Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Ending Impeachment Myths II -- "Impeachment is just a partisan power grab!"
This is the second most common argument that I've seen regarding impeachment: An impeachment attempt would be nothing more than a blatant partisan power grab aiming to install an unelected President Pelosi, and such a process is inherently un-American.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Many people who adhere to this line of argument are unaware of what played out in the final months of the Nixon administration. Here's a brief timeline:
Time magazine has made a ton of their coverage of the saga available online. It's interesting reading for someone young enough to have never known much about the scandal. The point most relevant to today, however, is that both the Vice President and the President were removed from office while retaining a Republican hold on the White House.
How was this accomplished? Through the use of the little-known 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. This Amendment allows for the Vice President to be replaced through nomination of someone by the President, followed by subsequent confirmation by Congress.
Some people I've discussed this with have charged that President Bush cannot be trusted to make a reasonable selection for a new Vice President if Cheney is successfully impeached. It is important to note that a replacement VP cannot be installed by the President alone. The confirmation process should ensure that a new VP acceptable to both parties is brought into office. Bush may stall, but I would suspect that members of his own party would bring pressure on him to ensure a quick transition. Leaving the VP slot open indefinitely is not feasible.
With respect to the use of the label "un-American" when describing impeachment, I can only say that it is so definitively American that is has been a part of our Constitutional system since the beginning. The Founding Fathers laid it out as an emergency tool for use by Congress -- the representatives of the People -- to be used to unseat any executive branch officers with dangerously monarchical tendencies.
If impeachment is so fundamentally American, then why is it so often referred to as "the 'I' word" in recent political discussion? The reason seems to have a lot to do with the way Republicans conducted the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.* As one persuasive essay recently put it:
On a related note, and also in follow-up to part I of this series, I spotted an interesting piece this morning concerning very recent public opinion on the matter of impeachment. This poll was not conducted by what I would consider a strictly non-partisan source (the head of the polling firm is a former colleague of Newt Gingrich), but the data released is highly intriguing:
Now, I cannot prove this, but my experience is that many people are unfamiliar with both the 25th Amendment and the exact mechanics of Gerald Ford's ascendancy to the presidency. The fact that the poll question could be construed as asking about support for a double-impeachment of both officials is therefore telling. It is quite possible that many of the respondents believed that the result of such an action would be a President Pelosi. Nonetheless, almost two-fifths of Americans surveyed supported it!
I would very much like to see further data gauging public support for an impeachment plan that guarantees a Republican White House.
SUMMARY:
*For the record, I supported the impeachment of Clinton because he crossed the line when he lied to the public about the matter of Monica Lewinsky. It was entirely within his rights to simply tell the public to butt out, and, in retrospect, this would probably have been the quickest way to put the matter to rest. I make no distinction between lying under oath and lying in a press conference when it comes to the conduct of our high officials, so you can imagine how I feel about our current administration. The fact that Bush administration officials routinely avoid testimony under oath shows how carefully they tread around their own trap.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Many people who adhere to this line of argument are unaware of what played out in the final months of the Nixon administration. Here's a brief timeline:
- Nov 1972 -- Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew re-elected
- ??? 1972-73 -- Investigation begun concerning criminal wrongdoing by Agnew
- Oct 1973 -- Spiro Agnew pleads "no contest" to criminal charges, resigns before impeachment filed
- Nov-Dec 1973 -- Gerald Ford confirmed by Congress as new VP
- July 1974 -- first article of impeachment vs Nixon approved
- Aug 1974 -- Richard Nixon resigns
Time magazine has made a ton of their coverage of the saga available online. It's interesting reading for someone young enough to have never known much about the scandal. The point most relevant to today, however, is that both the Vice President and the President were removed from office while retaining a Republican hold on the White House.
How was this accomplished? Through the use of the little-known 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. This Amendment allows for the Vice President to be replaced through nomination of someone by the President, followed by subsequent confirmation by Congress.
Some people I've discussed this with have charged that President Bush cannot be trusted to make a reasonable selection for a new Vice President if Cheney is successfully impeached. It is important to note that a replacement VP cannot be installed by the President alone. The confirmation process should ensure that a new VP acceptable to both parties is brought into office. Bush may stall, but I would suspect that members of his own party would bring pressure on him to ensure a quick transition. Leaving the VP slot open indefinitely is not feasible.
With respect to the use of the label "un-American" when describing impeachment, I can only say that it is so definitively American that is has been a part of our Constitutional system since the beginning. The Founding Fathers laid it out as an emergency tool for use by Congress -- the representatives of the People -- to be used to unseat any executive branch officers with dangerously monarchical tendencies.
If impeachment is so fundamentally American, then why is it so often referred to as "the 'I' word" in recent political discussion? The reason seems to have a lot to do with the way Republicans conducted the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.* As one persuasive essay recently put it:
A few months ago, when a few voices on the far left first uttered the “I” word in relation to Dick Cheney and George Bush, I was turned off by the idea. Then I started to wonder why I felt that way. After all, if any two public officials in American history ever earned a thorough impeaching it's those two. Yet the idea of actually kicking that process into action produced a sinking, sickish feeling deep within.The author goes on to say:
Why?
Then it dawned on me — Republicans had “removed” impeachment from the arsenal that made Congress a co-equal branch of government.
When mad-dog Republicans misused impeachment during their anti-Clinton feeding frenzy, the public — the sane majority anyway — was turned off by it. They saw it more for what is was — a legislative coup attempt by Republicans against a Democratic president, rather than the legitimate use of Congressional power.I do not know for a fact that Democratic leadership would follow the Nixon administration model in any impeachment proceedings, but they would be well-advised to do so if they wish to retain the moral high ground. Presumably, the country can survive another unelected President like we had in Gerald Ford.
It was also viewed as a monumental waste of time, taxpayer money and critically needed legislative bandwidth.
Over time that impression gestated into a deep national ambivalence, bordering on disgust, with the impeachment process. It's now almost a knee-jerk response when someone demands impeachment. You can almost hear a national moan:
“Oh no. Please, no. Don't take us down that road again! Please.”
So there you have it. With their unjust, frivolous, mean spirited, wolf-pack-like pursuit of Bill Clinton the GOP inadvertently inoculated its own top officials from the threat of impeachment today, even when so richly deserved.
On a related note, and also in follow-up to part I of this series, I spotted an interesting piece this morning concerning very recent public opinion on the matter of impeachment. This poll was not conducted by what I would consider a strictly non-partisan source (the head of the polling firm is a former colleague of Newt Gingrich), but the data released is highly intriguing:
"Would you favor or oppose the impeachment by Congress of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney?"
Favor: 39%
Oppose:55 %
Undecided/Don't Know: 6%
The survey of 621 registered voters has been weighted for age, race, gender and political affiliation. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4%.
Now, I cannot prove this, but my experience is that many people are unfamiliar with both the 25th Amendment and the exact mechanics of Gerald Ford's ascendancy to the presidency. The fact that the poll question could be construed as asking about support for a double-impeachment of both officials is therefore telling. It is quite possible that many of the respondents believed that the result of such an action would be a President Pelosi. Nonetheless, almost two-fifths of Americans surveyed supported it!
I would very much like to see further data gauging public support for an impeachment plan that guarantees a Republican White House.
SUMMARY:
- Impeachment is not "un-American", it is a fundamental part of the American way.
- Impeachment does not automatically create a President Pelosi; historical precedent shows that Republicans would be able to keep control of the White House if both Bush and Cheney are successfully impeached.
- Recent data suggests that as many as two-fifths of Americans support a simultaneous double-impeachment, which could result in a President Pelosi, but further research is needed to confirm this.
*For the record, I supported the impeachment of Clinton because he crossed the line when he lied to the public about the matter of Monica Lewinsky. It was entirely within his rights to simply tell the public to butt out, and, in retrospect, this would probably have been the quickest way to put the matter to rest. I make no distinction between lying under oath and lying in a press conference when it comes to the conduct of our high officials, so you can imagine how I feel about our current administration. The fact that Bush administration officials routinely avoid testimony under oath shows how carefully they tread around their own trap.
