Impeach!
Why is our president not currently being impeached? That is a rhetorical question, but the answer is simple: politics. A Republican House of Representatives will never vote articles of impeachment against a Republican president.
Bush gave a speech yesterday and this morning in which he admitted to personally authorizing the NSA to intercept telephone conversations in the U.S. The president's own Attorney General just this morning admitted that this violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"). Congress debated in 1978 what the process should be for intercepting foreign conversations and made it clear - the NSA is free to spy on foreigners overseas, but if any of the people involved in the conversation are in the U.S, the government must get a warrant.
Bush clearly violated the law. He claims he is justified to do so by the Constitution and Congress's authorization for him to use force against Afghanistan.
Let's look at the Constitution. I have a framed copy on my wall. Article 2 says, Section 2 says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Being Commander in Chief does not mean having free rein to conduct war in any manner conceivable. Article 2 makes the president the person who will act as Commander in Chief - but it does not allow him to ignore the rule of law. Article 2 is not the most powerful portion of the Constitution. We know it is limited by any amendments that were enacted after it. The 4th Amendment in our Bill of Rights says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Next, it almost goes without saying, but when Congress authorized use of foce against Afghanistan after 9/11, it never said anything about intercepting telephone conversations in the U.S. Congress never gave the president this power. Even if it had, such an act would be unconstitutional as a violation of the 4th Amendment. In fact, FISA makes pretty clear that Congress expressly chose not to give the president this power. YOU NEED A WARRANT TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE'S PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS IN THE U.S.!
The president's only two bases for claiming he acted within the law are completly inapplicable. He broke the law. He committed a high crime. He admits it. What does the Constitution say about the president committing high crimes? Article 2, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Article 1, Section 2 gives the House "the sole Power of Impeachment," and Article 1, Section 3 gives the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Notice it says "shall be removed." Not "may" or "should" or "if it is politically attractive."
What are we waiting for? Why is the House not voting articles of impeachment this very second? I have never been so angry with my own country. We impeach Clinton for perjury when he lied to an independent prosecutor about getting a blowjob, but we won't impeach Bush for illegally ordering wiretaps in the U.S. in clear violation of both FISA and the 4th Amendment.
Despite all the things Bush has done - despite how much I disagreed with him - I have never called for his impeachment until now. He has been stupid and wrong and evil throughout his presidency. Now he is also a criminal. Now, our Constiution requires that he be impeached.
Bush gave a speech yesterday and this morning in which he admitted to personally authorizing the NSA to intercept telephone conversations in the U.S. The president's own Attorney General just this morning admitted that this violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"). Congress debated in 1978 what the process should be for intercepting foreign conversations and made it clear - the NSA is free to spy on foreigners overseas, but if any of the people involved in the conversation are in the U.S, the government must get a warrant.
Bush clearly violated the law. He claims he is justified to do so by the Constitution and Congress's authorization for him to use force against Afghanistan.
Let's look at the Constitution. I have a framed copy on my wall. Article 2 says, Section 2 says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Being Commander in Chief does not mean having free rein to conduct war in any manner conceivable. Article 2 makes the president the person who will act as Commander in Chief - but it does not allow him to ignore the rule of law. Article 2 is not the most powerful portion of the Constitution. We know it is limited by any amendments that were enacted after it. The 4th Amendment in our Bill of Rights says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Next, it almost goes without saying, but when Congress authorized use of foce against Afghanistan after 9/11, it never said anything about intercepting telephone conversations in the U.S. Congress never gave the president this power. Even if it had, such an act would be unconstitutional as a violation of the 4th Amendment. In fact, FISA makes pretty clear that Congress expressly chose not to give the president this power. YOU NEED A WARRANT TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE'S PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS IN THE U.S.!
The president's only two bases for claiming he acted within the law are completly inapplicable. He broke the law. He committed a high crime. He admits it. What does the Constitution say about the president committing high crimes? Article 2, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Article 1, Section 2 gives the House "the sole Power of Impeachment," and Article 1, Section 3 gives the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Notice it says "shall be removed." Not "may" or "should" or "if it is politically attractive."
What are we waiting for? Why is the House not voting articles of impeachment this very second? I have never been so angry with my own country. We impeach Clinton for perjury when he lied to an independent prosecutor about getting a blowjob, but we won't impeach Bush for illegally ordering wiretaps in the U.S. in clear violation of both FISA and the 4th Amendment.
Despite all the things Bush has done - despite how much I disagreed with him - I have never called for his impeachment until now. He has been stupid and wrong and evil throughout his presidency. Now he is also a criminal. Now, our Constiution requires that he be impeached.
posted by Charles S. Russell at 8:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home