Summary of New Impeachment Book
Friday, March 31, 2006
I found this at Buzzflash.
Kagro X Lets Loose Against the Defeatists (You Know Who You Are)
Thursday, March 30, 2006
If you don't know Kagro X, he is a contributor on Daily Kos. He has been a great worker bee in the movement to impeach George W. Bush.Here is his latest post (copied with permission). In it, Kagro goes after the so-called pragmatists in the Democratic Party.
------------
"We can't impeach," I'm told daily. "We just don't have the numbers. We need to focus on the elections and winning back the House and Senate. Then we can have real oversight, and do the things we want to do."
Well, I've had about enough of this so-called "pragmatism." Not because it isn't rooted in truth, but rather because the roots aren't as strong as people think.
It's not that I have a magic formula that suddenly will give us the numbers -- although I do believe there's an outside chance that good, old-fashioned hard work can give them to us, in the same way we found "the numbers" to dump DeLay as Majority Leader, without a single Democratic vote.
No, the reason I can't accept the old "we don't have the numbers" routine -- especially when it's paired with the equally obnoxious "wait until after the elections" canard -- is that, well... we "don't have the numbers" for anything.
That's right, folks. The big news of the day is that EVERYTHING the Democrats are planning to campaign on in November is something we "don't have the numbers" for.
BY DEFINITION.
Be it health care, campaign finance reform, ethics reform, serious oversight of the executive branch, Iraq, or what have you, if Democrats "had the numbers" we wouldn't have to campaign on it.
So what is it, exactly, that makes everything but impeachment so damned magical that it can be freely discussed -- without "distracting from the elections," mind you -- even though we "don't have the numbers" to get it done?
Is it the unproven (and possibly unprovable) "conventional wisdom" that only impeachment will "hurt us at the polls?" How exactly have health care, campaign finance reform, ethics reform, and the rest been performing for us at the polls? Why are we in the position of having to "win back the House and Senate," again?
Is it that "Karl Rove wants us to talk about impeachment, to bring out the GOP base?"
This, I assume, would be some new part of the base that he's not been able to bring out with the "War on Christmas," the liberal efforts to "ban the Bible," the threat of same-sex marriage to every household in America, and the "don't send a signal of weakness to al Qaeda" ploys.
"No, no," you say. "The Republican base is going to stay home and sit on its hands, because they're fed up with the 'Culture of Corruption' and the 'Rubber-Stamp Congress.'"
Again, you must be thinking of the base that doesn't think the "Culture of Corruption" line is really just cover for a "War on Christians," as Tom DeLay now tells them it is.
No, I'm afraid we're going to have to face it. The excuse that "we don't have the numbers" applies to everything we want to do. The very reason the things we want to do are campaign issues at all is because we "don't have the numbers."
So, "we don't have the numbers" can be either the reason voters have to give us their trust for all the things we want to do, or it's a reason not to even try them until we do have the numbers. But not both.
Which one will it be?
I don't see any Democrats withdrawing the bills they've authored but "don't have the numbers" for. Do you?
The Nation Speaks of GOP Support for Feingold
Excerpt:
""On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don't need to consult any other branches' – that is an impeachable offense. It's more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant."
[John] Dean has echoed those concerns, explaining that: "There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons."
More HERE
Sequim, Washington: Population 4,928
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
It takes courage to stand up for what you believe in, especially when you live in a small town. Sequim, Washington has a population of nearly 5,000. But that isn't stopping some good citizens of Sequim from stepping forward for what they believe is right! Bravo to the good people of Sequim.
The Washington Post is Finally Catching On
Back in January, we posted Kagro X's "Forgotten Way to Impeach" wherein he reminded us all of a little known way to bring impeachment to the floor of the US House of Representatives.
Building upon Kagro's research, we at the IBC devised a letter writing campaign and mass emailed hundreds of State Senators and Assemblypersons. (We had some nice responses from various state senators in Vermont.)
Soon thereafter, in one town after another Vermont townships have passed resolutions for the impeachment of George W. Bush.
And now, the Washington Post is starting to notice!
Excerpt:
"Democratic committees in at least half of the state's 14 counties have passed resolutions calling for impeachment, citing a rule in "Jefferson's Manual," a book of parliamentary guidelines written by Thomas Jefferson that supplements U.S. House rules.
The anti-Bush movement is "genuinely bubbling up from the grass roots," said Jon Copans, the state party's executive director.
The state Democratic committee is scheduled to decide the issue in a special meeting April 8."
More HERE
If You Haven't Seen Them Yet...
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
...may we be the first to introduce to you, the ITMFA!!
Year Four of the Bush War: Military Draft or American Democracy?
Last month, we endorsed Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Carl Sheeler. Today, he submits the following article (thank you Mr. Sheeler!):
Year Four of the Bush War: Military Draft or American Democracy?
As a Marine veteran who served during Desert Storm, I witnessed the aftermath of that conflict. By comparison, the impact of a three-year war in Iraq on American troops is staggering. The media has given little coverage to the myriad of coffins draped with American flags, disfiguring casualties or droves of Iraqi children with limbs lost from our crippling bombs.
The media has also failed to investigate why there are at least four permanent U.S. military “super-bases” with many others under construction in Iraq. The Bush administration offered no "exit strategy" because none ever existed. Supporting this claim is Bush's dire statement, at last week’s news conference, leaving the withdrawal of our troops to “a future president.”
Who really benefits from our indefinite presence in Iraq? Large corporations do--those ineffectually rebuilding the country and re-supplying the war effort with nominal accountability and waste. Our military should protect and defend our Constitution and homeland, not business interests. America has a finite number of combat troops with some having served three and four deployments. This undeclared war has stretched our armed services thin. Remember what happened to the former Soviet Union after it was mired down in Afghanistan? The next logical step, though troubling, is when, not if, the draft will be reinstated?
The consequences of the draft would be cataclysmic except, of course, to those privileged few who will be ready to declare and profit from war. Given the latest rhetoric, Iran is next. Alarming enough is the fact that the Bush administration and Congress have cut vital resources for our communities to fund this war. Would those who argue, "staying the course" be willing to commit troops when the draft sends family members and friends headlong into the raging Middle East?
Is America safer as a result of these misguided policies? Are our ports, rail yards and borders more secure? Are we less dependent on foreign oil? Is our kids’ education better? Are our veterans and seniors receiving improved health care? No. People are dying for a president and his cronies—not to mention the K-Street lobbyists—who have exceeded their Constitutional powers and violated their oaths of office and the principles of “of, for, and by the people”.
Witness the series of deceptions manipulating public fears after 9/11. First, tying Iraq to Al Qaeda, hyping pre-war intelligence on WMD’s, and toppling Saddam Hussein to impose a Western-style democracy on an Islamic nation. Then parroting the worn statement, "we'll stand down when they stand up," and denying the existence of--at minimum--a low-grade civil war.
Most Americans don’t want our soldiers dying in Iraq to resolve longstanding ethnic conflicts that our own failed policies unleashed. Are we “patriotic” to allow imported terrorists, zealous insurgents, and sectarian death-squads killing our troops based on these deceptions?
Do you support this unending war of greed and misinformation--and the coming military draft--or our dying American Dream, revitalized with citizens’ cries for impeachment? Do your duty, Congress! Our future is not a partisan issue.
Carl Sheeler is a Democratic US Senate candidate from West Greenwich, Rhode Island. To make a contribution to his campaign, please go HERE.
Impeach Bush Yard Signs
Would you like to own your very own "Impeach Bush" yard sign? If so, we found these guys who make them. Put one on your lawn today and annoy your moronic Bush-loving neighbor.
From the Seattle Times: Impeachment Sparks Debate
Monday, March 27, 2006
I love this excerpt:"But talk [of impeachment] bubbles up in many parts of the nation, and on the Internet, where several Web sites have led the charge."
I wonder what Web sites those are?
More HERE
More Candidates Chime In
Thursday, March 23, 2006
In the past, we've brought you candidates who have come out in support of impeachment. Well, here are some more.
From Philadelphia Inquirer: The Impeachment Circus is Coming to Town
Monday, March 20, 2006
Excerpt: "The Impeach Bush movement has made great strides over the last few years, and today impeachment isn't just a looming carnival of the absurd, quacking and clanging about on the horizon - it's a real possibility for 2007."
More HERE
Impeach Bush Corner Banners Are Back!!!
Sunday, March 19, 2006
The corner banners are back! Thanks to Jason! Thank you Jason, wherever you are! (Note to Jason: I've been trying to get in touch with you, but to no avail. Drop me an email when you get a chance.)
In Ten Words or Less.... (The Winners!!)
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Just for fun, we asked you all to tell us "in ten words or less," why George W. Bush should be impeached. We received a lot of email, with all sorts of responses. Frankly, it was hard to choose just one so we decided to pick a few. Thanks to everybody who participated!!
And now, the winners (in no particular order) of the "In Ten Words or Less" Contest are:
"George W. Bush should be impeached because..."
1. From Elisa Holquist: "Torture is wrong"
Our comments: Oh so short, oh so simple, and oh so true! Nice job Elisa!
2. From City in the Trees: "To Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"
Our comments: It really is that simple, isn't it? And perhaps this message is precisely what gets lost in so much of the impeachment discussion. We aren't trying to bring upon impeachment merely because George W. Bush is a dirty S.O.B.. We want him to be impeached because he has made a mockery of the U.S. Constitution, and the Constitution requires that he be impeached.
3. From Patient's Progress: "He has wantonly broken laws fundamental to a free America."
Our comments: 10 words. Straight to the point. Well said!
Once again, thanks to everybody who participated.
Independent Congressman Signs onto Impeachment Resolution
Friday, March 17, 2006
Independent congressman Bernie Sanders from Vermont is co-sponsoring H. Res. 635 calling for a probe into whether or not Bush has committed impeachable offenses.Excerpt:
"Sanders, who is seeking Vermont's open U.S. Senate seat this year, said in an interview he supported the Conyers resolution "not just as an anti-Bush vendetta. ... In order to prevent us marching off to war again in a similar process, it is important for the American people to understand how we got into this war."
More HERE
Inside House Res. 635
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES . 635
Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 18, 2005
Mr. CONYERS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules
RESOLUTION
Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.
Resolved, That there is hereby established in the House of Representatives a select committee to be known as the Select Committee on Administration Predetermination to Go to War and Manipulation of Intelligence (in this resolution referred to as the `Select Committee').
PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS
SEC. 2. (a) The Select Committee is authorized and directed to investigate all relevant government agencies actions and decisions relating to the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, including:
(1) actions by the White House, National Security Council, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Central Intelligence Agency related to United Nations and Iraq Survey Group inspections of Iraq;
(2) knowledge of Iraq's ability regarding and intentions toward, or lack of ability regarding or intentions toward, nuclear weapons capability;
(3) knowledge regarding Iraq's possession of or attempted possession of, or regarding the lack of possession of or attempted possession of, chemical or biological weapons;
(4) knowledge of Iraq's possession of aluminum tubes for conventional rocket programs or for nuclear weapons development;
(5) knowledge regarding Iraq's intent, or lack of intent, toward acquiring yellowcake uranium from Niger;
(6) knowledge of any involvement, or lack of involvement, by Iraq in the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States;
(7) knowledge of any connections or ties, or of any lack of connections or ties, between Iraq and al Qaeda;
(8) knowledge of any meeting, or lack of any meeting, between Iraqi intelligence officials and Mohammed Atta in Prague, Czechoslovakia;
(9) preparations for detention, interrogation and treatment of detainees, or lack thereof, made in the planning stages of the Iraq conflict prior to March 19, 2003;
(10) knowledge of abuses and mistreatment of detainees during the Iraq conflict after March 19, 2003;
(11) the investigation of abuses and mistreatment, or lack thereof, the results of these investigations, any sanctions or punishment of offenders, and any efforts to keep these reports either from supervisors, officials or the public;
(12) an examination of all prison facilities, including the High Value Detainee facility at Baghdad airport and secret prisons or `black sites,' for detaining individuals outside the United States;
(13) the extent to which civilian, military, or intelligence officials expressly authorized, willingly ignored, or created an atmosphere that condoned the abuses and mistreatment that occurred at Abu Ghraib, Iraq; and
(14) knowledge on the part of any White House officials of the covert identity of Valerie Plame Wilson and any discussion or communication by such officials with members of the media about such identity, and any failure to enforce Executive Order 12958.
APPOINTMENT AND MEMBERSHIP
SEC. 3. (a) Members- The Select Committee shall be composed of 20 Members of the House to be appointed by the Speaker, of whom--
(1) 10 Members shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the minority leader as set forth below;
(2) 1 Member he shall designate as chairman;
(3) 1 Member he shall designate, upon the recommendation of the minority leader, as vice chairman.
(4) 4 Members shall sit on the Committee on the Judiciary, of whom 2shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the minority leader;
(5) 4 Members shall sit on the Committee on International Relations, of whom 2 shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the minority leader;
(6) 4 Members shall sit on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, of whom 2 shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the minority leader;
(7) 4 Members shall sit on the Committee on Government Reform, of whom 2 shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the minority leader; and
(8) 4 Members shall sit on the Committee on Armed Services, of whom 2 shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the minority leader.
(b) Vacancies- Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the Select Committee shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term `Member' means any Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the House of Representatives.
POWERS OF SELECT COMMITTEE
SEC. 4. (a) In General-
(1) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE- The Select Committee or, on the authority of the Select Committee, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this resolution--
(A) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, administer such oaths; and
(B) subject to paragraph (2)(A), require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, as the Select Committee or such designated subcommittee or designated member may determine advisable, including but not limited to--
(i) White House documents (e.g., memoranda, e-mails, notes of phone calls, handwritten notes);
(ii) Department of Defense documents;
(iii) Department of Justice materials;
(iv) Department of State documents;
(v) Central Intelligence Agency analyses;
(vi) Defense Intelligence Agency analyses;
(vii) National Security Council memoranda; and
(viii) Special Counsel Patrick Fitgzerald's notes, grand jury materials, and other evidence collected or created as part of the CIA leak investigation.
(2) SUBPOENAS-
(A) ISSUANCE-
(i) IN GENERAL- A subpoena may be issued under this section only--
(I) by the agreement of the chairman and the vice chairman; or
(II) by the affirmative vote of 10 members of the Select Committee.
(ii) SIGNATURE- Subject to clause (i), subpoenas issued under this subsection may be issued under the signature of the chairman or any member designated by a majority of the Select Committee, and may be served by any person designated by the chairman or by a member designated by a majority of the Select Committee.
(B) ENFORCEMENT-
(i) IN GENERAL- In the case of contumacy or failure to obey a subpoena issued under subsection (a), the United States district court for the judicial district in which the subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, or where the subpoena is returnable, may issue an order requiring such person to appear at any designated place to testify or to produce documentary or other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the court as a contempt of that court.
(ii) ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT- In the case of any failure of any witness to comply with any subpoena or to testify when summoned under authority of this section, the Select Committee may, by majority vote, certify a statement of fact constituting such failure to the appropriate United States attorney, who may bring the matter before the grand jury for its action, under the same statutory authority and procedures as if the United States attorney had received a certification under sections 102 through 104 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 192 through 194).
(b) Contracting- The Select Committee may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Select Committee to discharge its duties under this resolution.
(c) Information From Federal Agencies-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Select Committee is authorized to secure directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purposes of this resolution. Each department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the extent authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the select committee, upon request made by the chairman, the chairman of any subcommittee created by a majority of the Select Committee, or any member designated by a majority of the Select Committee.
(2) RECEIPT, HANDLING, STORAGE, AND DISSEMINATION- Information shall only be received, handled, stored, and disseminated by members of the Select Committee and its staff consistent with all applicable statutes, regulations, and Executive orders.
(d) Assistance From Federal Agencies-
(1) GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION- The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Select Committee on a reimbursable basis administrative support and other services for the performance of the Select Committee's functions.
(2) OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES- In addition to the assistance prescribed in paragraph (1), departments and agencies of the United States may provide to the Select Committee such services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support services as they may determine advisable and as may be authorized by law.
(e) Gifts- The Select Committee may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or donations of services or property.
(f) Postal Services- The Select Committee may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as departments and agencies of the United States.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
SEC. 5. (a) Subject to the adoption of expenses resolutions as required by clause 5 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Select Committee may incur expenses in connection with its functions under this resolution.
(b) In carrying out its functions under this resolution, the Select Committee, is authorized to--
(1) appoint, either on permanent basis or as experts or consultants, such staff as the Select Committee considers necessary;
(2) prescribe the duties and responsibilities of such staff;
(3) fix the compensation of such staff at a single per annum gross rate which does not exceed the highest rate of basic pay, as in effect from time to time, of level V of the Executive Schedule in section 5316 of title 5, United States Code;
(4) terminate the employment of any such staff as the Select Committee considers appropriate; and,
(5) reimburse members of the Select Committee and of its staff for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties and responsibilities for the Select Committee, other than expenses in connection with any meeting of the Select Committee, or a subcommittee thereof, held in the District of Columbia.
(c) The Select Committee and all authority granted in this resolution shall expire 30 days after the filing of the report of the Select Committee with the House.
REPORTS OF SELECT COMMITTEE
SEC. 6. (a) The Select Committee shall report to the House as soon as practicable during the present Congress, but not later than six months after the date of passage of this resolution, the results of its investigation and study, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable. The Select Committee shall report to the Committee on the Judiciary as soon as practicable during the present Congress, but not later than six months after the date of passage of this resolution, of any substantial and credible information which such Select Committee receives in carrying out its responsibilities that may constitute grounds for possible impeachment.
(b) Any such report which is made when the House is not in session shall be filed with the Clerk of the House.
(c) Any such report shall be referred to the committee or committees which have jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof.
(d) The records, files, and materials of the Select Committee shall be transferred to the Clerk of the House but, if the report of the Select Committee is referred to only one committee under the provisions of subsection (c), the records, files, and materials of the Select Committee shall be transferred instead to the committee to which the final report is referred.
ImpeachPAC -- It's that time of the month!
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
It's that time of the month where I remind you about ImpeachPAC. ImpeachPAC is a registered political action committee focused on raising money for the support of impeachment-minded congressional candidates. In essence, ImpeachPAC is the organization you want to support if you want Bush impeached. Have you donated yet?
Impeachment Talk Goes Mainstream
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
"From the Wall Street Journal to MSNBC, talk of impeachment is no longer on the fringe."More HERE
Ten Words or Less (Update)
Monday, March 13, 2006
It's been a couple of days and we've already received some really good email. It will be tough to pick just one. We might have to pick a few. Keep 'em coming.
In Ten Words or Less...
Saturday, March 11, 2006
OK, it's Saturday, time for some fun. Can you tell us in ten words or less why Bush should be impeached? If so, please email us at prideof55@myway.com. I want to hear from all of you!
Sometime later this week, we'll pick the best ten words and post it up on the blog along with a featured link to your blog (if you have a blog).
Impeachment Chat
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
On Friday, the blog Tin Cup Chalice will be holding an online chat to discuss impeachment. The chat will not require any software download or site registration. The chat will be moderated by Todd Barnhart of Blue Oregon. I'll try to be there, but it may be tough for me.
March 10, 5-7 pm Pacific
http://tincupchalice.net/
Another Impeachment Resolution Passes
This one is from Minnesota! And they are using the Section 603 language. I wonder if they received any of our letters.
WaPo OpEd's Bush's Imprudence and Impeachment
Excerpt:
At her house one afternoon, talking on the phone, I reached for a pad of paper to jot down some notes and found her handwritten agenda for the day. There was a list of vegetables. Then it said, "Coca-Cola." Then it said, "Impeach Bush." Underlined.
Nearly 92 now, Estelle hasn't really slowed down very much, and she must still be preaching the gospel of impeachment to her friends in her Democratic club and, I can only conclude, her Improv group as well. Because, damn -- this impeachment stuff is really getting around.
It's all over the blogosphere. It's the cover story in the current Harper's. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has passed an impeachment resolution. Antiwar activists, civil libertarians, all the usual-suspect constituencies have growing impeachment tendencies. But it's reaching beyond the usual suspects, as I discovered last month when I appeared on a media panel before the national legislative conference of a major union. Local activists from across the nation spent an hour asking us questions, and one out of every three queries, it seemed to me, boiled down to, "How can we impeach this guy?""
More HERE
USA Today Covers the Newfane Resolution
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
The town of Newfane, Vermont passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush. As covered here at the IBC, Newfane's resolution is certainly not the only one of it's kind. It's nice to see the USA Today cover the story though.
The Progressive Spells Out The Need for Impeachment
Excerpt:
"Bush has taken our country down a frightening path toward a form of government our founders loathed. And he has done so by cloaking his actions as wartime necessities.
The Supreme Court, back in 1866, warned of this current situation, as Lapham notes in a footnote. In Ex Parte Milligan, it said, “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people; equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”
Bush acts like a despot.
We can’t let him get away with it.
We can’t let him continue to disgrace the office of the Presidency, violate his oath of office, and trample on our Constitution.
We must demand impeachment."
More HERE
Impeach Bush Corner Ribbons
Monday, March 06, 2006
As many of you have noticed, the corner ribbon is currently "down". I'm looking into seeing why it is down. Please bear with me, I'm hoping it will be up again shortly.
The Center for Constitutional Rights' Articles of Impeachment
Excerpt:
"In fact, the case for the impeachment of President Bush is arguably the strongest in American history. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) makes this amply clear in its recent book, a concise indictment of President Bush that lays out four clear legal arguments that point to impeachment as a necessary remedy for the gross violation of our Constitution. The Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush covers illegal wiretapping, torture, rendition, detention and the Iraq war. An appendix compares the impeachment proceedings of Andrew Johnson, Nixon and Clinton to the comparatively more powerful case against Bush."More HERE
The San Francisco Impeachment Resolution Passes
Friday, March 03, 2006
On Tuesday, February 28, 2006, the City and County of San Francisco became the first large municipality to call for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney, by a 7-3 vote. More HERE
Rutland County Vermont Invokes Jefferson Manual Rule 603
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Kagro X has it. Here it is:"Tonight, the Rutland County Democratic Committee became the first body of which I'm aware to pass a resolution calling for impeachment specifically under the procedures outlined in Jefferson's Manual, Section 603.
To refresh your memory:
NOTE: Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House. This refers to Jefferson's Manual-the House uses it as a supplement to its
standing rules.>>
In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion:
[...] by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469)
I originally took up the subject at The Next Hurrah, and then moved on to a series of posts regarding the necessity of impeachment.
Arbortender's diary linked back to another blog, where the idea apparently originated. And to be perfectly honest with you, this read at first like just another fringe-y, kooked-out misreading of procedure. But I just happen to have an old copy of Jefferson's Manual here on the desk, and sure enough, that's just what it says. The legislature of any state or territory may transmit charges to the Congress and recommend impeachment.
Now, to be sure, there is nothing that forces the House of Representatives -- still the sole body capable of adopting actual articles of impeachment -- to act on such charges. In fact, you can be assured that they'd do everything in their power to avoid doing so.
But what a story it'd make! A little known constitutional procedure that has lain dormant for decades, never before used against a president, and pitting the duly elected and sworn legislature of a state against a federal Congress sitting on its hands and refusing to act!
The question was, where to begin?
Well, clearly you'll need to begin in a state with a strong Democratic majority in the legislature. That's just plain fact. And while it may be complained that it puts an unduly partisan shine on things, the bottom line at the time was that there really are no Republicans willing to consider their duty in this matter, though it may now be argued that the Dubai ports deal may have changed the equation.
After analyzing the partisan composition of the state legislatures and the state-by-state SurveyUSA polling on Bush's approval ratings, I identified Vermont, Rhode Island and Massachusetts as leading prospects for passing such a resolution, based on their overwhelming Democratic majorities in each house of their legislatures and their abyssmal approval ratings for Bush.
Kossack Vermonters, both past and present, immediately took up the challenge. I was contacted by bumblebums, who put me in touch with a sympathetic former Vermont state senator, and by the seldom-seen maplefrost, who is the hero of tonight's story.
Maplefrost, you see, turned out to be one of Vermont's presidential electors, and the author of that state's 2004 resolution demanding an inquiry into the Ohio voting irregularities.
And it was Maplefrost who carried the following resolution forward to the Rutland County Democrats tonight, where it passed unanimously:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Section 603 of the Manual of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives provides for impeachments to be initiated on a motion based on charges transmitted from a state legislature, and
WHEREAS, George W. Bush has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as he has repeatedly and intentionally violated the United States Constitution and other laws of the United States, particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Torture Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution is a treaty as part of the "supreme law of the land",
WHEREAS, George W. Bush has acted to strip Americans of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to legal counsel, without charge and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant", all in subversion of law, and
WHEREAS, George W. Bush has ordered and authorized the Attorney General to override judicial orders for the release of detainees under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly INS) jurisdiction, even though the judicial officer after full hearing has determined that a detainee is held wrongfully by the Government, and
WHEREAS, George W. Bush has ordered at least thirty times the National Security Agency to intercept and otherwise record international telephone and other signals and communications by American citizens without warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, and designated certain U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants", all in violation of constitutional guarantees of due process, and
WHEREAS George W. Bush has admitted that he willfully and repeatedly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and boasted that he would continue to do so, each violation constituting a felony,
NOW THEREFORE the Rutland County Democratic Committee submits that his actions and admissions constitute ample grounds for his impeachment, and that the General Assembly of the State of Vermont has good cause for submitting charges to the U.S. House of Representatives under Section 603 as grounds for George W. Bush's impeachment.
The County Committee further submits that Articles of Impeachment should charge that George W. Bush has violated his constitutional oath to execute faithfully the office of President and to the best of his ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
In all of this George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the State of Vermont and of the United States.
WHEREFORE, George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any offices of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
February 28, 2006
Adopted: February 28, 2006
I can't add much to that, folks. Action from words. From blog to reality."
