Home / Omerta vs Constitutional Law

Omerta vs Constitutional Law

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

As the year crawls to a bloody and brutal end, I remain flummoxed as to why so many of my fellow Americans and our Congressional leadership look askance at impeachment for Bush and Cheney.

Some say, including Pelosi, that it is a time to heal rather than seek "political" revenge. Some look upon the impeachment process as destabilizing and threatening to our democracy. I am flummoxed by these views. In fact our timidity and reluctance to appropriately execute the remedy to presidential malfeasance provided by Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution does great harm to the vibrancy and endurance of freedom and democracy.

We dread that important bit of constitutional wisdom as if we're convinced that our system of governance is extremely fragile and unable to endure any litmus test of any sort. In fact the impeachment process was featured in the very beginning of our Constitution by founders who understood that it would be a vital and critical tool in the preservation of democracy and freedom.

Impeachment provides an essential process that tests and renews our democracy. It allows us to measure and censor corruption at the highest level of government, rather than resort to revolutions, coups or rot.

Alternatively, we rot. Alternatively, we embolden and empower the corrupt and the power hungry; the message to them is that we truly lack the will to responsibly implement the constitutional check on corruption and misdeeds. The result is a president who comes to believe that if he can weather some bad press and a ill-informed electorate, he can expand the powers of his office unchecked and beyond what is reasonable and healthy for democracy and freedom.

Nancy Pelosi tells us that impeachment is "a waste of time" and "is off the table."

One of the victims of this nation's nasty bi-partisanship appears to be justice, morality and constitutional law. Pelosi denies this democracy the curative and restorative process of impeachment because she "fears" it will appear to be nothing more than an act of bi-partisanship and political revenge.

As a result of this bizarre perception, lawlessness at the highest levels of power takes a giant step forward. And freedom and democracy tremble on the sidelines.

Because a Republican Congress abused it's power and impeached a Democratic President for attempting to cover-up an adulterous act of sexual impropriety from his family we jeopardize the vitality of our democracy and rule of law. Forgive the cliche, but have we stupidly thrown out the baby with the bathwater?

Despite the failure of the American press to campaign for justice until Congress and the Justice system do their jobs–as it did during the Nixon years–the crimes stand. A quiet and obedient press does not make them go away.

The President and the Vice President lied under oath of office to engage the nation in an illegal war against a nonbelligerent country. They conspired to violate international treaties and the Geneva Conventions to torture prisoners and violate the human and internationally-recognized civil rights of POWs. They have conspired to illegally spy on millions of American citizens, also authorizing warantless acts of search and seizure. They have engaged in illegal profiteering on a massive scale via the likes of Halliburton. Billions of taxpayer dollars have simply gone "Enron" in the war effort, Katrina relief and the global AIDS program. And this administration has funneled millions upon millions of dollars in public funds to support evangelical institutions in exchange for votes. Pick your poison.

Some conservatives say that while the White House may be guilty of some "bad decisions" no laws have been broken, no oaths have been violated. I believe the mafia has a similar code of honor, Omerta. We saw Omerta in action during the Foley scandal. Murderers, embezzlers and thugs depend on it. Perhaps Congress needs an Eliot Ness rather than a Nancy Pelosi.

Powered by

About Ricky

  • Baronius

    The second-to-last paragraph lists your arguments in support of impeachment. The list encourages me, that Bush should never and will never face impeachment. In fact, the list feels phoned-in, as if you don’t believe it either.

    Item One: Bush lied to get us into an illegal war. False. There is no evidence that Bush knowingly made false statements, and scant proof that his statements were false. The war is legal under the UN resolutions which allowed the liberation of Kuwait.

    Item Two: Bush violated international treaties. False. Every accusation I’ve seen fails to distinguish between prisoners of war and terrorists. At least that’s what the experts in international law are saying, and I’ll defer to them.

    Item Three: Bush approved illegal spying. Mostly False. There’s a difference between listening in on international calls and domestic calls. They’ve pushed the line in some cases, and when the courts have ruled against them they’ve stepped back.

    Item Four: Profiteering. This is one of those things I can’t label true or false, because there are no specific allegations.

    I’m tempted to go on from here, but I’m going to start a new posting instead.

  • Belizaire

    I remain flummoxed as to why so many of my fellow Americans and our Congressional leadership look askance at impeachment for Bush and Cheney.

    I think it’s because your fellow Americans actually have some grasp of what ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ are, rather than living in the fever swamp of leftwing ideobabble.

    Let me boil it down for you into words of one syllable or less. FOR * BUSH * TO * BE * IMPEACHED * HE * HAS * TO * HAVE * COMMITTED * A * CRIME. Even something so simple as perjury would do. But as things stand now they’d need to make up a new crime to apply to him retroactively and that’s too bogus even for the democrats to think they can get away with.

  • Baronius

    Bush’s opponents often complain that he tricked the public into believing that Iraq was behind 9/11, by mentioning Saddam and al-Queda at the same time. But I see the same tactic at work in these accusations.

    Bush approved of taps on international calls. He approved of tracking domestic calls. He didn’t approve of taps on domestic calls, but we’re led to believe that he did.

    Halliburton is a defense contractor, and like many such companies they received no-bid contracts. Enron was a crooked gas company that failed. They have nothing to do with each other. But they always wind up in the same sentence as part of the “culture of corruption”.

    Richard may ask how anyone can support Bush after so many failures. To be honest, at this point you could show me photographic evidence of Bush punching Pelosi (or brushing his teeth for that matter) and I wouldn’t believe it. There’s been a non-stop criticism of his every action and most of it’s been groundless. I don’t even hear the boy crying “wolf” any more.

  • Bliffle

    What eloquence, Baronius! Why, I believe, that you could convince even me that Clinton did not have sex with Monica.