Impeachment: Let's Get Weird.
The diary linked back to another blog, where the idea apparently originated. And to be perfectly honest with you, this read at first like just another fringe-y, kooked-out misreading of procedure. But I just happen to have an old copy of Jefferson's Manual here on the desk, and sure enough, that's just what it says. The legislature of any state or territory may transmit charges to the Congress and recommend impeachment.
Now, to be sure, there is nothing that forces the House of Representatives -- still the sole body capable of adopting actual articles of impeachment -- to act on such charges. In fact, you can be assured that they'd do everything in their power to avoid doing so.
But what a story it'd make! A little known constitutional procedure that has lain dormant for decades, never before used against a president, and pitting the duly elected and sworn legislature of a state against a federal Congress sitting on its hands and refusing to act!
What drama! What passion!
So, where to start?
Well, clearly you'll need to begin in a state with a strong Democratic majority in the legislature. That's just plain fact. And while it may be complained that it puts an unduly partisan shine on things, the bottom line is that there really are no Republicans willing to consider their duty in this matter.
With that, then, let's examine the state of the states, and partisan control of the state legislatures. The handy-dandy chart in the link shows us that the legislatures of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia all have Democratic majorities in both houses. But Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont have got overwhelming majorities. Veto-proof majorities (though that may not be a necessary requirement).
Hawaii's 51 House seats are occupied by: 41 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
Hawaii's 25 Senate seats are occupied by: 20 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
Massachusetts' 160 House seats are occupied by: 139 Democrats, 20 Republicans and 1 independent.
Massachusetts' 40 Senate seats are occupied by: 34 Democrats and 6 Republicans.
Rhode Island's 75 House seats are occupied by: 59 Democrats and 16 Republicans.
Rhode Island's 38 Senate seats are occupied by: 33 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
Vermont's 150 House seats are occupied by: 83 Democrats, 60 Republicans, 6 Progressives and 1 independent.
Vermont's 30 Senate seats are occupied by: 21 Democrats and 9 Republicans.
That's pretty good odds, at least based solely on partisan affiliation. Lots of leeway for "conscientious objections."
One curious side note: All four of these states have Republican governors -- some for the first time in decades. How weird is that? Will it matter? Not sure. Not only are these veto-proof majorities, but if these states abide by parliamentary rules similar to those used in Congress, a concurrent resolution approved by both houses is not subject to executive signature, and therefore not subject to veto.
But what else do these states bring to the table?
Well, according to a recent SurveyUSA poll, the states with the three very worst approval ratings for Bush are: Rhode Island, Vermont and Massachusetts -- in all of which Bush draws at least 64% disapproval. Rhode Island actually puts Bush below 30% approval, splitting 29/68!
That's another notch in the columns of those three, then.
Now, any of those states would make a great place to start. Massachusetts has a famous Democratic tradition, of course. And it doesn't hurt that it's the home state of the last Democratic presidential candidate. But what captures my interest is that they were one of the states (along with Vermont, as a matter of fact) whose presidential electors voted to transmit additional messages to Congress, calling for an investigation of voting irregularities in the 2004 presidential contest.
These are people who are on board with the concept of breaking tradition, and utilizing a bit of arcana when appropriate.
Vermont, of course, has a number of things going for it in this sweepstakes. Need national players with the clout to get the story heard? Vermont provides plenty: Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Pat Leahy; the only independent in the Senate (and a former Republican at that), Jim Jeffords; the only independent in the House, Bernie Sanders; and of course, Democratic National Committee Chairman and former governor, Howard Dean.
Overly concerned about partisan taint? In addition to the independent status of Jeffords and Sanders, Vermont has a relatively robust third party presence in its legislature -- the Progressives, generally a liberal-leaning bunch, but without the complicating ties of membership in the Democratic Party.
Add to that the Vermont Legislature's resolution of May 29, 2003 disapproving of the USA PATRIOT Act and calling upon Congress to repeal specific provisions of it, and you've got a real contender.
But let me just throw in one quick plug for Rhode Island. It's got the legislature. It's got the low -- and I mean low -- Bush approval ratings. But it's also got Lincoln Chafee, one of a dying breed of "moderate" Republicans, who faces what's looking like an uphill battle for reelection this year.
Would Chafee -- who has broken from the president recently on some key votes, including judicial nominations -- have it in him to stand by Bush when the I-word is on the table, the man's approval ratings are in the toilet, and his home state's legislature has sent instructions to impeach?
I don't know, but I'd love to find out!
So, is it all just some crazy pipe dream? Well, if you're asking me whether the Republican-controlled House is likely to be persuaded to move articles of impeachment at the behest of a single state legislature, the answer is obviously no. But as I said, what a story it'd make!
What would the House do with such a charge? Well, clearly it'd have to be delivered in some formal fashion. Perhaps memorialized by a motion from a sympathetic Member. At the very least recited aloud by the Reading Clerk, live on C-SPAN. But the House would have to dispose of it somehow, most likely by immediately moving to commit the charges to a committee -- likely Judiciary -- and let it rot there, or to table any motions brought seeking to recognize the transmission of the charges.
But that's just fodder for the media. "Congress Ducks State's Impeachment Charges," the headline might read. (OK, maybe that's the pipe dream.) Still, it's a story. And what if more than one state sent such charges?
But another beauty of this is that Jefferson's Manual also instructs us:
A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business. It may not even be superseded by an election case, which is also a matter of high privilege. It does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been made at a previous time during that same session of Congress, previous action of the House not affecting it.
State legislatures take note, however:
A resolution simply proposing an investigation, even though impeachment may be a possible consequence, is not privileged. But where a resolution of investigation positively proposes impeachment or suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege.
The resolutions referred to above are actually those which would be proposed in the House, memorializing the receipt of a state's petition, but it could only help matters for state legislatures considering transmitting such charges to be explicit in framing their document in terms of impeachment. It'd be a much tougher sell to convince the House Parliamentarian that a resolution brought in the House seeking to memorialize a state legislature's resolution calling for impeachment did not actually constitute at least a resolution of investigation positively proposing impeachment. Not that the House GOP Leadership wouldn't consider overruling the Parliamentarian, of course.
So, who's up for it? Who likes Vermont for the job? Rhode Island? Someplace else? Hawaii's nice during winter.
Recommended, and Hello. Great to see you posting here, adding to the mix at TPMC.
OK, my money's on Vermont.
But maybe this tactic should be used after the 2006 elections? If Dems don't take the House, it can be used as you described. If the Dems, yet are reluctant to say the I-word, this could be held over their heads.
January 25, 2006 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no doubt that many Congressional Democrats are still reluctant to say the I-word. One theory is that this method gives them a certain amount of political cover: "Hey, it's not me, it's my home state legislature! I'm just doing what they instruct me to do!"
That sort of instruction to the state delegation has a ring to it that hearkens back to the Founders' era, don't you think?
Who could argue with the implications of strict federalism?
I've also seen it proposed that this and all impeachment talk should wait until after the 2006 elections, but I'm not so sure. One thing I do know is that the notion that Democrats should hide the ball and then spring impeachment on the American people as soon as they're handed a majority seems like a recipe for disaster.
I think that if there's any hope of a Democratic Congress proceeding with impeachment after 2006, they're going to have to hit the ground running. The intent should be obvious -- not that it necessarily must be the centerpiece of the campaign, but it must be a plain possibility. And beyond the necessity of being at least somewhat up front about it, it's a process that could become mired in delay. And embattled administrations entering into lame-duck status make pitiable targets. "Aw, it's almost over," they'll say. "Let 'em go."
But if you ask me, letting Nixon go when he agreed to step down, and letting the old man go for Iran-Contra has led us directly here. In many cases, suffering at the hands of the same manipulators.
So I count myself outside the "wait until November" camp.
January 25, 2006 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing I do know is that the notion that Democrats should hide the ball and then spring impeachment on the American people as soon as they're handed a majority seems like a recipe for disaster.
I definitely agree. Be straight with it on their campaigns. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
What I meant was give the Dems running in 06 a chance to make this part of their campaigns, at least hint at it. Then, if we win, and they fail to take action, the States could do it.
It was more just a thought -- I could be persuaded to join the call for Vermont (or any state) to do it soon.
Quite frankly, I'd be happy with any Dem anywhere doing something bold. Or weird, as you say.
We need a shot in the arm.
January 25, 2006 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an argument for soft-pedaling impeachment talk for now. Since it is painful and messy, automatically sullying the Office of President, there could be some unconscious cold feet induced in the public.
What I'm saying is too much talk of a threatened impeachment might get a backlash from folks that aren't so happy with Bush but would be unhappy to see him tossed out this way. Not that this should stop us from pursuing that, but only after we take Congress, if possible.
What we hope is some GOP voters lose heart and don't vote, and that swing voters come over. Both could be put at risk if we promise a season of painful self-examination. I worry that we might sound like we're saying "Please vote for us so we can impeach your President."
Let's win the vote first.
January 25, 2006 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What I'm saying is too much talk of a threatened impeachment might get a backlash from folks that aren't so happy with Bush but would be unhappy to see him tossed out this way."
You're entirely correct, of course.
But the cscs's of the world would rather do something weird than do the boring work of taking back control of the government.
January 26, 2006 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The issue to make a stand on now is Alito, which calls for a filibuster.
The next issue is to win Congress, for which we need to direct a lot of attention to voting prcedures.
If we take Congress, we investigate and impeach Bush AND Cheney.
January 27, 2006 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alito: Separate issue as far as the dynamics are concerned, and to be dealt with separately.
Winning back Congress: Very much tied up in the issue of impeachment. And I must confess to a growing impatience with the notion that discussion of winning must preclude discussion of what we'd do with a win. Hiding the ball sounds like a good way to lose, either straight-up in '06, or as backlash against "hidden agendas" in '08.
January 27, 2006 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could be you're right. Note I have no rep as a political consultant (good thing).
January 27, 2006 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The issue to make a stand on now is Alito, which calls for a filibuster.
The next issue is to win Congress, for which we need to direct a lot of attention to voting prcedures.
If we take Congress, we investigate and impeach Bush AND CHENEY"
That is a great sounding arm chair strategy that will dissolve on first contact with reality Tom.
You're Joe Democrat running for the House. Brian Dimwit with KROV TV asks, "If elected would you vote to impeach the President?" Your answer, "Well that is an interesting question. Something we should probably look into. But at this point in time I don't have enough facts to make a judgement on it". Brian asks your opponent Peter Republican the same question. His response, "Of course not. That's preposterous to even ask!".
Who just became the strong, decisive candidate? Who just became the weak-kneed, lily-livered candidate that has his party faithful moaning that they should have picked the other guy in the primary? Who has just inspired his party faithful to show up on election day, proud of their man?
You think this question will not come up? Brian doesn't even have to be on Karl's payroll (though he probably will end up golfing in Scotland). Brian just has to do his job, ask questions that are on the minds of the electorate.
Off year Congressional elections are not about appealing to the undecided independents in the middle. In 2002 only 40% of the voting-eligible population voted. Victory in an off year election goes the candidate that gets more of his party faithful to make it to the polls than the loser did. You don't do that with your strategy. Passion and conviction brings people to the polls, not slight-of-hand tricks calculated to deceive the voter. Your strategy is a disaster waiting to happen.
January 27, 2006 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'm saying is too much talk of a threatened impeachment might get a backlash from folks that aren't so happy with Bush but would be unhappy to see him tossed out this way.
That's right. Wouldn't want to have any strong positions on anything, would we? Might offend someone.
And what is it that the Democrats stand for? Oh yeah, nothing.
January 26, 2006 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have been down this route twice now. Watergate (accepting resignation in place of rightful impeachment and prosecution) and Iran-Contra (accepting lame-duck status and eventual term limitation in place of the serious pursuit of impeachment).
The same team is back at the plate, unchastened, for a third bite at the apple. Cold feet or not, we either have an impeachment clause for a reason or we don't.
The state-initiated process puts an extra layer of protection between gun shy Washington Dems and the nervous public. State leg. Dems aren't subject to precisely the same dynamics as federal Dems, for one thing. For another, the style of initiating the process -- the demand for impeachment from a duly elected state legislature -- automatically puts this impeachment in a different category from all the rest.
It comes pre-wrapped in "historical event" packaging. And sheer novelty is sometimes distracting enough to assuage the fear that might otherwise come with.
January 26, 2006 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you think we could focus on, you know, winning the next election?
January 26, 2006 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I think we could focus on winning the next election. That'd be nice.
Now comes the question of what are you gonna win it with?
Two things I ask of anyone who thinks there are impeachable offenses on the table:
1. Don't hide the ball.
2. Don't wait too long.
If you literally wait until January 2007 to do anything, you're going to start sliding toward that magical date at which the prevailing public opinion turns to letting the lame duck go and bygones be bygones.
We are where we are today for lack of having drawn a line at Watergate, then again at Iran-Contra. The same perpetrators are back for a third go-round, and will be back for a fourth if they don't get what's coming to them. Remember, impeachment isn't just for presidents. It's for all "civil officers."
I remind everyone also that the Constitution bars both future eligibility for high office and presidential pardons in the case of impeachment. Given that many of the very same people have been at the heart of the last two rounds of Constitution-shredding, I would urge early and clear action. How many more chances do you want to give John Poindexter? Elliot Abrams?
So I reject the "cross your fingers and wait" option. Particularly from those who would also have me deep six the concept and only pull it out post-November.
January 26, 2006 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am guessing that this impeach-impeach-impeach process is going to lead to more disasters. We need a new direction.
The rabid-Republicans get oh-so-much out of hating Democrats. Now we are into the same thing? Since Nixon we have had 4 opportunities for impeachment, 3 Republican (counting this one) and 1 Democratic. We think of ourselves as the repository of democracy and the only remaining superpower?
The world thinks of as navel-gazing meglomaniacs who cannot treat ourselves with respect and too dangerous for the rest of the world. I don't blame them. God, we are just lucky that Europe still doesn't trust Russia and is in general competition with China. Otherwise, they would band together and come take our military toys away, and they wouldn't care how many of us they had to kill to do it.
January 26, 2006 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could have stopped after your first three words.
You are guessing.
We have indeed had four opportunities to impeach since Nixon. All but one have been a direct result of not doing the duty asked of us with that first one.
That lone exception, meanwhile, has served double duty for the perpetrators of the crimes behind the other three.
It weakened their enemies (and make no mistake, they do regard Democrats as enemies) securing the next presidential contest for Bush, and has since been used to bolster the case for "impeachment fatigue" -- now the predominant excuse to avoid putting an end to this Republican contempt for the Constitution once and for all.
Most ironic of all, Democrats have been convinced that the 1998 backlash against the Republican effort to impeach Clinton was a reaction to the remedy of impeachment itself, as opposed to the ridiculousness of the charges to which they attempted to apply it.
For some reason, rather than believe the position they actually took during the impeachment -- i.e., that it was ridiculous -- had been vindicated, they now choose to believe something quite different, and which renders them even more powerless.
It doesn't surprise me that the Republicans would try to draw a false equivalency between the Clinton impeachment and an effort aimed at Bush. But that Democrats would? Inexplicable.
January 26, 2006 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm no fan of Bush and his gang. I'd prefer to get 'em out of office, sign the International War Crimes Court treaty, then send 'em all off to the Hague for trials (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a bunch more).
I'm thinking strategy here, not justice. The current strategy seems to be putting more and more power in the hands of hate mongers. It doesn't seem that the Dems are the hate mongers.
January 26, 2006 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're not.
And I can always appreciate strategic thinking. But in this case, the thinking appears to have landed us in a situation where in anticipation of Republicans accusing us of using impeachment to attack the president for partisan political gain, Democrats respond by saying, "Oh yeah? Well we're gonna not attack the president, and when we don't do it, it'll be for partisan political gain!"
So the Republicans accuse us of putting party over what they think is the good of the country. And in response, I'm now urged to... put party over the good of the country?
Not much to build a house on, if you ask me.
January 26, 2006 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are such a good example of Democracy for the world, aren't we. In the last 45 years, we have tried to remove half our presidents, including actually removing one (resigned in disgrace) and tying one up so long it substantially prevented any useful policy making in his second term. Despite the demonstrated law breaking of another, we named an airport after him AT THE NATIONAL CAPITAL.
We are the BAFOONS of Democracy. Perhaps, just perhaps, we could move on from this by now. Its taken all my good years. I'd like my children to live under something else.
January 27, 2006 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
by the way, I am not opposed to preventing Bush from moving his agenda, I just don't think this is the way to do it.
January 27, 2006 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're not opposed to preventing Bush from moving his agenda? That's great! What do you intend to use to prevent it?
The rules? The law? The Constitution?
Good luck! He's, you know, like, totally into listening to that stuff.
Rules? Nuclear option.
Law? Nullify it with "signing statements."
Constitution? Overrule it with powers of the "unitary executive."
Maybe we could try putting a Whoopee Cushion on his chair and see if that works.
January 27, 2006 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, for the most part I thought his agenda was checked this year. Was it blocked at every turn, no. But did he walk away with what he wanted? no.
Is the glass half full or half empty? You see it as half empty.
For god's sake, its Republican-all-around and they couldn't move half their stuff. I see it as half full.
Now we are sitting pretty for an election, if we only focus on a positive agenda and winning the election.
January 27, 2006 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, it depends greatly on what you think the agenda actually is. If you think it's Social Security "reform," then you probably think we're "sitting pretty."
If you think it's decades of dominance in the federal judiciary, the supplanting of minority voting rights protection with partisan-designed and racially biased redistricting so as to institutionalize a Republican advantage in the legislative branch, and the wild and limitless expansion of executive power such that the president may act unchecked by any domestic force whatsoever, then it ain't so pretty.
Like I asked you before, what do you plan to use to stop this agenda? Rules? Laws? The Constitution? Piece by piece and step by step, they're becoming unavailable to you. And once they're gone, how do you intend to stop them on the stuff you think you're "sitting pretty" on now?
While you were admiring your seating arrangments, they swapped out the rules you used to win with for bullshit you won't be able to stop. And just to make sure you can't sue your way out of it, they swapped the judges on you, too. The second time around on Social Security "reform" won't leave you feeling so pleased with yourself.
January 27, 2006 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Supremes is a setback. It was the critical issue of the last election whether most Americans knew it or not. Considering the ages of most of the members, it will be hard to overcome for quite awhile. Court packing is a solution, but Congress did not cooperate with that in the 1930s, so there is no reason to think it will now. It is, however, OVER, and not an impeachable offense. It seems to me the Rightwing has managed to thrive just fine for 40 years under what they considered an advserse supreme court. We are gonna have to buck up. I'm for court packing, myself. Plus wishing bad health on people who I oughtn be wishing bad health on.
Bush went too far in revealing his SS plan, it was a substantial loser, not only for him, but also for his party. The damage is done and the Dems need to make a point of keeping it alive, something I haven't seem them doing.
The election shit comes and goes. What one administration does, another can undo. The trick is to get a Democratic Congress.
Do you think we could get some Democratic candidates who have a little guts, rather than those who call their consultants every 30 minutes? I don't want a candidate who tells me what she thinks I want to hear. Tell me what you believe, and I'll figure out whether I like it. My guess is, THAT is the heart of the matter. All this other crap cannot beat THAT.
January 27, 2006 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like my children to live under something else, too. That's why I think we're going to have to actually finish what we started here.
We've instead been living with the "check swing" on the Nixon impeachment for all this time, and the fallout has been a disaster.
Nobody knows what's impeachable and what's not. Nobody has ever seen a president properly admonished and punished for wanton lawbreaking and subversion of the Constitution. In fact, nobody even believes it's possible anymore.
Which is exactly why you still have to live with presidential lawbreaking and subversion of the Constitution. And why your children will live with it, too, only worse by a factor of ten.
Because the lessons of our continuing "long national nightmare" are, for Democrats: That people don't like impeachment, and; for Republicans: That because Democrats think people don't like impeachment, we have a free hand to continue as we please.
So yeah, we can "move on." Just as soon as you close the books on what has been only different chapters in the same, long story.
January 27, 2006 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck. Another failed impeachment effort. More bi-partisan spite. Looking forward to it.
January 27, 2006 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I'll take your back-handed wishes of good luck over crossing my fingers and wishing it would go away any day of the week.
It's been lingering for more than 30 years, and the issues at the heart of it are about to be institutionalized in the GOP's favor with the ascension of Sam "Unitary Executive" Alito to the Supreme Court.
These are the last days in which what Bush has done will still be considered illegal. Your suggestion of waiting until they're legalized to prosecute strikes me as a little less than sensible.
This is a long shot, to be sure. But assuming we win back the Congress in November, what will be the basis of impeachment? That he did something the Supreme Court just said was OK, but would have said was not OK if you had asked earlier?
January 27, 2006 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm strongly of the opinion that if we don't do this, our children will be living in a theocratic police state, where the Constitution is "quaint," and where the rotunda of the National Archives will be given some Orwellian moniker akin to "Freedom Hall."
And when your kids go there on a school trip to view the old Parchment and the "Patriot" Act, which has displaced the Bill of Rights (and which itself has been "scrubbed" from existence like Bush-Abramoff photos by searcing the nation's libraries and by the complicity of Google and Microsoft) they will be retina-scanned and strip- and cavity searched.
January 28, 2006 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The sin of Democrats in Congress has never been action. The sin has always been inaction, arguing that whatever we may do it will lose, and it's better to do something else. Wail until 2004. Wait until 2006. Wait until 2008.
The Republicans are going to hate us and try to bury us regardless of what we do. It's better to die fighting than to die peacefully.
We will lose the impeachment fight, in all probability. But we will be better off than not fighting. In the long run, we are guarranteed to lose if we surrender.
January 27, 2006 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen to yourself:
It's better to die fighting than to die peacefully.
You sound like the old "Better dead than red anti-commies."
It's better not to die, particularly when we can win. Chose the right battle, not lose the wrong one.
January 27, 2006 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Democrats are ever gonna win any battle, they're first gonna have to fire some shots . . . . Right now they're so afraid of missing, they can't ever pull the trigger . . .
January 27, 2006 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
So many people determined to fight the wrong battle. No way in hell can this be won. Conviction requires 2/3 of the Senate. Where are you going to get 67 Senators to vote to convict Bush? At the moment, the Dems have only 45 and they don't have 45 to vote against Alito.
Impeachment has become the American equivalent to a coup. Well, coup d'etats may seem great, but I have it from my old friend, George Orwell, that they can lead us astray.
Let's forget the ****ing coup. If we can win the 2006 elections in a big way, we can build towards a livable America. You know, Pinochet was never impeached, but he got his comeupance.
January 27, 2006 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So many people determined to mistake the mechanics of impeachment as more important than the necessity for it.
It's fascinating, when you think about it, that impeachment has become the equivalent of a coup in your mind, especially considering the fact that you've never seen one actually carried out. So despite the fact that you've never seen a president removed from office, there's this "coup" equivalency, which on the evidence would appear to make no sense at all. The available historical record would suggest precisely the opposite, would it not? No president has ever been removed from office. Opposite of coup.
Political theater, perhaps. But never a coup.
But the very reason why impeachment is no longer considered a very real and very rare threat to be leveled against a rogue presidency is that the task of purging Nixon was never completed. Nor was the weapon properly used against the criminal (yes, the convicted kind) of the Iran-Contra schemes. Instead, this mysterious business lingered, unfinished and unused, long enough to be turned into a joke by the Republicans, when they impeached Clinton simply because they could.
A very calculated joke, at that. It took all the majesty out of a process which properly -- as had happened under Nixon -- calls even Members of Congress of the president's own party to their duty to support and defend the Constitution. And more importantly, it allowed Republicans still shamed by Watergate and Iran-Contra the cover to purge that memory, and dismiss future impeachments targeting their party as, well... "coups."
So yes, it disturbs me greatly that Republican abuse of the process is what makes them "impeachment-proof" today. I've said as much in the past, but find myself having to backtrack under the sheer weight of the accumulated constitutional subversions, topped off of course by the NSA surveillence scheme.
I'm coming at this from the position of a former impeachment doubter. It has taken an enormous and gross violation of law and the constitutional order to bring me around. What needs doing, needs doing, no matter what the armchair pundits tell me. Besides, they've been promising me the Congress back for a decade now. But won't I please give them just one more chance?
January 28, 2006 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer elective representatives who aren't so certain of themselves. Those who are seem too easily susceptible to Orwellian mirrors.
January 28, 2006 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we all prefer such representatives.
Which is why I oppose the institutionalization of highly partisan and discriminatory redistricting plans which minimize the number of truly competitive seats in Congress, and entrench hard-core Republicans in safe seats that mean they'll never have to drop the mirror.
That's part and parcel of the necessity of impeachment, since the Bush DoJ is now in the habit of rubber stamping such schemes, knowing that the courts will dismiss lawsuits against the plans precisely because they've been approved by the Justice Department, to which they give tremendous deference. Nevermind that they give that deference based on what used to be the reasonable asumption that such decisions wouldn't be made in overtly political fashion, as recent revelations tell us these were.
I suppose there's some comfort in hoping that these and other issues can be addressed at the ballot box, where the American electorate will fight it out over a rapidly diminishing number of competitive seats. But not much. How many are left? A dozen, perhaps?
January 28, 2006 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually fighting, even if its a losing battle, will help us win elections. Deciding to win before we fight is a recipe for failure.
Pinochet got his comeupance because someone managed to act. It was a judge in Spain, issuing international arrest warrants for the dictators in Latin America.
It's perfectly fine to pick and chose our battles. So it's fine not to participate in the impeachment movement if you don't want. What's not fine is to always choose against a battle in question.
January 29, 2006 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be great to get the ball rolling. Now. The sooner we get the process started, the sooner we can "redeploy" from Iraq. And the sooner we can concentrate on the terrible fiscal and ethics damage wrought by the current regime. Only thing is, there's an awful lot of nutjobs to remove before we find anyone who lives in the real world! We've at least got to have a Speaker of the House. That's not until '07. Durn. What to do, what to do.
January 26, 2006 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an erstwhile Vermonter, I can't think of a better state to take the lead.
For those weenies who talk their excuse talk, all I can say is, "You're weenies with all your excuse talk."
With the GOP lock on power in Washington, this is one of the few things we can do in the way of agenda-setting, no matter how brief it may be. And once the issue is seriously raised, it cannot be un-raised.
Those who think we should focus on winning the 2006 elections first simply ought to get out of politics. They cannot recoginize the most golden of opportunities. They are like point guards all alone with the ball in the forecourt, calling time out instead of taking the layup.
It's bad enough for a point guard to blow an uncontested layup. It's unforgiveable not to take it.
January 26, 2006 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kargro,
Have you considered the idea that the administration is actually trying to bait Democrats into raising the volume of their impeachment chatter?
The key bit of visible evidence for this is the Moonie Washington Times magazine proclaiming that the WH is expecting impeachment. It's hard to figure out why a hooked-in GOP rag would write that unless it were true, or unless the WH wants people to think its true.
The key bit of invisible evidence is to do a WWKRD thought experiment. If I were Karl, I'd love this strategy. By baiting Dems into a position of threatening impeachment on national security territory, it's yet another way of firming up the Republican base, and it's perhaps the best way to avoid devastating losses this November.
Perhaps it might be useful to remember that the only 6 year congressional election in well over a century where the party controlling the WH didn't lose seats was 1998. I wonder what was in the papers that year...
January 26, 2006 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, sure. Of course I have. But what's the news there? I've been asked to consider that same scenario for everything anybody's ever proposed that Democrats do for the past five years. Rove's behind every tree in the world, apparently.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the White House expects impeachment because they deserve it and they know it, but do what they do anyway because they know that Democrats will be afraid to do anything about it because they'll believe it's just what Karl Rove wants?
A slightly less crazy and confusing variant of that, of course, is that the Republicans continue to do what they do because they feel like there's a scenario they can game no matter what the outcome. If impeachment looms, they plant the "we'll bounce back like Clinton" seed (see Jonah Goldberg). If impeachment talk shrinks back as a result, so much the better for them. More time to run roughshod.
At some point, it has to end.
What was in the papers in 1998? "Retarded and baseless impeachment case goes down to ignominious defeat, proving that you can't get away with bullshit." No paper I read said "Americans favor repeal of Art. II, Sec. 4."
January 27, 2006 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Have you ever considered the possibility that the White House expects impeachment because they deserve it and they know it"
Of course not. You know as well as I do that they have absolutely no shame. They have an hubristic view of their ability to succeed. And Dick Cheney has been a real true believer since day 1 in the concept that the executive should have imperial powers.
---------
As folks like Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall keep noting, the NSA business just doesn't add up.
Why would the WH do it lawlessly when it was obvious that Congress would have passed any law they could dream up?
The only explanation that makes any sense to me at the moment is that the WH knew it would come out, and they relished two things about that dynamic:
- They like any poison pill about national security that keeps the Democrats from being on the side of the administration in fighting terrorism. And doing illegal wiretaps is obviously at least as good a poison pill as banning unions from DHS.
- They like being against civil liberties. Don't forget that Bush the Elder campaigned quite effectively in '88 against the ACLU. Doing something so outrageous that Democrats have to support civil liberties is the WH's wet dream. And illegal wiretaps is obviously outrageous enough.
"At some point, it has to end."Yup. January 20th, 2009.
(Now, if we'd nominated Edwards in '04, things would likely be different, of course...)
The only way to do any kind of impeachment without a horrendously destructive political blowback would be to make it bipartisan. So in the really unlikely event that Arlen Specter and 5 or 6 more GOP Senators suddenly become human, or that 20 GOP representatives suddenly take their oath of office seriously, let's do this thing. Otherwise, this should be yet another lesson of what happens when we nominate Northerners.
In between now and 2009, I'm in favor of anything that helps us pick up seats and the WH in '06 and '08, and I'm against anything that doesn't. I was in favor of Reid organizing a filibuster of Alito because I thought it would help us electorally. And I'm opposed to partisan impeachment chatter because I think it would hurt us.
"No paper I read said "Americans favor repeal of Art. II, Sec. 4"
Check out today's NYT poll. I'm not joking.
January 27, 2006 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where would shame enter into the picture where the White House knows they deserve impeachment?
They know what they did. They're not ashamed of it.
They know it warrants impeachment. They're not ashamed of it.
So?
Is the idea now that their inability to experience the feeling of guilt is proof that they're not guilty? That's certainly their PR strategy. Is our to pretend we buy it?
It's entirely possible that the White House relishes this fight. But I'd relish any fight I could get if I knew that the other side was not only afraid to fight, but would talk itself into believing it was better to surrender, because they'd finally "discovered" that a fight was just what I wanted. In fact, how would Republican behavior differ at all from what we see today if this were not the case?
In my view, what's happening with the "genius" of Karl Rove is not that he's always able to successfully push us into doing "just what he wants," but that he's got something prepared for either eventuality, which he'll pretend was his "intention" all along, no matter what we do.
And even if we do have an accurate picture of what Karl "wants," the conventional wisdom about that picture is that he's constantly aiming directly at his opponents' strengths and trying to recast them as weaknesses. How would that play out here? He knows impeachment is warranted, but appears to "dare" us to do it, threatening to turn it into a "Democrats are traitors" theme. So, outsmarting ourselves, we buy the influence block and head in the opposite direction. Yay for us! We're smart!
As to your intentional obtuseness with when it all has to end, what can I say? You know as well as I do that this isn't about the Bush presidency, but the escalating pattern of Republican abuse of the constitutional order. January 20, 2009 is a way station, not a destination. Not for us, and not for them.
January 27, 2006 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"As to your intentional obtuseness with when it all has to end, what can I say? You know as well as I do that this isn't about the Bush presidency, but the escalating pattern of Republican abuse of the constitutional order. January 20, 2009 is a way station, not a destination. Not for us, and not for them."
Oh, I do think it ends in 2009, as long as we elect a Democrat who campaigns saying it was wrong.
And I don't think this is part of a "pattern of Republican abuse of the constitutional order", unless the pattern consists of only Nixon and Bush the Younger.
Reagan and Bush the Elder didn't do this kind of garbage. The closest thing was Iran/Contra under Reagan, and when that was revealed, Reagan did the right thing by saying the behavior was wrong.
What makes the current episode so disturbing isn't the original actions of the Bush administration, but instead their current insistence that they weren't wrong, and they'll keep on doing it. That kind of attitude is present only in this administration and Nixon's.
I've got plenty of problems with what the GOP has been up to over the past 25 years, but this is the only thing that rises to a serious abuse of the constitutional order.
-----
"It's entirely possible that the White House relishes this fight. But I'd relish any fight I could get if I knew that the other side was not only afraid to fight, but would talk itself into believing it was better to surrender"
My theory is a bit different.
The whole point of a 'poison pill' strategy is that you force your enemy to fight when it's not in his interests. It's not to make your enemy afraid to fight.
To contrast to Alito, in that situation, I thought the WH was bluffing. I thought they were vulnerable to a filibuster led out of Reid's office with a supporting media strategy. And I thought they talked about wanting the Democrats to fight in order to try to bluff the Democrats into not fighting. That's the kind of scenario you're describing, but that's not a poison pill strategy I'm talking about.
By violating the constitution over civil liberties in such a way that it can't be ignored, the strategy is to put Democrats in a position where they have little choice but to fight in defense of civil liberties even if it's a political death march. If the Democrats didn't take the bait, the strategy wouldn't work.
January 27, 2006 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I have to count direct subversion of the Congressional ban on aid to the Contras as a serious abuse of the constitutional order. So we differ there. And while Reagan may even have been sincere in condemning the behavior, it's not Reagan I'm worried about. It's the fact that the perpetrators are still at work on our dime, and still subverting the constitutional order.
Impeachment's not just for presidents. Why not purge Poindexter and Abrams once and for all?
And while I understand your theory of what you think Karl Rove is up to, it doesn't sway me. By violating the constitution over civil liberties in such a way that it can't be ignored, it may be true that Democrats are in a position that fighting leads to a death march. Of course, it might not be, too. But one thing seems certain: It results in a situation where Democrats refuse to fight the death of the constitution and civil liberties, but pat themselves on the back at the funeral for "not having taken the bait."
The problem with this, if it's not obvious, is twofold. As a strategy for the preservation of constitutional government, it plainly could not suck ass any harder. Simply by definition.
Where there's room for disagreement is in evaluating its fitness as a strategy for partisan self-preservation. I happen to think that there's something unnerving about the prospect of being criticized once again as being the party with no new ideas, and having it ring true. After all, in the face of a tremendous, out-in-the-open and front-paged constitutional crisis, the Democrats are going to run on jobs and health care?
Where's the part where we tell people that we actually are concerned with the massive subversion of the constitutional order, but are just pretending not to be so that Karl Rove doesn't yell at us? They won't ask about that? It won't actually look like we really are the party with no new ideas if we run on the 1992 platform in the face of today's reality?
January 27, 2006 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever gives you the idea it would end then? The neocons will still exist. The wealthy zillionaire financers will still exist. The hidden underside to the Republican Party will still exist.
If the Constitution is still respected on its face, Dubya will leave and the Republicans will nominate and probably put into office another figurehead.
January 29, 2006 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
All this talk about winning the election before doing an impeachment is exactly the kind of insincerity that loses elections. If a Democratic candidate does not make his intention clear early on in his campaign, how does he respond when the Swift Boat pundits begin claiming that that is indeed what the candidate has up his sleeve? Perhaps that is Karl's strategy, to hang us with the rope we are hiding behind our backs. And how would such a pundit justify such a claim? Oh, maybe by linking to some of the comments in this topic which suggest lying to the electorate.
We have to remember, 50% of eligible voters do not vote. Why? Because neither party stands for anything that will get them to the polls. But that has changed. The Republican party does now stand for something that even life long Republican's do not recognize. The Republicans are preaching that a President is not bound by the laws of Congress. Any Democratic candidate who can not force that back down a Republican incumbent's throat 'til he gags on it is not worthy of getting elected.
If we stand up for courage instead of fear, principle instead of expediency, and honesty instead of chicanery, then we stand for something the Republicans have forsaken. Hide our intention to impeach Bush and we will be correctly seen as no better than the party in power. Honesty counts at the polls. We need to try it for a change, maybe we can bring that non-voting 50% back into play if we quit treating this like a game. It's not a game. No one ever won an election against an incumbent, the incumbent lost! To paraphrase George Patton, We're not here to die for our party, we're here to make the other dumb son of a bitch die for his.
Vermont? Yeah. But as unpredictable as the Arnold has been, let's run it past California too! All Governors could be said to have a dog in the fight except Arnold, he can't be President without a Constitutional amendment.
Good post Kagro!
January 27, 2006 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fascinating topic, and I heartily agree that Dems should push this as a progressive version of the grassroots, state's rights campaign that's been such an effective tool/bludgeon for the GOP for over a generation. Fight fire with fire. Think of the hypocrisy that will come from the GOP when faced with this!
And frankly it's time to show some Democratic spine, and play some political hardball. Rove will be spinning whatever the Dems do in '06 anyway, why not give him the biggest kick in the teeth any President can get?
And this would certainly put them on the defensive, and lead to a great debate about Clinton's frivolous impeachment vs. the Constitutional laundrylist for Bush's. Strategically it's all win; you'll never convince the rightwingers to vote Dem in any event, so let 'em have it and show your mettle and stand up for your principles and the Constitution. Be a true patriot, that's what 2/3 of the country's searching for--a way back from this abyss.
But why just one state? why not a concerted push wherever Dems have a viable majority? Make this a groundswell, and don't just have a lone fiddle but a whole orchestra.
For symbolic resonance, I'd start with Louisiana myself. Somehow I'd think they'd have quite some motivation, what with Katrina and the Guard and the total lack of post-Katrinia follow-up, once the WH had wrapped up their damage-control photo-ops.
January 27, 2006 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink