Reid supports Impeachment . . . sort of

[pat_k]

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2006/04/14/news/reid.html

. . .Asked why the Democrats had not worked to impeach the president, Reid said, "You know who is second in command. I would rather stick with the president.". . .

The rationalization "We would just get Cheney" acknowledges that Bush SHOULD be Impeached.

So, apparently Reid recognizes that Geo. W. Bush should be impeached for his subversion of the principles and institutions we established in the Constitution. He's just claiming that he shouldn't fulfill his oath to support and defend the Constitution because we might end up with Cheney -- who he apparently believes is a bigger threat than GWB.

"We'll just get Cheney" is an excuse that falls down under it's own weight. If Bush's exercise of Un-American and Un-Constitutional power calls for impeachment, and if Cheney is a bigger threat, then the Congressional oath demands the Impeachment of both of them.

However each member of Congress tries to justify their dereliction of duty, there is really no escape.

Reid should get an earful from us on this one. Jim Manley (Senate Dem Top Communications Aide) too

I've posted the following before, but think it is worth repeating.

By his own admission, George W. Bush ordered the illegal surveillance of Americans without a warrant (violation of 50 USC Sec. 1809--Unauthorized Surveillance).

George W. Bush is continuing the illegal program, claiming that, unitary authoritarian power puts him above the law.

When Bush usurps the power of Congress, he is claiming he can replace our will with his own. (Americans sometimes seem to forget that it is OUR collective will that is codified in the resolutions and laws enacted by Congress.)

The Constitution is a compact among OURSELVES. No party to our collective contract can usurp our collective sovereignty or give it away to ANY institution or individual.

Bush's claim to unrestrained power subverts the principles and institutions we established under the Constitution for the United States. While his violation of the rights of Americans who are secretly being spied on without warrants is intolerable, it is the claim to unitary power that is truly devastating to our system of government.

Given the gravity and urgency of the threat to our constitutional democracy, members of Congress have a sworn duty to take immediate action to defend the nation.

The grave danger and the necessity for action are easily conveyed to the American people (as Feingold, Harkin, Boxer, and Kerry have demonstrated in interviews). When confronted with the truth, Americans understand that such absolute power is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force.

Each day that members of Congress fail to carry out their sworn duty (i.e., accuse Bush of subverting the Constitution and demand Congressional action), George W. Bush can point to their silence as justification for his Un-American and Un-Constitutional claims to power (If his actions were violations wouldn't more members of Congress, who are sworn to act, be demanding Congressional action?)

By providing cover, every member of Congress who fails to act (and every Candidate who fails to take a position that affirms the duty they will take on as a member of congress) is aiding and abetting Bush's efforts to unilaterally override the will of the people.

The Congressional oath is an INDIVIDUAL oath that demands each member to make a personal decision. The decisions that face each member right now are:

1. Does George W. Bush's claim to unitary authoritarian executive power subvert the principles and institutions established in the Constitution?
   
   Just as the Congressional oath is an individual oath, the judgment must be an individual judgment based on the available information and the intent of the law. The power to Impeach (or pass judgment with Censure) is vested in Congress for a reason.
   
   Members cannot escape responsibility by trying to foist the judgment onto the judiciary. (If we wanted the judiciary to accuse and remove elected officials who subvert the Constitution, we would have vested the power to Impeach in the Judiciary.)
   
   Given the irrefutable prima fascia case that George W. Bush is violating our constitutional principles and institutions by exercising power we explicitly deny him under the law, any claim that George W. Bush's actions are not a threat to our constitutional democracy will not withstand challenge or scrutiny.


2. Duty or Complicity?
   
   Members who recognize that George W. Bush is subverting Constitutional principles and institutions, can chose to remain silent and complicit or to fulfill their oath and advocate Censure (an attempt to force Bush to return the law) or Removal (Impeachment).

[Senator]

1. Kick & Rec (nt)

[hailmary]

2. it would have to be a tandem impeachment....but shouldn't we be

worried about the leadership vacuum it would create? ....I know, I know, Hastert would technically take over...yeah, that wouldn't cause the whole country to go ape.

[pat_k]

3. Allowing him to continue to exercise unrestrained . .

. . . power is a violation of their Congressional oath.

They must break their silence.

Failure to act legitimizes Bush's Un-Constitutional and devastating claim to unitary authoritarian executive power.

It's duty or complicity.

They really have no choice.

We can't begin to make progress on ANYTHING until we have restored legitimate authority. Unequivocal rejection of Bush, his torture, his war crimes, and on and on, could transform the international dynamics for the better overnight.