We all have heard a lot on
activist judges, mostly from the right-wing talking heads. Of course, there are
activist judges on the right, too. But what is meant by an activist judge? As I think almost
everyone can agree, an activist judge is one who extends his or her authority past interpreting the law and into rewriting laws. This stems from the third-grade understanding of civics that the legislature writes laws, the executives enforce them, and the judiciary interprets them as needed. This understanding is more or less correct, so we see a legitimate abuse of power when a judge essentially ignores or rewrites laws, one that should be corrected by removal of that judge from office. This is unacceptable
whether you agree with the judge's ultimate ruling or not. Again, on these points everyone basically agrees regardless of political views.
So what about activist executives? We have, as I detail below, an executive who usurps the powers of the legislature and judiciary, and thus should be impeached.
Presidents and their administrations are free to shape the writing of laws by working with the legislature, and that is quite common. But the president and his or her administration must also obey laws passed by Congress, and not ignore them or rewrite them. This is true
even in times of war, which by the way according to the letter of the law, the president
cannot declare on his own. I know plenty of modern precedent gives the chief executive, even the entire executive branch, broader powers than the letter of the law entails. However, this administration has gone over the line in clear and well-documented ways. Now, we just had a president impeached for lying under oath. Fine, that's the past and that's the only modern precedent we have. Here we have several impeachable offenses, each of which is well-documented:
1. Funds dedicated by Congress for the war and rebuilding of Afghanistan were siphoned off to fund the Iraq war preparations. A complete usurpation of Congress's "power of the purse." This is a CLEARLY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
2. The foot-dragging and outright defiance in reaction to the Supreme Court's decision that prisoners at Guantanamo are entitled to some form of due process. A complete usurpation of the courts' role as final arbiters of legal interpretation. They cannot continue to interpret the law how they wish because the courts have spoken. REQUIRES INVESTIGATION into the president's role in the matter.
3. The position, as solicited by Alberto Gonzales and validated by the president, that the executive and the military are unencumbered by Congress's anti-torture acts and the Geneva Convention. A complete usurpation of Congress's role as the only legislators in our federal government. Another CLEARLY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
4. The inability of this administration to identify, and the unwillingness to investigate, the traitor who outed Valerie Plame (see SusanG's excellent ongoing coverage). REQUIRES INVESTIGATION into the president's role in the matter, and the level of (in)action taken within the administration.
5. The appearance of the President before a joint session of Congress presenting evidence it knows to be dubious in the run-up to war (namely the infamous state of the union uranium-in-Africa line). REQUIRES (more) INVESTIGATION but probably not an impeachable offense.
6. The incredible payola scandals, coming fast and furious now, which CANNOT be shrugged off. Willful deceit is something the American people will not tolerate and must be INVESTIGATED.
These are the impeachable offenses I can list. There are probably more that fall into either a clearly impeachable offense or a matter that would be an impeachable offense if the president's role was significant, but requires investigation to find out the president's exact role. Can you add to this list? Please indicate clearly if you are offering a clearly impeachable offense or one that requires investigation. Frankly, I am not one to take impeachment talk lightly, but I think at least the letter of the law supports it, especially on the misappropriation of funds item.
