Rebuttals to Reasons NOT to Impeach

[kpete]

December 7, 2007 at 09:47:00

Rebuttals to Reasons NOT to Impeach

by Rob Kall Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com



At a recent Impeachment forum, organized by the Bucks County Coalition for Peace, former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman and journalist and author David Lindorff itemized the many reasons TO impeach Bush and Cheney. Even people who believe Bush and Cheney lied or intentionally misled the congress about WMDs and reasons to go to war, and even though people believe that Bush and Cheney have treasonously violated laws and betrayed the constitution, some don’t think there should be impeachment proceedings. I’ve listed, below, some of the common objections, with rebuttals to them.



1- That will give us Cheney as president.

Well, of course, we have to impeach Cheney first, but we can and should be INVESTIGATING both. Once Cheney investigations start, the VP will get a note from the Doctor. He’ll try to pull the plug on hearings by resigning with his heart problems as the explanation.

2-Not enough time. Cheney and Bush will be out of office in 14 months. Why bother?

Lots of reasons. They committed crimes. Investigations will turn up more ugly dirt. Investigations will turn up new, fresh witnesses who will roll over and testify against Cheney and Bush. It’s not about timely convenience. It’s about the congress obeying their oath to uphold and defend the constitution—which Bush and Cheney have treasonously violated.

3- . Bush and Cheney have broken no laws

Bush and his defenders argue that as Commander-in-Chief, Bush and his designate Cheney have not violated any laws. The counter argument: The violation of Geneva Convention principles would be a breaking of U. S. law since the United States has signed "a treaty" banning torture and other mistreatment of detainees. International Treaties become U. S. Law and may not be negated by the President. Justice Bryer 9 Oct 2007. And just because Bush issues a signing statement—actually, over 1000—doesn’t mean he is right, that he doesn’t have to follow the laws the congress has passed.

4- The Dems will be accused of wasting time.

So what. They're already being accused of that. It's a lame, weak, unacceptable argument.

Lynn Woolsey says “impeachment would suck air out of the room and get nothing accomplished” Sorry, it may be inconvenient, may even not fit with plans to keep the Republicans hanging out to dry, dangling with their corruption, in the wind, until November, but the Dem leaders in a congress have that annoying duty to uphold the constitution.

5- There's no clear proof

That's what hearings are for.

....................
MORE
READ THE REST AT:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_071207_rebuttals_to_reasons.htm

[RethugAssKicker]

1. All the reasons NOT to impleach are lame duck excuses....

for a spineless Democratic congress

[AndyA]

2. There are absolutely NO ACCEPTABLE REASONS to not start impeachment

proceedings against Bush and Cheney.

Once underway, investigations will either clear them of wrongdoing, or expose them for the crooks many believe they are.

Either way, the truth is exposed and that's always a good thing.

[Buzz Clik]

4. There are political realities you seem unwilling to accept.

Let's impede Bush/Cheney's reign, and simply wait it out. Impeachment at this point would be suicidal.

[AndyA]

5. Congress is bound to defend the Constitution.

It is a requirement, not an option.

By failing to investigate, Congress is in violation of its duties. The Constitution does not make exception for political realities. The reality is that our Constitution is being VIOLATED, and no one is doing anything to put a stop to it.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

I see nothing about political realities in that oath. Without the Constitution, there is no America. End of story.

[Buzz Clik]

7. If you feel that Bush violated the Constitution (and I do, too), ...

... then Congress has been complicit. THEY must go. All of them. No exceptions.

[onenote]

9. Taken literally, doesn't this mean that Truman and FDR should've been impeached?

Truman was found to have violated the constitution in his steel mill seizure order which he claimed was within his power as commander in chief and necessary as a matter of national security. Should Congress have impeached him? Should Congress wait for the judgment of the Supreme Court on the legality/illegality of the acts on which it would base impeachment? If not, should Congress have started impeachment proceedngs against FDR for ordering Japanese Americans relocated during WWII? That decision was found to be constitutional by the SCOTUS, but many disagreed then and even more disagree now.

The COnstitution makes impeachment an action soley within the discretion of the House. No court, no executive, no other legislative body can compel an individual member of the House to vote to commence an impeachment inquiry or to vote for articles of impeachment. I personally believe that impeachment of chimpy and cheney would be appropriate, but I recognize and accept that its a discretionary act and that the oath taken to uphold the Constitution -- a Constitution that makes impeachment discretionary -- does not somehow convert that discretionary grant of authority into a legally binding obligation. (It may create a moral and/or political obligatin but that is a different matter and one that, as the framers intended, is best sorted out through the electoral process if a member doesn't act in a way that his/her constituents believe he/she should have).

[Buzz Clik]

3. I would be far more in favor of Congress doing other things:

1. Get us the hell out of Iraq.
2. Making absolutely certain we do not engage Iran militarily.
3. Stop giving Bush unbridled power to invade our privacy.
etc etc etc.

[KharmaTrain]

6. The Questions Isn't If, It's When...

Conyers has discussed Defacto Impeachment...one that can be conducted with a lot more evidence than he currently has as well as with a larger Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate. His recent comments that the votes aren't there is a sad state of life. Yes, there are spineless Democrats who fear an impeachment will distract from the election and that a failed one will embolden this regime...exonerate it. There's also the problem that this regime has shown that it will obstruct and pardon wherever it can to both hamper investigations and then to cover their asses with immunities and pardons once they do get indicted. There's the strong concern that boooshie will issue a pardon list that will make the ones his poppy issued that killed Walsh's inquiry and the ones that Clinton issued look small. There's a hesitancy to act knowing that any indictment is going to be met with a pardon...even before a trial is conducted.

Hearings must move forward, investigations must move forward, contempt citations must be issued and enforced, executive privilidge will need to be hauled into court and destroyed, evidence must be compelled and gathered and the process moves forward. It took 7 years of abuses to get to this point, it's gonna take more than a few weeks or months to dig out the truth.

Impeachment now without a real criminal underpinning...having real indictments and convictions that prove the crimes and misdemeanors...that won't end in a conviction distracts from the real goals I think we all share...and that is to get rights restored and make a statement that these abuses will not be tolerated again. Impeachment, even after 1-20-09, will put, on record, not just the crimes this regime committed, but a conviction will make this regime's legacy secure as the worst and most criminal in our history. But that's just one part of justice...impeachment doesn't address the crimes of a Rove or Rumsfeld or Gonzalez...these people need to be convicted and tried with many others...either in our criminal and civil courts or in the world court in the Hague.

[onenote]

8. one rebuttal that doesn't stand up to scrutiny

7. Not enough people support impeachment

It’s not a popularity contest. It’s the job of the congress, when faced with crimes and even questions, to investigate, investigate. Recent polls have reported that more than half the respondents want impeachment hearings for Cheney. Those numbers will climb when testimony begins, just like it did for Gonzales.


While its not a "popularity contest", whether the citizenry supports impeachment is rather signficant. Indeed, its somewhat inherent in the nature of a representative democracy that elected representatives will take into consideration the views of their constituents. The lack of strong sentiment in favor of impeachment is rather obvious -- virtually no member of Congress elected in 2006 felt compelled to address the issue in their campaign and of the few that did, most lost (although they all undoubtedly would have lost anyway).

The process of impeachment is neither purely legal, nor purely political. Its a somewhat messy amalgam of the two. Impeachment votes in the House, and votes in impeachment trials in the Senate do not require unanimity and there is no consequences (other than possibly political) for being on one side or the other of such a vote. To suggest that there is a legal or constitutional obligation for members of the House to vote to impeach chimpy/cheney is to suggest that those who vote against are violating the constitution. But that then suggests that the obligation is defined by the outcome. If a majority votes to impeach, then all members should've voted to impeach, and if a majority votes against, then it was wrong for any to vote to impeach? It doesn't work that way. It is a matter assigned by the Constitution to the sole discretion of members of Congress. And whether particular members of Congress feel that they best serve the will of their constituents by pursuing -- or not pursuing -- impeachment, that choice is theirs to make, albeit a choice one frought with the risk that if they misread the public they may may suffer the consequences in their next election.

[riverdeep]

10. Another reason,

they won't go away. These people have resurfaced under every vile administration they could. The original spawn was the Nixon administration, where the Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld worked their magic, with Kissinger, who you can bet your ass is still in it behind the scenes. They resurfaced in the Reagan/Bush years coming up with Iran-Contra and other anti-American enterprises. And finally, the big time, an all neo-con revue in the new century. If you don't put a stake in its heart, this vulgar beast will rise again, when people have forgotten the sting and stupidity of these years, when the MSM has vilified progressives again, then they will again step in. They don't stop until you make them stop.

By not impeaching, you are most likely condemning a future electorate to having to deal with this monster once again. Notice they've grown stronger on every regeneration. Every time they get away, it feeds their sense of hubris and entitlement. Is it any surprise that instead of skulking away in shame like they should, people like G. Gordon Liddy and Ollie North proudly have radio shows, while Kissinger is considered an elder statesman?