Is the House required by law to: provide over-site, investigate and impeach - if appropriate?

[tommcintyre]

I found the following while searching for more info on the possibility of Bush/Cheney impeachment. There has been much discussion (here at DU, and on other places on the internet) as to the pros and cons of impeaching Bush and co. Adding to the controversy, Pelosi (and notable others) have stated that "impeachment is off the table".

I've been wondering if it is all a moot point since Reps Waxman, Conyers and others (even Pelosi) have continued to assert that there will be investigations into alleged administration wrong-doing (Is this required over-site?). <Waxman (probable new chair of the House Government Reform Committee) has stated: "there are so many areas of possible wrongdoing, his biggest problem will be deciding which ones to pursue.">
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_go_co/democrats_oversight

The following post seems to make this case:

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2006/11/13/news_opinion/speakout/0dd433b39412f0e88625722200734d80.txt
"IowaBoy wrote on November 13, 2006 9:40 AM:
Because a Congressional hearing is an investigation with the power to place people under oath, I do agree. I think there should be hearings on Iraq, prisoner abuse, domestic spying and energy policy. The house is required by law to provide oversight and if the administration broke the law, the Congress is REQUIRED by law to prosecute--AKA: impeach. Let the chips fall where they may."

If this is true, assuming there is a strong enough case, it seems inevitable that impeachment must follow these promised investigations.

Is the above quote legally accurate? Any legal opinions/insight on this would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Also, I have found many articles regarding the possible Bush administration impeachment(s). But they tend to be by people who are not legally trained (especially in Constitutional law). Are there any opinions on this issue published by Constitutional law experts? Thanks again for any help.

[Demeter]

1. It Ain't a LAW, 'Cause You Can't Enforce It

save by unelecting the people who don't do what you want. Which we did, as much as possible.

If we don't get to impeach the bastards before they leave office under their own power, then there's always the courts: federal AND international! And there's lots more felons where those came from! It's going to be a busy season for many years.

[elocs]

2. What is it about impeachment not equaling conviction

and removal from office that people do not understand? Including many people here. Just because Bush is impeached does not mean he is out of office any more than Clinton was when he was impeached. If Republican Senators hold firm and do not vote to convict after impeachment, Bush walks. He walks. Others may go to jail, but Bush will not and the same holds true for Cheney. So for those who want to rush to impeach now, just remember this. I will not be satisfied with impeachment only--I want to see Bush convicted. This will not happen unless the case for impeachment is not build by the numbers and solidly. To get what we want, let reason rule passion because that is our only hope.

[tommcintyre]

6. Yes, eventual removal from office would be good, but...

the impeachment process itself would most likely prove to be useful. For example, Bush (and others) may resign (as Nixon did) to avoid impeachment. And, most importantly, even the initiation of impeachment will send a message to future Chief Executives that we will not turn a blind eye to blatant misuse of power. (Some believe that not impeaching Reagan for Iran Contra set the precedent for Bush's transgressions.)

[elocs]

11. Nixon did not resign because he was going to be impeached.

He resigned because he was sure he would be convicted after impeachment. Clinton did not resign when he knew he would be impeached because he knew he would never be convicted. If Bush is impeached without any possibility of being convicted the precedent set would be that every time a party who controls the House, but not the White House, then the President will be impeached whether or not there is any chance of conviction. Investigations must lead to impeachment, not impeachment to investigations. The Watergate hearings preceded Nixon resigning. They were not impeachment hearings.

[tommcintyre]

4. If Congress is REQUIRED to provide adequate oversite...

Congress itself (or at least the members who willfully refuse to provide oversite) could be subject to impeachment? If this is true, the republican Congressional leadership itself for the last six years could be subject to impeachment since they did not provide adequate oversite.

[Demeter]

8. That Is One Option

But with only a 2 year term in the House, a tsunami is much more effective and swift, and has added side benefits.

[uberblonde]

3. Video of Liz Holtzman speaking at impeachment conference...

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/11/15/09/25/holtzman-on-impeachment/

The former prosecutor was on the House judiciary committee during the Watergate hearings.

[tommcintyre]

7. Thanks, I'll re-watch that video

But I don't recall that she discussed the legal obligation of Congress to provide adequate oversite, and then initiate impeachment proceedings, if indicated. As I recall, her emphasis was on both the public and whistle-blowers leading the way, causing Congress to take impeachment action.

FYI: I've posted the following thread with a Liz Holtzman interview video:
Impeachment Video: New Amy Goodman interview - EVERYONE should see for better understanding
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2699849

[pat_k]

5. {must investigate} = {don't have a case} = {nullification of powerful case we HAVE}

Impeachment is the weapon we gave Congress to defend against threats from wihin. When she took it "of the table" on behalf of the Democratic caucus she made it impossible for them to fulfill their oath. If she doesn't put it back on the table, this is the oath she will have to administer (at least it's the one the Democratic caucus will have to take:

I do solemnly swear (or affim) that I will support and be derelict in my duty to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear foreswear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will fail to take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully negligently and faithlessly discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter:
So help me God.

Regarding the subject line of this post

A message to Investigations first people

"We must have investigations" says one thing "we don't know enough to impeach." That statement is a lie. We know all we need to know http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">right now. It puts us on the fascist's turf ("If the case is simple why are they having all those hearings? They're just blowing hot air. They don't have anything. If they did, they would have impeached already")

Articles and proofs that make it crystal clear to the nation that Bush and Cheney pose an intolerable threat can, and should be, introduced ASAP -- ideally in the 1st session of the new Congress (or as Senator suggests, on January 6th, since it was January 6th, 2001 that our Constitution went into breach when members of Congress failed to stand in judgment of the Florida electors.)

Whether or not they have the support of the leadership, members can take up the fight to impeach by introducing a set of articles (the most clear and convincing of the numerous charges for which we have all the proofs necessary), and then fighting to have them acted on in the committee (or committees) to which the resolution is assigned.

If they hold committee hearings to discuss the power of the case, and to make that case, fine. But, as I have described above, if they claim hearings are needed to "gather evidence" they undermine the powerful case they already have. If the minority attempts the draw things out with investigation, Dems must resist the efforts and hold fast to the "we know all we need to know" line. If they do otherwise, they undercut their case.

As with any resolution, specifics would be hammered out in committee, the process can, and should, go very fast. Sure it could get drawn out, but there is no reason to believe long is more likely than short.

Once started, the process will unfold the way it unfolds. There are infinite possibilities at each juncture. Hearings to argue the case and present evidence are probable, but may not be part of the process. The threat that Congress is getting serious about impeachment alone could be enough to motivate Bush and Cheney to implement the "exit strategy" offered by resignation, so hearings may not ever necessary.
_____________________________________________________

I've posted the following before, but with all the talk of the need to "set the stage" or "wait and see" or "need to do other things first" it's a message I think needs to be repeated, and repeated, and repeated -- and I hope others help spread the warning.

The price of "putting off" Impeachment could be unimaginable

On September 10, 2001, there were many signs that sanity was returning. The number who believed Florida was stolen had passed 50%. Bush's approval was continuing the steady downward slide that started the day he was inaugurated. A coalition led by Democrats.com that included the National Lawyers Guild and Vincent Bugliosi was about http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2701395&mesg_id=2707042">to announce their "fall offensive" -- a campaign that that included the effort to see Scalia et al. impeached for Bush v. Gore.

Bush's claims to any semblance of legitimacy were crumbling fast.

Then the sun came up on 9/11/2001. In the weeks that followed, the countless people who were horrified by the stolen election and Bush's incredible abuses were silenced in a nation that had seemingly gone mad.

Sanity is once again returning, but we must recognize how fragile the moment is.

The urgency cannot be underestimated. Taking up the fight for impeachment now is a scary thing, but members of Congress must "Just Do It." Any day we could see another terrorist attack; Bush could declare war on Iran or Syria or North Korea or Venezuela or even Haiti; or some completely unforeseen event could make it impossible to rescue our national soul for a long time to come.

[Demeter]

9. The Investigations Are For Those Who Haven't Been Paying Attention

a combination of theater and remedial history class. Once a judicious amount of investigation has turned up enough dirt to bury the crooks, we have to demand of our representatives Impeachment, Conviction, Replacement by people who aren't tainted, and Indictments, Prosecutions, and Punishment at home and abroad in ICC.

I have hope and faith that this CAN happen, now that we have the Internet working for us, if we want it to happen, and never let anyone forget it.

[pat_k]

10. Then it is NOT an Investigation -- It is an Impeachment Hearing. . .

. . .which reviews the EXISTING proofs and makes the case to the nation (as described in my post).

Right now, the DC Dems are doing what they always do when principle demands action: putting on the brakes, and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2964929">looking for an escape.

The escape route they are taking right now is perhaps the MOST craven and counter-productive one one they could have picked.

1) Off the table gives the criminals cover
("If Bush and Cheney were doing anything unconstitutional, members of Congress, who are sworn to defend the constitution, would be calling for impeachment. They aren't. In fact they took it off the table. The charges being made by the looney left are just that: Looney."

2) Investigation to "set the stage" for impeachment says "we have nothing."
And, with impeachment "off the table" how can you POSSIBLY be setting the stage for it?

[tommcintyre]

12. I found a couple possible answers

http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20061115impeachment_1.cfm
"Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman is one wise legal thinker who says that, whether or not it would be a political liability for the Democrats, impeaching Bush is their constitutional duty. Holtzman served four terms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. Holtzman's full brief on this subject can be found in The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens (Nation Books), which she co-wrote with Cynthia L. Cooper.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111306Z.shtml
"However, in stating flatly that "impeachment is off the table," incoming Speaker Pelosi and incoming Chairman Conyers appear to have erred rather substantially. Impeachment, of course, is a matter of Constitutional law, not personal discretion on the part of individual lawmakers. The pre-emptive nature of the decision by Pelosi and Conyers stands in sharp contrast to every principle of law enforcement. Congress - whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans - has a solemn duty to uphold and when necessary enforce the law."

So, if Congress fails in their "constitutional duty" (adequate over-site and impeachment action - if indicated), wouldn't they be liable to be impeached themselves? The problem, of course, would be enforcement - who would impeach the impeachers?

I still would like to see some discussion from constitutional law experts/scholars. I'll keep searching.