Guest post by Alan McSurely
Discussion on Impeachment of George Bush Town Meeting
7 PM, January 27, Carrboro Town Hall
Panel to include Dan Pollitt, Diana McDuffee, Lucy Lewis, Al McSurely
- dent : Impeach Who?
When we vote in May and again in November 2006 in the Congressional primary and general election, the most important issue facing us is to select strong members for the impeachment grand jury. The House of Representatives has three main constitutional duties: to spend our money wisely; to declare war when the U.S. is in real danger; and to impeach (that is, charge) the President and the Vice President with high crimes and misdemeanors. The Senate then sits as a criminal jury, and decides whether to convict and remove them from office.
House members are the only people who can charge a sitting President with crimes. The U.S. Attorney in Washington, D. C. cannot charge Bush/Cheney with a crime, even if she has smoking gun evidence. The police can't charge them, even if cops witness the crime. Only 218 members of the Houseâ€â€a majority of its 435 membersâ€â€can bring criminal charges against them. As of New Years Day, 2006, two House Members have called for impeachment hearings: John Lewis, the Conscience of the House, and John Conyers, one of the senior members of the House. More will follow in the next few weeks as the constitutional crisis Bush/Cheney have created begins to sink in with the public and the Congress. The Congressional Black Caucus has 42 House members. Most will vote “impeach†because when the Constitution and rule of law are overthrown, African Americans and other oppressed minorities have no protection. Many true Republicans (not counting the racist right-wingers who took over the Party of Lincoln in the l960's) are deeply concerned about Bush/Cheney's unconstitutional acts. These true Republicans took seriously their oath to “Uphold the Constitution†and will stand for country, not party, when the votes are counted. Based on the character of this Congress, experts predict that 125-150 members would probably vote for impeachment hearings by the summer of 2006.
The challenge for those of us who take seriously our sworn vow to protect it is to select a members of the House in November 2006 who are strong, respect the Constitution, and who believe in the rule of law. When I size up our Congressional candidates, I rely on the same approach I use in picking juries. I look for people who will stand up for what they believe in. When you sue the government, like I do, you want jurors who are not afraid to challenge powerful people. You want someone who believes in the old saying: He may be President, but he puts his pants on one leg at a time. We need House members who believe that every person has to abide by the Constitution and the laws. And, given Bush/Cheney's repeated use of vicious attacks when they are caught with unclean hands, we need people who are not afraid of a fight.
GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT FOR IMPEACHMENT
Many people have shared with me their great fear of the Bush/Cheney presidency. They act as if there is nothing we can do. We can wait until 2008. But 2008 is too late. I suggest there is another wayâ€â€the Grassroots Impeachment Movementâ€â€which revolves around the Congressional Elections this year. Each Congressional District elects 1/218th of the grand jury votes needed for impeachment. Let us look at N.C.'s 4th Congressional District as an example.
We have a nice guy, David Price, representing us. He has shown little leadership about the Bush/Cheney constitutional crisis. He has done little to try to educate our Congressional voters, much less the people of North Carolina, about the numerous constitutional violations of Bush/Cheney as they illegally gather more and more power into the secret inner circle of the White House. Price sticks to safe issues. His district includes Chapel Hill and Durhamâ€â€with thousands of well-informed voters. Our Representative could provide bold leadership, but Price tends to follow. His ability to conciliate and build consensus is sometimes necessary. But we face a constitutional crisis. We need bold leadership. These are the times that try our souls, Thomas Paine cried out, when the arrogance of the King created a political crisis. Out of this crisis grew a republic based on a Constitution, not a kingdom based on royal families.
We send our representative to Washington to protect this Constitution. David Price, like Bush/Cheney, took an oath to protect the Constitution. Perhaps he will grow into a bold leader. Perhaps he will make hearings on impeachment his main priority in 2006, joining Cong. Lewis and Conyers. Perhaps he will learn to express the outrage necessary to arouse the great majority of Americans who believe “we are on the wrong track†but have so far been unable to articulate how to get us back on the Constitutional track. Perhaps he won't. The deadline to file to run in either the Democratic or Republican primary is noon, February 28th. The Primary is May 2nd . The deadline for a third party candidate is June 1st. The General Election is November 7th, 2006.
TO PRESERVE THE UNION
Constitutional historians often trace the beginning of our Constitution to a Boston courtroom in l772. King George of England's lawyers argued the King had the right to issue General Warrants that gave King George's men the right to go into anyone's home or business, search for any items or papers, seize any items or papers that caught the searcher's fancy, and even seize the owner of the items or papers if they had a personal urge to do so. Lawyer John Otis, representing some Boston colonial merchants and soon-to-be revolutionaries, argued such “general warrants†violated the essence of human rights and representative government. John Adams, our Second President, was in the Boston Courtroom. He described the scene in beautiful detail. See “The Liberty of Every Man,†in a book by Richard Harris called Freedom Spent for a wonderful rendition.
When our North Carolina ancestors were asked to ratify the Constitution in Hillsborough in l789, they refused to do so until it was made clear that the President did not have the power of a blanket search warrant. The President, just like any other government official, had to present probably cause to a member of the judiciary branch, before he could tap phones, search e-mails, and other blanket fishing expeditions. Bush/Cheney have spit on this fundamental rule of law. With royal arrogance of the first King George, our present “king†sets up giant listening posts in West Virginia and Oregon with no probable cause about any particular person or place, and no warrant from the judicial branch. John Dean, Nixon's lawyer, has repeatedly warned us that Bush/Cheney's arrogation of unconstitutional powers makes Nixon look like a piker.
Those who love the Constitution and who take seriously our oath to uphold it, must challenge the continuing crimes of Bush/Cheney. The impeachment movement is, in reality, a movement to save our Constitution. All good Americans --Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike--have much at stake.
Issues:
Comments
Blinders and nose-clips!
Blinders and nose-clips! Perfect prose.
James, Excellent column in
James, Excellent column in yesterday's CHN...
How many American companies
How many American companies are in the business of putting out oil well fires?
One comment on
One comment on Halliburton.
Before the war a Democrat from Texas came on NPR and said that Halliburton was one of the only companies that could pull off everything the government was asking. Therein lies the problem.
Our military, when it is deployed, should not rely on private enterprises to feed, cloth, and move the troops - that is the business of the government. My Dad was a cook in Vietnam, the ARMY used to have those kinds of people.
The BIDS should have been for smaller jobs, or for no jobs. In WWII, the Sea-Bees built bridges and airfields and all sorts of things. The ARMY corps builds big damns and roads and such. Maybe putting out oil rig fires is a specialized product that it isn't worth the training costs to have a military group sitting around for decades waiting for a oil rig fire. But, making powdered eggs???
Everyone here willing to
Everyone here willing to endorse a massive increase in the Pentagon budget so they can recruit and train enough soldiers to do every job needed to support those troops that actually do the fighting - please raise your hand.
I can't wait to see the recruiting ads for this one: "I make more powdered eggs before 9:00 am than most people make all day."
Oh, Allan, that is so
Oh, Allan, that is so funny.
Of course, we are paying Halliburton truck drivers as much as $150,000 a year to drive in Iraq. What pay grade does that equal in the military? Brigadier General.
So, let' see. I wonder how much money we would actually save if we:
1. Increased the size of our military during time of war so that we didn't have to hire mercs at 5 times the rate.
and
2. Didn't go to war based on bullshit lies.
As for your second, VEEEEERY funny point. How about:
"Increased the size of our
"Increased the size of our military during time of war so that we didn't have to hire mercs at 5 times the rate"
We are having trouble recruiting enough people to fill the ranks of our much reduced military now, what makes you think we could simply increase its size during time of war?
Unless you are suggesting that we need to restore the draft.
Is that what you think we can do so we can have enough people to drive trucks and make breakfast every morning?
First, that is a really weak
First, that is a really weak attempt to divert attention from your previous attack. Your previous point was that we would have to increase taxes to pay for feeding all of our soldiers. I merely pointed out that we're already paying to have them fed, at about five times the pay scale.
Now, for your second point. How could you possibly get people to sign up for the dangerous job of feeding people in Iraq? Well, first, let's see if there are any examples of anyone succeeding in recruiting people to do this dangerous task in Iraq. Oh, yeah! Halliburton. How did they do it? They paid high wages. So, I guess we could probably double the pay of every armed forces member who serves in Iraq and, based on Halliburton's experience, we would get the people we needed.
Now, you might say that it is one thing to sign up for Halliburton, another to sign up for the ARMY. True. Then again, maybe there are other advantages to joining the ARMY that Halliburton doesn't offer. For instances, you can retire after 20 years (25?). You get free medical care, pay for college, maybe a G.I. bill to allow people to buy a house. Plus, you could actually keep promises made to recruits, for instance if you want to go into the ARMY to be a cook, then you don't get shunted into the 3rd ID as a tank gunner or something.
Those are just some thoughts.
Allan states "We are having
Allan states "We are having trouble recruiting enough people to fill the ranks of our much reduced military now, what makes you think we could simply increase its size during time of war? Unless you are suggesting that we need to restore the draft."
Allan, if we did have a draft I suspect that George W. and his cronies would have a much more difficult time keeping this war going or even getting it started in the first place. When the parents who scrimped and saved to get their kids through college see them about to be drafted and sent off to risk their lives 10,000 miles away it becomes much more real and they begin to examine the arguments for war much more closely. Perhaps mandatory service for everyone is a way to make sure that our government doesn't make rash decisions regarding the lives of its citizens as well as the citizens of other countries. It would also mean that the burden of such decisions is shared by everyone, regardless of economic status.
Unfortunately George, I
Unfortunately George, I don't believe that we have the political will to make us capable or even willing to devise a draft that would ensure that the burden is truly shared by everyone, regardless of economic status. The opening volley in such a conversation would be if a draft would be conducted without regard to sex. Then we would argue forever about who should be exempted and for what reasons.
Mandatory service would produce similar debates as we try to rationalize equivalency, fairness, and individual rights. Heck, we still have people fighting the service learning requirement in the local schools!
All the same, Allan, you
All the same, Allan, you make a damn fine point.
Doh! Scratch Allan, for
Doh! Scratch Allan, for God's sake. It was George C that makes the damn fine point.
Fred, I agree that it would
Fred,
I agree that it would be very difficult, probably impossible, to institute mandatory service but I believe that the effort might still result in some productive gains. Just getting the discussion going might force some people to have to confront their biases and if even a fraction of those people begin to recognize the multiple inequalities that exist in our current society then it might be worth the effort. It seems to me that we have to start somewhere because I don't see things getting better if we stay the existing course.
I'm 100% for universal
I'm 100% for universal service . . . which would be enabled by a draft.
Sure it would be challenging to make it happen, but it's pretty challenging right now. We have military that can be used indiscrimately without public blowback . . . and that is increasingly unrepresentative of "we the people." I'm with George.
Service is a great idea, as
Service is a great idea, as long as it doesn't have to be military service. I had a classmate from Switzerland who was able to work in a hospice for his mandatory service. There are lots of poor rural and urban schools that could use bright minds for a year, although I guess that doesn't really help the main point of the discussion - increasing the size of our military.It's surprising the number of countries that still do mandatory service.
I don't believe that bribery and coercion are needed to have a strong military, I think what is needed is clear leadership and pride. Imagine if Bush had taken the will of 9/11 and used it to send 500,000 U.N. troops into Afghanistan. They come out with Osama in chains, throw over the warlords, burn the poppy crops, and help build a new economy for everyday people in Afghanistan. The picture people would associate with being in the military would be much different than it is today, where "hillbilly armor" pops into my mind everytime someone mentions Iraq.
Forgot to ask: Does anyone
Forgot to ask:
Does anyone know if it would be legally possible for North Carolina to institute some kind of universal service at the state level? Given how f*cked up things are at federal, I'm increasingly interested in initiatives that could be driven by the states.
Or maybe even the counties . . .
Orange County could require universal service! The Orange County Militia! The way things are going, we might need our own armed forces to defend our sweet little southern part of heaven.
Some of you have touched on
Some of you have touched on the dilemma in regard to compulsory service. While I am a strong believer in volunteering and serving the community and society, etc., I'm quite hesitant to agree to any kind of service requirements that would result in our youth having to serve state or federal government in its present state. The way these corporate lapdogs work, they would find a way for our kids to be harnessed up in service to corporate goals.
This is all good theoretical discussion, but the assumption is wrong insofar as it posits fundamentally sound government goals that we could require kids to serve. Hell, we already require kids to go to state-run compulsory schools and look who these graduates have elected...
"Challenging to make it
"Challenging to make it happen." And that's my point Jim, not that there are no befefits to be gained from a different service model. But what this and the impeachment comments both reinforce is that our elections have consequences. We had the opportunity in the last two elections to choose a different national direction. Not enough of those who are now unhappy bothered to vote. The conversations on these issues are good, but wouldn't it be great if more of the now unhappy people would have voted? Will they in the future?
Requiring a couple years of
Requiring a couple years of service is an excellent idea. Not necessarily military service, but something. Could be the army, diplomatic corps, teaching, whatever. The governments (state and federal) are big enough there's something for everyone.
It'd also give folks a feeling like they have a stake in the government. If it worked for the Romans it might work for us.
James-
If we had an Orange County Militia, it'd be made up of us from out in the county if the towns' gun laws are any indication. So I dunno you'd like which side they'd come down on. :-p
The nonchalance with which
The nonchalance with which folks are advocating compulsory "service" to the government -- military or otherwise -- is a little troubling. I hope you'll find it just as easy to support my right to refuse.
I dunno Damon. You basically
I dunno Damon. You basically owe every advantage you have to being American. I don't think it's too much to ask that her citizens give back. Heck, it might even solve some of the social problems we're facing if it instills a work ethic in the nation's youth.
But maybe you're right. Perhaps those that choose to opt out of service shouldn't get some special benefit that could come with the service? I don't know. Just brainstorming here.
I know! Tax breaks for the
I know! Tax breaks for the rich! Sorry, Chris, couldn't resist the Republican mantra.
It's a weird society we live in now. Our countrymen fought the French alongside the British, and the British (twice) for our freedom. Once we had our freedom, we fought several small wars and two World Wars to maintain our freedom. Then came the cold war and questionable wars. Since then, it seems like Americans don't feel like we owe anything to this country.
Pardon my right-wing rhetoric, but this is a great country and if you've traveled elsewhere you know it. My healthcare sucks, my President is a criminal, we have people living in the street, and YET it is still a great country. It could be a lot better - God! could it be a lot better! I can't even get started, I'll have to delete pages of how it could be better.
Just my $0.02
Robert- nice rant! Show us
Robert- nice rant! Show us the deleted pages! Yes I think volunteering in any capacity is a good thing to teach our youth. Perhaps they have to give up some sport that will get them hopefully into college to do it, but talk about life skills, hey sign em up.
I must be losing if Chris is
I must be losing if Chris is agreeing with me on anything. Looks like I'll need to rethink my position on this. And Mark makes several important points . . . which underscore the chicken-and-egg nature of the issue of compulsory service. I'd like to think that if citizen are required to contribute time in some tangible way to the common good, they'd be much more interested in how government works, who gets elected, etc. But right now, I'd sooner shoot myself than have my daughter required to support the Bush regime with her time and energy.
But more important than all that is this discussion about states being able to initiate impeachment in the House.
The relevant language (from a DKos diary) is here:
I only know what I read this morning, but perhaps Representatives Price and Miller would like to carry North Carolina's petition for impeachment to Washington on behalf of law-abiding North Carolinians?
Dearest Editors, please consider a new discussion thread . . . Selecting the Grand Jury II . . . to cover the possibility that Orange County legislators could submit articles of impeachment to NC Legislature for delivery to the US House of Representatives.
Speaking of grand juries . .
Speaking of grand juries . . .
I've been a harsh critic of the News and Observer's editoral pages for years. Under Steve Ford's leadership, the pages have taken on a wishy-washy character that is unbecoming of a major regional paper.
So I was surprised this morning to see that Mr. Ford actually took a stand on something important to our nation. He endorsed Samuel ScAlito to join the US Supreme Court. (It's ironic that the New York Times, a source of much of the N&O's news content, chose today to call for a filibuster against the nominee.)
So hats off to Mr. Ford. It takes a lot of backbone to speak the courage of your convictions.
****************************
When I called to cancel my subscription this morning, the nice lady in circulation asked if I was having problem with delivery. 'No,' I said. 'I'm having a problem with your editorial pages.'
I hope you'll join me in letting the N&O know your displeasure. You can reach Mr. Ford at this email: sford@newsobserver.com
And don't forget to vote with your pocketbook. You can talk to the nice lady in circulation by calling 829-4700.
J
PS I know it's old school to be reading print versions of newspapers these day, but I've thought it important to support progressive publications. It takes a while for old dogs like me to finally come around.
And remember, the print
And remember, the print copies of the DTH are free. We're also the largest newspaper in the county, so our coverage is pretty good, as the municipal elections showed.
Pages