Bush/Cheney Simulpeachment: to Pre-Empt a War With Iran (or whoever)

[Johnny_L.A]

@John Mace

We’ve been over this so many times before, but maybe you weren’t watching.

I read the clause as meaning The Supreme Law of the Land applied to the Federal government, and (after the semicolon) to the States as well. Is the Federal government above the Law of the Land?

In any case, Article II of the UN Charter makes it clear that wars of aggression are violations of the Charter. It seems to me that that makes it a violation of International Law.

Impeachement does not equal conviction. To answer the question of whether Buch and his cronies violated a law – whether domestic or international, they should be impeached.

Again, I don’t think there’s a chance in hell that that would happen. But I believe that a ‘Nation of Laws’ must abide by the law.

[John_Mace]

@tomndebb

It would, however, appear to make treaties (which must be consented to by the Senate) the equal of Federal laws, rendering a law that violated a treaty without explicit language rescinding the treaty at least the legitimate target of a legal challenge in court.

It wouldn’t stand up for a minute in court. The constitution clearly gives to Congress (both houses) the power to wage war. Remember, it’s only the Senate that ratifies treaties, and the Senate cannot override that power. And even if you were to put the UN charter and the AUMF on an equal level*, the AUMF would take precedence, being the more recent act. Besides, the AUMF itself declares Iraq to have been a “continuing threat to the national security of the United States”.

*which I wouldn’t do, but let’s just say they are for the sake of argument.

Johnny did not claim that the action was unconstitutional–only that it was a violation of the Law of the Land.

Where did I say that Johnny said it was unconstitutional? I just said he is misinterpreting the supremacy clause. Now, there is precedence that some treaties are “self-executing” and so impose obligations on the federal government, but not when they affect the powers delegated to Congress by the constitution. Again, that would put a treaty above the constitution.

[John_Mace]

@Johnny L.A.

I read the clause as meaning The Supreme Law of the Land applied to the Federal government, and (after the semicolon) to the States as well. Is the Federal government above the Law of the Land?

In any case, Article II of the UN Charter makes it clear that wars of aggression are violations of the Charter. It seems to me that that makes it a violation of International Law.

Impeachement does not equal conviction. To answer the question of whether Buch and his cronies violated a law – whether domestic or international, they should be impeached.

Again, I don’t think there’s a chance in hell that that would happen. But I believe that a ‘Nation of Laws’ must abide by the law.

If you want to argue that there was a violation of international law, then it is the Congress that did the violating, by passing the AUMF. The constitution gives Congress that authority, and they used it in this case.

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

I disagree. Impeaching a President and/or Vice President for what they give you damned good reason to believe they might do in the future, should the consequences of such actions be severe enough, I would regard as my bounden duty, if I were in Congress.

If you want an impeachable offense that’s already happened, or could easily be brought to a go/no go point, a refusal to acknowledge the authority of Congress to decide whether to make war or not would do.

Then I’m afraid you’ll have to impeach every president that we have, because no president in the past did, and none in the future will, recognize the need to get Congressional authority to take military strikes against another country. As for making actual war, Bush got authorization from Congress before he invaded Afghanistan and before he invaded Iraq. There is no reason to think he wouldn’t do so if he was actually going to invade Iran.

That, my friend, is bullshit. Preventing an arbitrary initiation of war by the Executive is hardly “purely political reasons.”

OK, it could be for other than partisan reasons. But if you set that precedence, what’s to prevent it for being so the next time around?

???

I’m not sure what the Iraq AUMF has to do with Iran. I’d like to see Congress attach a clause to the next Iraq funding bill explicitly putting off limits U.S. military action within, or attacks on, Iran proper, without the consent of Congress, for the next two years.

But the problem is still that Bush and Cheney have made it clear they believe they are beyond the authority of Congress in such matters. And as Stalin once asked about the Pope, how many divisions does Congress have?

It doesn’t have anything directly to do with Iran, but in the off chance the Bush were to invade Iran (and I don’t for a second think that he will), he wouldn’t be able to use the Iraq AUMF as a justification.

[elucidator]

@John Mace

…OK, it could be for other than partisan reasons. But if you set that precedence, what’s to prevent it for being so the next time around?..

Us. We are, after all, the deciders.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Us. We are, after all, the deciders.

Not a chance. “We” didn’t want Clinton to be impeached, but he was. Immediately after the articles of impeachment were enacted, Clinton’s approval rating jumped 10 points to 73%. I don’t have a cite, but I’m pretty sure that support for impeachment never got out of the 30% range, according to public opinion polls.

[Ravenman]

@RTFirefly

I have no problem at all with what the Constitution actually says, because it’s silent on what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor; that has been left for each generation to decide for itself.

I would think that “high crimes or misdemeanors” may change some over the years, but still mean high crimes or misdemeanors. If you define that term to mean anything from Richard Nixon’s real crimes to perhaps one day a misdemeanor of “just not being a really nice guy who could do something bad if things play out a certain way in the next few months or years,” you have rendered a key part of the Constitution meaningless.

The double standard here is breathtaking. If you allow Congress the power to rewrite at its whim a key provision of the Constitution, you are allowing the branches of government to define the entire Constitution to whatever they wish. If Congress is given leeway to rid a president for something that literally nobody would define as an actual crime; how can you also criticize Bush for arguing that “commander in chief” grants powers far beyond any one of us would conceive?

Once you start allowing each branch of government to maximize its power by redefining its powers to be unlimited, there are no separation of powers, and the checks and balances are shot. Although Bush’s grasping for power is a problem today, allowing Congress unchecked, unregulated power is a terrible response. It is still ruining the Constitution, just in a different way.

[Ravenman]

@Johnny L.A.

Bush and Cheney should be impeached for high crimes they’ve already committed, such as waging a war of aggression.

You should be aware that the Rome Statute is not the law of the land. It’s not been signed nor approved by the Senate. What’s more, the crime of aggression isn’t even defined by the Rome Statute, so it’s a serious crime that does not actually exist at this moment.

Whether violating the UN Charter is an impeachable offense is an interesting question. Congress knew about the UN Charter when it passed the authorization for war. Are you saying that Congress can’t pass a law that violates or supercedes a treaty? The Constitution vests Congress with “all legislative powers.” Has the UN taken away Congress’ ability to legislate on war? If it has, should members of Congress who voted for the war resolution also be subject to judicial sanctions? If Congress still has absolute legislative power, how can the President be held to account for something the Congress lawfully authorized?

I have no idea the answer to these questions. I have no doubt that the Iraq war was illegal under international law, but whether or how that translates into culpability for all of our elected leaders, I’m less sure. At the moment I tend to believe that the United States failed to carry out a national obligation, but I’m not inclined to believe that this means that individuals can be held responsible for a national policy decision being in violation of the Charter. But it’s a really complex question.

[DanBlather]

I think there is a case to be made that entering a war under false pretenses is a “high crime” even if it is no strictly illegal. There is lots of discussion on the net about what a high crime is. Here is an interesting view by what appears to be a conservative:

I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the
key to understanding it is the word “high”. It does not mean “more serious”. It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Misleading Congress by cherry picking intelligence would fit under this definition to me.

[John_Mace]

@DanBlather

I think there is a case to be made that entering a war under false pretenses is a “high crime” even if it is no strictly illegal. There is lots of discussion on the net about what a high crime is. Here is an interesting view by what appears to be a conservative:

According to wikipedia it means “against the state”. Note that the consitution refers to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” That is, other high crimes like bribery or treason. BTW, I believe that “high” applies also to misdemeanors-- ie, high crimes and high misdemeanors. The latter is much more broad, and can be “maladministration” of public office. That would give Congress almost limitless ability to impeach. If Congress wants to impeach for whatever reason, it can. It’s not like the SCOTUS is going to overturn an impeachment thru judicial review. I doubt that the SCOTUS has that power to begin with.

However, I still find the idea of impeachment for an offense one thinks a public official might do in the future to be unconstitutional. If you really think he’s going to do that in the future, then there must be something that public official already did to make you think so. In that case, impeach him for what he already did.

[RTFirefly]

@Ravenman

The double standard here is breathtaking. If you allow Congress the power to rewrite at its whim a key provision of the Constitution, you are allowing the branches of government to define the entire Constitution to whatever they wish.

This is a provision of the Constitution that it seems nobody but Congress gets to define.

If Congress is given leeway to rid a president for something that literally nobody would define as an actual crime; how can you also criticize Bush for arguing that “commander in chief” grants powers far beyond any one of us would conceive?

Well, that’s exactly it, isn’t it? The sole remedy for the latter is the former. And if the Congress defines “high crimes and misdemeanors” in a way that is repugnant to the people, we have the power to vote them out of office.

Once you start allowing each branch of government to maximize its power by redefining its powers to be unlimited, there are no separation of powers, and the checks and balances are shot. Although Bush’s grasping for power is a problem today, allowing Congress unchecked, unregulated power is a terrible response. It is still ruining the Constitution, just in a different way.

There are a handful of powers that Congress gets to define for itself. There’s this, and the right of each House of Congress to determine the qualifications for its members, and I suspect there may be one or two others. Just because Congress uses its inherent power to define these powers for itself, doesn’t mean that Congress has the right to rewrite parts of the Constitution where this is clearly not the case.

[Ravenman]

@RTFirefly

And if the Congress defines “high crimes and misdemeanors” in a way that is repugnant to the people, we have the power to vote them out of office.

After the “damage” is done. Why should a Congressional abuse of power be allowed to stand unchallenged until the next election, but the mere hypothetical scenario that a President may or may not do something in the next two years so dire that it warrants an action that has never been filled to fruition in American history, ie, impeachment and conviction?

I mean, for crying out loud, what if Congress were willing to authorize the President to invade Iran under a set of circumstances not yet apparent to us today? You still think the President should be impeached?

[Johnny_L.A]

@John Mace

However, I still find the idea of impeachment for an offense one thinks a public official might do in the future to be unconstitutional. If you really think he’s going to do that in the future, then there must be something that public official already did to make you think so. In that case, impeach him for what he already did.

God damn it. I have to agree with John. We cannot impeach them now for something they might do. (I’ll still point out that this is exactly what they did in Iraq.) But I think there are plenty of things they have already done that are impeachable. Impeach them on those. All of them.

As for Iran, attacking them is not something that will happen on the spur of the moment. The President will have to set things in motion. I feel that after the wheels have been set in motion but before an attack is made, there will likely be something for which Bush and Cheney can be impeached. But there is no need, as they’ve already committed numerous offences that have already been cited many times in these fora.

[John_Mace]

@Johnny L.A.

God damn it. I have to agree with John.

Take two aspirin and hope you feel better in the morning.

[BrainGlutton]

@chappachula

We are still facing a clash of civilizations on the scale of the cold war.

That theory is bullshit.

[Quiddity_Glomfuster]

@Johnny L.A.

But I think there are plenty of things they have already done that are impeachable. Impeach them on those. All of them.

And that is the point. You don’t impeach them on the grounds of what they might do. You go through the trouble of impeaching them on the grounds of what they *did *because you fear what they might do.

[El_Kabong]

So, is anyone in this thread ever going to step up to the plate and itemize the charges for a draft article of impeachment, so we can maybe argue over that? Sorry, I haven’t really got any that I feel could stand up to a serious debate in Congress, myself, but something along the lines of a charge of malfeasance for the number of lives and dollars squandered in Iraq seems potentially doable.

[ElvisL1ves]

The New Mexico bill (yes, state legislatures can start the process) covers it for me pretty well.

This book seems to go into more background.

[asterion]

@ElvisL1ves

The New Mexico bill (yes, state legislatures can start the process) covers it for me pretty well.

It’s a 60-day legislative session this year and they’re wasting their time with this?

[elucidator]

Somehow, some way, these dangerous and vain men must be gelded. I agree that at this point in time, impeachment and removal is out of reach. But that can change. The public is going to be getting an eyeful and an earful over the next several months, as hearings conducted reveal and underline what so many of us already know.

What worries me most is not the prospect of an Iranian attack, they have hardly any need, they’ve won already, for all practical purposes. What worries me is the illussion of such an attack, a phantom torpedo boat launching ectoplasmic torpedoes at a destroyer in the Persian Gulf. Even if I grant that the Bushiviks would balk at creating such an illusion themselves, they would be eager, desperately eager, to accept such a phantom as fact. GeeDub whimpers in his sleep as he dreams about the days when he was hailed as The Leader, when sclerotic old men leaped to their feet every two minutes to applaud him. He might well imagine that a “Pearl Harbor/Tonkin” moment might accomplish that, once again. The horror, the horror.

(An enemy of Iran might well see the opportunity to fabricate such an incident, knowing that their machinations might not be closely examined, but taken at face value. And, of course, Iran has such enemies.)

I suggest to this august body that the preliminary moves toward impeachment, laying the groundwork, etc. might serve the purpose as well, perhaps even better, than the accomplished thing itself. Impeachment was impossible, it is no longer impossible, it is now merely unlikely. It will become less unlikely.

Valid grounds for impeachment are what we say they are, if enough Americans are hounding and pressuring thier representatives, it can be done. We can then leave the argument as academic, leave the semantic squabbling over legalistic acrobatics to those who care about such. If we are moved to repent a Constitutional error, at least we can do so from a position of relative safety.

Some effective restraint must be affected. If my plan is no good, what’s yours?