the Senate to utilize a procedural trick to prevent floor consideration! The Senate voted not to accept the "Do Pass" recommendation and report of the Judiciary Committee, effectively blocking the bill from being debated.

        In navigating its way through three committees, the Republicans were nowhere to be found, even though leadership Democrats said they'd be out with knives in their teeth. Then, when they didn't show up, it was these very Democrats who did their dirty work for them.

        Turns out we were right. The Republicans are paper tigers. But just to prove we still weren't really right, nine Democrats killed the bill anyway.

    •  It's not rumor (0+ / 0-)

      It's fact. Everybody in the know in the Party knows Leahy has been full bore against impeachment. Sanders too. They are leaning hard on our legislators. Leahy has a boatload of clout in this state. His political nickname is St. Patrick. Apart from this incomprehensible behavior, we do love them both.

  •  I just don't get resisting Impeachment (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mataliandy, blueoasis, Captain Nimrod

    What the fuck to people stand for?

    What the fuck to Democrats stand for?

    What the fuck does the Oath of Office mean for everyone who KNOWS the President lied to start a war?

    I bet 90% of Democrats have an understanding that we were LIED into war, in addition to numerous violations of the Constitution mentioned above.

    The notion that we can just ignore that, and somehow work with the President on a bipartisan basis to "get stuff done" is fucking rediculous.

    And Dick Cheney is ALREADY the functional President. "What about President Cheney" is fucking rediculous. Cheney would be LESS effective if he actually had the title of President. Cheney would have to do a lot more Press interviews. Cheney is already more hated and less loved. Cheney is more easily demonstrated to be DELUSIONAL. Elevating Cheney to official President (if that were an outcome of trying to Impeach Bush and/or Cheney) would be an IMPROVEMENT for our goals. Besides, Cheney is more Impeachable than Bush. It does not make any logical sense that we could Impeach Bush for A, B, C...X, Y, Z, and then install Cheney as president, also DOUBLE guilty of A to Z.

    Finally, all I have to say is WHAT THE FUCK?

    Investigate War Lies --> Evidence for Senate Conviction --> End the War. Got it?

    by bejammin075 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:04:13 AM PDT

  •  Need to focus (0+ / 0-)

    We must impeach BushCo for impeachable offenses. These do not include matters such as keeping people away from fundraising events or defining protest zones in public places. Those were poor decisions, but incompetence is not an impeachable offense. An illegal war, war crimes, violations of Geneva conventions, election fraud and domestic spying are. We should not mention the trivial issues, it weakens the impeachment case and makes progressives look petty and silly.

    If I am unhappy with police policy at protests, I'll go to court. Impeachable offenses must be those where no other remedy will do.

    Don't you think John McCain looks tired?

    by MakeChessNotWar on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:50:56 PM PDT

    •  Constitutional Rights are Constitutional Rights (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      MakeChessNotWar

      They started with the easy parts - the rights they knew people would be willing to dismiss - and once assured that the people would let their rights go, they moved on, working to chip away at the rest.

      There are no "trivial" rights. All must be defended. The Constitution is under a consistent, coordinated attack.

      The focus is the Constitution.

      •  Good reply (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        mataliandy

        I agree, but the onstitution is the strategic focus. Our tactics must be plotted for effective action.

        In the demonstration in SF Sunday, diverse causes were mentioned. One slogan claimed we live in a police state. In many senses that is true, but the smiling police lining Market Street didn't give this much impsact. There were no, zero, arrests, though we were well behaved.

        There was a clear focus, despite the diversity. It was one word: Impeach! Everything else was just mentioned in passing.

        Don't you think John McCain looks tired?

        by MakeChessNotWar on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:56:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What are Dem Party members so afraid of? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mataliandy

    I don't buy their excuses anymore. What are they so afraid of?

    Do they really believe that they will be able to contain this administration or force it to do what it doesn't want?

  •  Yea Vermont! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mataliandy

    Thank you, Peter Shumlin. Peter Welch, please ride the wave rather than rowing against it.

Permalink | 22 comments