"Impeach Now," Defined

For the moment, the historic burden rests most heavily on the House of Representatives, and with special force on Congressman Thomas P. ('Tip') O'Neill Jr., 61, the floor leader of the Democratic majority in the House and the man responsible for ensuring the fairness of the impeachment process. "The main thing is getting the show on the road," says O'Neill.

Judging Nixon: The Impeachment Session*
TIME, Monday, Feb. 04, 1974

"Impeach now" means exactly this:

Next Tuesday, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee opens a debate regarding the "possibly" unlawful actions of George Bush, Richard Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, or another executive branch official.

In the opening statement, Chairman John Conyers explicitly states that, at the end of the deliberations, he will hold a vote on whether to open impeachment hearings, which, if successful, would then be subject to a full House vote.  The chair also declares that any obstruction of the hearing process is immediate grounds for impeachment.  Then the deliberations begin and run their course, and the Representatives vote.

That's it.

I do not presume to speak for all or even many of the impeachment advocates in this community, but as I see it, that is the sum total of what impeach now means.  In essence, such an act would mean that our elected representatives openly acknowledge that the President and members of the executive branch are accountable to the citizens and to Congress before the law, and that it is the Congress's power and responsibility to enforce that law.

That is what everyone is so afraid of.  Members of Congress don't want us to hold them to account for that power and responsibility.  They all have their own policy projects, electoral campaigns, and power plays, and those more or less narrow intrests trump the widest interest of all, that causing the government to function within the consent of the governed, as defined by our social contract, the Constitution.  Executive branch officials don't want the law to apply to them, for they have enjoyed the fruits of unlawful power and stand to lose that power as well as to personally and institutionally face punishment.  For all federal officeholders, power restored to the citizens in the form of the rule of law is power taken away from the officeholders.  Beyond that, there is a lot of corrupt money at stake.  A lot.  And of course there are myriad other reasons not to impeach in general, some of them principled.  The essential point here, though, is what impeach now means.

When executive branch officials can act outside of the bounds of law, as they have openly declared the ability to do and as they have in fact done in multiple circumstances, and not face consequential confrontation from our elected representatives,** then they possess monarchical power.  The federal political leadership, as well as its courtiers in business and in news media, are royalty, while we are serfs, not free men and women.

And the like power [that of God] have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, they have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only. They have power to exalt low things and abase high things, and make of their subjects, like men at the chess, — a pawn to take a bishop or a knight — and to cry up or down any of their subjects, as they do their money. And to the King is due both the affection of the soul and the service of the body of his subjects. . . .

I would wish you to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of grievances:

First, that you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft: tractent fabrilia fabri, — to meddle with that were to lessen me.  [...]  I must not be taught my office.

Secondly, I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received them from my predecessors, [...]

And, lastly, I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by settled law, and whereunto (as you have already had a proof) you know I will never give a plausible answer; for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.

- King James I, speech to Parliament regarding the divine right of kings, 1609

As they said in 17th century England, "read the whole thing."  Does it not strike you dumb?  Does not George W. Bush say exactly the same thing, in so many words?  (Okay, minus the Latin.)

Comic interlude over:

Just the acknowledgement, the mere acknowledgement, of the core concept upon which any nation of citizens founds a just government, that the law is king — that is what impeach now means to me.

Law is the standard we apply to everyone in order to secure our own freedom against the infringment of others, an equality of freedom.  If we refuse to apply law to all people equally, including to those upon whom we bestow power over us, then it is predominantly raw personal power that determines our collective fate.  Most of what matters then is who has more of it and who less, not any ephemeral concept of freedom.

So, here it is, impeach now, in all its glory:

1. The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

2. The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.

What comes after, the hearings, the votes, that is beyond the scope of impeach now, although you can find the full list of steps on the Cornell Law website.  Step 1 and step 2, that is all I ask.

I do not specify which executive branch official to impeach because I do not see that as fundamentally important.  The important principle to establish is that of the accountability of executive branch officials unto the legislature and unto the citizenry before the law.  Once we impeach one of them, by the same standard we obligate ourselves to hold all who flout the law to account.  I do specify that obstruction of the impeachment proceedings must itself be impeachable, since otherwise executive branch officials can thwart any move on the part of the legislature, and given that the mechanism of impeachment is wholly that of the legislature bringing the rule of law to bear upon the executive, such a move to obstruct would moot it all.

Censure does not cut it because it has no consequential outcome.  No one would have to leave office; no one would go to jail.  No citizens would see their freedom restored.  All the censure resolutions in the world would not bring about the rule of law.  In my view this is why the Senate's attempted "no confidence" vote regarding Alberto Gonzales failed, and deservedly so, because it was of no meaningful consequence.  "Oversight" hearings without the avowed possibility of impeachment do not cut it either.  Absent that credible threat, executive branch officials can obstruct and commit perjury at will, thus hamstringing a conclusion as to illegality or intent.  Besides, each time Congress does not promptly hold administration officials to account for the day's freshly revealed transgression, it reinforces our perception that they never will.

Let not our political lives be "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."  Let us not pretend that we do not know the logical end result of Congress applying the law.  Open the deliberate and full-blown impeachment hearings, with overt and public acknowledgement of the possibility of real consequences, and watch how serious this gets.

It is my view that, once we open hearings with impeachment expressly "on the table," the elements of a successful impeachment vote in the House and conviction in the Senate will inexorably and irrevocably build from there.  I may be wrong about impeach now's chances of victory, but even if so, we will better serve our nation in the long run if we try.  If we do not try, as we have not yet done, then we will have definitely answered the question, "Are we a nation of free people?" in the negative.  We have all of this government, billions upon billions of dollars of it, yet if its most fundamental basis is not operative, it is worse for our freedom than not having a government at all.  And if the Judiciary Committee does take up a matter of impeachment yet decides to vote down an inquiry, or if the full House votes it down, then at least we will all know the answer to that question rather than continue to wonder.

Freedom is our unalienable right, but a right is not a reality if we allow other people to alienate it from us.

The law does not uphold itself.  People do.  Or do not.

Impeach now.

:: ::

* Link credit inclusiveheart in an argument against "impeach tomorrow" (!), although I also recommend her comments on Feingold's anti-impeachment diary.

** This is not a question for the judiciary because it is a matter of crimes of office, a political matter.  Courts are at their best when they thwart the tyranny of the majority.  What is at issue with impeachment and executive power is the consent of the governed.

•  Impeach now.

  by Simplify on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:31:50 PM PDT

  •  While I agree with 97% of what you write ...

    ...here, I don't think that Senate censure is such a bad thing. Because the Senate can't do anything about impeachment until the House Judiciary Committee and then the full House makes a move. Censure thus is a intermediate step. And I think that, right now, censure of Gonzales by the Senate would be relatively easy to achieve. Followed by his "impeachment now" by your definition.

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:49:47 PM PDT

    •  censure has one plus + many minuses

      Censure has one plus mentioned by Kagro the other day as stated in this quote from US Supreme Court decision:

      In short, a systematic, unbroken executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of Congress and never before questioned, engaged in by Presidents who have also sworn to uphold the Constitution, making as it were such exercise of power part of the structure of our government, may be treated as a gloss on "executive Power" vested in the president by §1 of Article II.

      I am pretty sure there is caselaw saying the opposite. But, this is a biggy, and given the composition of Supremes, it may be wise strategy to include censure to preclude any president from arguing this theory for powers.

      However, censure has a few negatives:

        1.  There is no clear constitutional power vested in Congress to censure presidents, so this can cause debate to delay censure process; and, if censure is seen as first step toward impeachment, delay impeachment as well. This is because impeachment is viewed by many as the only constitutional "censure" of a president.

        2.   Censure is viewed as an alternative to impeachment. Democrats tried to use a censure resolution as a substitute for articles of impeachment against President Clinton.  

        3.  There are no legal consequences attached to censure. The only impact is that Bush will have a footnote in history books. But, how many past censures do you remember?

        4. The history of censure-type resolutions from 1973-2006 is 31 resolutions on executive branch officials, but no legislative action, not on one case.

        5.  If the Senate censures Bush, will the House have the political will to pursue impeachment?  Many will view the censure as a nice little compromise to pacify the impeachment movement for holding bush accountable, even though censure does no such thing.  

         6.  Prior censures have been revoked by the next congress.

      So, how can censure be beneficial for either bush or gonzales?

      (partially recycled comment)

      by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 12:12:17 AM PDT

      •  I see no benefit in censure for Gonzalez.

        Or for Cheney, for that matter.  I think there is more than enough evidence and bad will to get Gonzo booted.  The hearings today were surreal, with Senators from both parties practically booing the idiocy before them.  And I think that the case can be made against Cheney in the same way.  There needs to be more groundwork on Cheney, but the natives are getting restless where he's concerned.

        I'm at a loss about Bush.  I want him gone so badly that it clouds my judgment as to what to do.  There needs to be more groundwork, more calling bullshit at every opportunity, hearings, etc.  And we need to get on the stick.  This needs to be done.  We cannot let this behavior get by without punishment, we really can't.  It's more than a matter of principle now, ita matter of saving our country, our way of life, our Constitution.  It must be done....

        by Got a Grip on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 12:25:51 AM PDT

•  Direct hearings and investigations

  Of Bush and Cheneys crimes.

  All I want.

  Let the chips fall where they may.

  "The main thing is getting the show on the road,"

  by buhdydharma on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:38:14 PM PDT

  •  "Let the chips fall where they may"

    That's the definition of justice.

    To not impeach is to watch the dealer stack the deck and yet play the game anyway.

    by Simplify on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 07:59:46 AM PDT

•  A counterpoint

  from that TIME article, counseling patience:

  After the Watergate affair broke open last spring, O'Neill became deeply involved in the House's reaction. He and Albert squelched as "premature" a move by Congressman John Moss to have the House start impeachment hearings after Senator Sam Ervin's committee began its work. O'Neill knew that there were insufficient grounds at that point to justify the step, which could jeopardize future efforts if the evidence came to warrant impeachment.

  Then John Dean testified in June [1973] and O'Neill really moved into action. He told Chairman Rodino: "You've got to get ready. This thing is going to hit us, and you've got to be prepared for it. And keep it from becoming political.

  I think it's way past time we ditched the fear of the "political" charge.  That fear is part of what brought us defeat in 2004.

  by Simplify on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:43:50 PM PDT

  •  "Patience" my big fat arse!

    I want the criminals "leading" this country IMPEACHED!

    It's the politicians who refuse to see the difference between politics as usual and criminal behavior on the part of the "leaders" - albeit, without Congress Critters enabling them, they might not have such extraordinary powers.

    by NonnyO on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 01:07:05 AM PDT

•  Censure vs impeachment

  Censure has no consequences.  Censure does not require criminal investigations, charges, trials, or convictions.

  We KNOW (even from Lamestream Media sound bytes!) many lies have been uttered by Cheney, Bush, and their entire administration, and we KNOW the invasion of Iraq was a war crime, as is the torture and imprisonment of people at Gitmo.  These are only the crimes we KNOW about.

  That "should" be enough evidence to at least start the impeachment proceedings, which can then only lead to uncovering other crimes during the investigation... which just might get Lamestream Media to talk about the lies and crimes in depth (for a change) and it could only then lead to the neoCons in the House being forced to vote to impeach and turn the whole thing over to the Senate for a trial.  If neoCon senators do not vote to convict (just on known crimes), they will be voted out of office.

  It's the politicians who are coming up with lame excuses about why they don't think impeachment is viable who are holding up the process, making impeachment a political process ("we don't have the votes" is a bullshit excuse; how do they know unless they see/hear the evidence...?), when those who favor impeachment see only crimes and lies and more crimes and lies and know there are constitutional and legal reasons to impeach.

  (For the record: if a Dem had done the same crimes and told the same lies Cheney/Bush have done, I'd also favor impeachment on constitutional and legal grounds.  Additionally, I would favor the next president signing on to the World Court and sending Bush/Cheney to The Hague to be tried for war crimes; as of today it looks like our Congress Critters are too chicken to start the impeachment process, and if a war crimes trial were held at The Hague, maybe there would be some justice accomplished.)

  by NonnyO on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 01:02:53 AM PDT