Not that he should be fired. The Times editorial in tomorrow’s paper says he should be impeached if Paul Clement, who for a complicated set of reasons is acting AG in this matter, doesn’t appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Gonzales’ numerous and increasingly overlapping bad acts.
Leave it to President Bush to take us down so many unexplored and untrodden cul-de-sacs and byways of the US Constitution. Judges have been impeached with relative frequency, if we consider the two-plus centuries of history under the US Constitution. And this makes sense since there are quite a few federal judges, no one can fire them, and they have lifetime tenure; they can only be impeached.
In practice we’ve impeached three presidents, though technically Nixon wasn’t impeached because his resignation short-circuited the process which had already commenced.
But to the best of my knowledge only one cabinet secretary has ever been impeached, Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. And what is highly relevant for the present discussion is that this was after Belknap had resigned from office. According to the historian of the senate, “Belknap, tipped off in advance that a House committee had unearthed information implicating him in the acceptance of bribes in return for lucrative Indian trading posts, rushed to the White House and tearfully begged President Ulysses Grant to accept his resignation at ten o’clock on the morning of March 2, 1876. Around three o’clock that afternoon, representatives, furious at both the president and Belknap for thwarting them, impeached Belknap by voice vote anyway.”
So this means that in almost 220 years of history under the constitution, the impeachment power has never been used to remove a cabinet secretary from office. Not once. And that’s really saying something. But the reason isn’t that hard to figure given the structure of our government. The normal course when a cabinet secretary has been implicated in grave wrongdoing or has lost the confidence of the overwhelming number of senators (which I think he clearly has, though partisan loyalty has kept many Republicans from saying it) is for him or her to resign. And if they won’t see fit to resign the president fires them since if nothing else the person can’t fulfill the responsibilities of office under those debilitating circumstances.
But then there is the big ‘unless’.
Unless the president is party to the wrongdoing that placed the cabinet secretary in jeopardy. And that is clearly the case we have here, which explains the historical anomaly that the possibility of Gonzales’ impeachment is even a topic of serious conversation.
Of course, here, as we’ve noted before, there is an extra wrinkle. Gonzales isn’t any cabinet secretary — not the Secretary of State or Interior. He’s the Attorney General, which means that he’s the one that can and is bottling up numerous investigations into the president and his appointees. Because the senate will never give the president another Gonzales, the man is literally irreplaceable.
