Like most progressives — actually, like most Americans — I want to see an impeachment of George W. Bush once it is officially determined that his wiretapping scheme is illegal as implemented. I am very comfortable saying "when" rather than "if" because he is hanging his hat on the "unitary executive" theory of executive power.
As it turns out, George W. Bush has been flexing this theory since his inauguration. I am considerably behind professional scholars in considering this, but I figure since I'm right in step with professional journalists, I'm okay. So I set out to find just what is involved in the theory and the arguments based on it. I found pdf documents that explain each side of the scholarly debate, and an article on FindLaw taking the position that Bush overstepped his legal authority (it is very difficult to find someone outside the Bush regime who says unequivocally that the executive branch has the power to ignore the intent of Congress and the letter of the law at will). Here are the scholarly pdf documents:
- The Unitary Executive in the Modern Era, 1945-2001
- Rethinking Presidential Power—The Unitary Executive and the George W. Bush Presidency.
And here is the FindLaw article.
- How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief?"
Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power Precedent
The first pdf document is one of a series of four that provides the rational underpinnings of Bush's power grab; the second reviews the actions he's taken using this justification.
By now it's pretty obvious which side I come down on. The four-part series was interesting but obviously not an unbiased analysis. I reject justification of a current outlook based on an extensive reinterpretation of century-old events immediately for much the same reason I don't call Thomas Jefferson a White Supremacist.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - zingzing
snarky last statement, but fair. he should be grilled on this issue. maybe he can prove that it actually is in the best interest of the nation. maybe he's a sneaky pigfucker who is just using "wartime powers" to spy on political enemies in the name of national security. it would be nice to hear him explain himself.
2 - P6
I had to vent, what can I say?
3 - Andy Marsh
why is it then that everyone believed Bill when he looked through that camera lens and told us all, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." You mean, you don't believe Bush when he looks in the camera and tells you he did nothing wrong? Or is it that since Clinton, you just expect the pres to lie to you?
4 - Justin Berry
P6 di you really mean to type this?
but I figure since I'm right in step with professional journalists, I'm okay.
pretty low standards even for a lib.
5 - P6
Andy, if you're silly enough to have believed him you're silly enough to have voted for Bush.
I for one didn't believe him for a second. I just didn't find it relevant to his job performance...and as a man I'd have been shocked if he hadn't lied to his wife about it.
6 - P6
Justin, if I had the resources your standard fully-employed-as-a-journalist person, I'd be way out ahead of them.
7 - Andy Marsh
I actually voted libertarian in the last presidential election...and I never believe any one that wags their finger in my face while they're talking to me. I've always said that...if caught in the same situation...I'd lie through my teeth!
8 - Justin Berry
Point made, I was just waiting for the inevitable MSM, vast right-wing conspiracy, Spin doctor comments. You seem to be well informed.
Misguided but well informed.
9 - P6
Not misguided.
No guided in any way, in fact.
10 - MCH
**why is it then that everyone believed Bill when he looked through that camera lens and told us all, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."**
I didn't believe him, nor did I believe GW when he said, "(the reason) I wasn't flying at Dannelly was because they didn't have the same kind of airplanes."
11 - SK
This isn't an opinion in defense of Bush, but I say DON'T impeach him. If he's removed from office, then Dick Cheney would become President. Now who would want that?
12 - P6
Do you think that would be an increase in status and power for Cheney? Remember who they hid after 9/11.
13 - think a head
you people do realize that if bush is impeached, that dick cheney would be even more in control as president, and then the ranks of power shift up one level accordingly...
14 - Dave Nalle
You do realize that if Bush is impeached all you're doing is vindicating the whiney ambition of a bunch of appeasers and self-promoters who value the welfare of the American people far below their own political careers, right?
Dave
15 - P6
think a head:
See the comment directly above yours.
Dave:
No. All I'm doing is arguing the legal and Constitutional issues. If that justifies whiners, well, he shouldn't have broken the law.
16 - metal head
I dont like big brother spying on its people. I also believe we should do everything in our power to find out who is involved in terrorist activities and eliminate them. That is the dicotomy. Freedom vs. protection. Benjerman Franklin once had a qoute that went something like this... Those who would choose protection over freedom deserve neither. My personal opinion is that you have to error on the side of personal liberties in this case. I think the president did have poor judgement on this although I belive this was not just a power grab the ends dont always justify the means. I do think this ought to be invstigated and argued out in a court. However I dont think with what information I have the case is there for impeachment just yet. He did not lie under oath or show a deriliction in duty. He was doing what he thought was the best way to proceed. Although I dont think he should be given a total free pass or anything as long as this behavior by the feds is stoped that would be good for now untill more can be found out. Anyhoo as of calling your self a progressive I realy dont see how raising taxes, Killing unborn children, and running away from any country that tries to bully us is progress can someone explain that too me? Its not an attack I just dont understand.
17 - Dave Nalle
P6, have you seen the initial cause of action filed by the ACLU? It's laughable. The plaintiffs they name have no reason to even believe they've been spied on.
For any kind of impeachment over this issue to work there has to BE a crime. Good luck finding one.
Dave
18 - P6
Obviously I'm not arguing that case. Do you see any flaws in my reasoning?
19 - P6
metal head:
Isn't that way far afield of the topic? Would you like to start a seperate thread?
20 - Dave Nalle
Flaws in your case? Yes, there needs to be a CRIME with a clearly identified victim and an intent to do harm for there to be an impeachment. For that matter there should probably be some sort of actual harm done, which certainly can't be proven.
And that's not even taking into consideration the enormous amount of precedent for prior presidents doing exactly the same thing Bush did. Was Lincoln impeached? Was FDR? They did exactly the same sorts of things on a much larger scale and were not pursued for it.
Lincoln arrested and illegally detained two thirds of the members of the Maryland state legislature with federal troops at one point. He implemented a national income tax in direct violation of the Constitution (the 16th amendment had not been passed yet). He freed all of the slaves in the south based solely on an executive order. These actions completely dwarf anything Bush did.
Dave
21 - P6
Impeachment, which we came to understand during the Clinton administration is a mere investigation rather than an inevitable eviction, is more than appropriate when a President assumes powers categorically denied the office by the Constitution.
Sorry, the standard simply isn't that high.
22 - troll
Dave or anyone - can you explain the legal difference between a 'declaration of war' and a 'authorization for the use of force' as it relates to administration powers over US civil law - ?
clearly this is important when deciding if a law has been broken
troll
23 - Dave Nalle
There is no legal difference, troll. That's been established by the courts already. In addition, since we were attacked first by a foreign entity - Al Qaeda - making war on them doesn't even require a declaration of war because a state of war exists whether declared or not.
And P6, the powers are not denied the office by the Constitution. They are just not granted specifically by the Constitution. The Constitution leaves the granting of those powers up to the Congress and the Congress granted them pretty unambiguously.
Oh and their DOES have to be a crime for impeachment - it's not just a fishing expedition. If you read the constitution, impeachment is initiated when it has been proven that the president is guilty of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. That means you have to prove the crime first.
Dave
24 - P6
In the same way the Judiciary's executive powers and Congress' judicial powers are not specifically mentioned.
If each branch decides its own limits independently, we'll have chaos, and the rule of law will simply end.
Bush broke the FISA law which specifically states it is the only vehicle by which domestic wiretaps can be authorized. It even takes the state of war into account. And the Constitution DOES specifically state interstate commerce is in Congress' domain.
You may argue he had a good reason to break the law, but broken it is.
Even by your standards, impeachment is called for.
25 - P6
Almost forgot:
In this case there were numerous public statements that Congress delegated no new powers to the Office of the President prior to passage of the authorization to invade Iraq. There's no question the Bush regime defied the intent and constitutional powers of Congress. There is no way to mistake the intent of Congress in this case.