While I applaud all calls for impeachment, one of the biggest barriers to impeachment, both inside and outside the beltway bubble, is the widespread, wrong-headed, legalistic view of it.
The "case" for impeachment is incredibly simple. Bush and Cheney are waging war on the Constitution
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/21">in plain sight. More than enough for at least a half-dozen impeachments is in the public record -- no investigation required. They could vote out a new set up articles weekly, and they could start this week. The only thing stopping them is the bubble of immobiling group think, rationalization, self-censorship, and denial they are currently trapped in.
It is critical that we keep a few things front and center:
. . .
- They are Congress, not the Courts.
- Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process.
- Impeachment is defensive; not punitive.
We charge Congress with the duty to defend against threats to the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to remove a threat by removing an official's power to harm. This is the first, and most urgent, priority.
Retribution for violations of U.S. Code and International Law is for the Courts (both here and at the Hague), not Congress.
- Impeachment is bound only by the intentionally vague guidance provided by our Constitution; judicial processes are bound by our substantial body of written law and precedent.
Members of Congress must make a personal judgment grounded in moral principle and the intent of the law. There are no legalisms or complex 'technicalities' that can trump reality. They must be guided by their oath and their conscience.
Members of the House must decide for themselves what constitutes an impeachable offense. The House as a body defines the what steps are necessary or unnecessary to impeach. Senators decide for themselves whether articles of impeachment transmitted from the House merit impeachment, and what standard of proof to apply.
- The interests that an impeachment seeks to balance are very different from the interests that a criminal prosecution seeks to balance.
- In a criminal trial, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly:
- depriving a citizen of their rights
- releasing a guilty individual
When balanced against the sanctity of our civil rights, the risk of releasing a guilty person loses.
To tip the scales in favor of protecting civil rights, a very high standard of proof is applied (beyond reasonable doubt).
- In an impeachment, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly
- depriving an official of the privilege of power
- leaving power in the hands of an official who is subverting the Constitution or otherwise abusing that power
Each Senator must decide for themselves what standard to apply, but when balanced against the sanctity of our Constitution, the risk of mistakenly depriving an official of the privilege of power should lose, particularly when you consider that power is granted to elected officials; it is not a basic civil right.
To tip the scales in favor of protecting the Constitution, a lower standard of proof is required (e.g., probable cause, preponderance of the evidence). When Members of Congress, opinion leaders, or fellow citizens assert that a higher standard applies, we should challenge them whenever possible.
In the case of Bush and Cheney, we have proofs that meet a standard much higher than impeachment calls for.
When we recognize the purpose of impeachment, it becomes crystal clear that. . .
Impeachment has been a moral imperative for years.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/20">More. . .
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
