![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
on impeachment
Since the Democrats won't get off their duff and impeach, Cindy Sheehan is threatening to do it for them.
From the Yahoo article:
"Sheehan, who will turn 50 on Tuesday, said Bush should be impeached because she believes he misled the public about the reasons for going to war, violated the Geneva Convention by torturing detainees, and crossed the line by commuting the prison sentence of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. She said other grounds for impeachment are the domestic spying program and the "inadequate and tragic" response to Hurricane Katrina."
"George Bush Articles of Impeachment" gets 1,280,000 hits on Google. For contract, "Clinton Articles of Impeachment" gets 1,450,000 hits.
The four articles proposed by the left-wing Center on Constitutional Rights (as cited at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/articles-of-impeachment-a_b_54243.html)
involve:
Article I
- violation of constitutional rights of citizens, contravening laws regulating the executive branch, directing the NSA and other agencies to conduct electronic surveillance outside of the law
Article II
- by initiation and continuation of the Iraq war, violation of the Constitutional separation of powers, undermining the authority of Congress to declare war, oversee foreign affairs, and make appropriations; further by justifying the war with false and misleading statements to lie to and deceive the American people and Congress
Article III
- violating the rights of citizens and non-citizens by arbitrarily detaining them indefinitely inside and outside of the United States, without due process, without charges, and with limited or no access to counsel or courts; failing to faithfully execute the laws of the United States by condoning torture and failing to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for torture, and officially refusing to accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment
Article IV
- the unconstitutional and in violation of his oath of office, arrogation of excessive power to the executive branch in violation of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers; specifically the violation of law by conducting surveillance of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without a judicial warrant (defying FISA, a law passed to check executive power); mass detentions both in and outside of the United States without permitting any judicial review of such detentions; declared intent to violate the laws enacted by Congress by appending a "signing statement" to legislation that asserts his right to carve out exceptions to legislation as he sees fit, thereby arrogating to himself legislative powers reserved solely to Congress.
Sheehan is citing three of the four and adding a new one, the commutation of Libby's sentence for lying, presumably under executive orders to do so, to a Federal investigation. (Ironic that this is what Clinton was nearly impeached on, isn't it?)
The articles passed by Congress against Clinton (from http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm) involve:
- Perjury before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury.
- Perjury in the Paula Jones civil case.
- Obstruction of Justice related to the Jones case.
- Abuse of Power by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee.
I think when we consider the severity and nature of the proposed charges against Bush as compared to the charges against Clinton, clearly the former are far more serious.
I find this quote from the closing arguments of the Clinton impeachment compelling:
On the President's behalf, White House Counsel Charles Ruff declared: "There is only one question before you, albeit a difficult one, one that is a question of fact and law and constitutional theory. Would it put at risk the liberties of the people to retain the President in office? Putting aside partisan animus, if you can honestly say that it would not, that those liberties are safe in his hands, then you must vote to acquit."
Chief prosecutor Henry Hyde countered: "A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious...We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President ...And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done."
For the record, I've supported a Bush impeachment since late 2003. Those of us who actually follow and know Constitutional law knew exactly where Bush was going with all of this. Then again, we didn't think he'd have the balls to take it quite this far.
From the Yahoo article:
"Sheehan, who will turn 50 on Tuesday, said Bush should be impeached because she believes he misled the public about the reasons for going to war, violated the Geneva Convention by torturing detainees, and crossed the line by commuting the prison sentence of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. She said other grounds for impeachment are the domestic spying program and the "inadequate and tragic" response to Hurricane Katrina."
"George Bush Articles of Impeachment" gets 1,280,000 hits on Google. For contract, "Clinton Articles of Impeachment" gets 1,450,000 hits.
The four articles proposed by the left-wing Center on Constitutional Rights (as cited at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/articles-of-impeachment-a_b_54243.html)
involve:
Article I
- violation of constitutional rights of citizens, contravening laws regulating the executive branch, directing the NSA and other agencies to conduct electronic surveillance outside of the law
Article II
- by initiation and continuation of the Iraq war, violation of the Constitutional separation of powers, undermining the authority of Congress to declare war, oversee foreign affairs, and make appropriations; further by justifying the war with false and misleading statements to lie to and deceive the American people and Congress
Article III
- violating the rights of citizens and non-citizens by arbitrarily detaining them indefinitely inside and outside of the United States, without due process, without charges, and with limited or no access to counsel or courts; failing to faithfully execute the laws of the United States by condoning torture and failing to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for torture, and officially refusing to accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment
Article IV
- the unconstitutional and in violation of his oath of office, arrogation of excessive power to the executive branch in violation of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers; specifically the violation of law by conducting surveillance of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without a judicial warrant (defying FISA, a law passed to check executive power); mass detentions both in and outside of the United States without permitting any judicial review of such detentions; declared intent to violate the laws enacted by Congress by appending a "signing statement" to legislation that asserts his right to carve out exceptions to legislation as he sees fit, thereby arrogating to himself legislative powers reserved solely to Congress.
Sheehan is citing three of the four and adding a new one, the commutation of Libby's sentence for lying, presumably under executive orders to do so, to a Federal investigation. (Ironic that this is what Clinton was nearly impeached on, isn't it?)
The articles passed by Congress against Clinton (from http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm) involve:
- Perjury before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury.
- Perjury in the Paula Jones civil case.
- Obstruction of Justice related to the Jones case.
- Abuse of Power by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee.
I think when we consider the severity and nature of the proposed charges against Bush as compared to the charges against Clinton, clearly the former are far more serious.
I find this quote from the closing arguments of the Clinton impeachment compelling:
On the President's behalf, White House Counsel Charles Ruff declared: "There is only one question before you, albeit a difficult one, one that is a question of fact and law and constitutional theory. Would it put at risk the liberties of the people to retain the President in office? Putting aside partisan animus, if you can honestly say that it would not, that those liberties are safe in his hands, then you must vote to acquit."
Chief prosecutor Henry Hyde countered: "A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious...We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President ...And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done."
For the record, I've supported a Bush impeachment since late 2003. Those of us who actually follow and know Constitutional law knew exactly where Bush was going with all of this. Then again, we didn't think he'd have the balls to take it quite this far.
no subject
... which is easier for her, since she really has no political career to damage, nor even any discernible link to reality.
But really, I hope she keeps it up. Ain't gonna harm anyone but Nancy Pelosi ...