Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Ending Impeachment Myths VII -- "Bush doesn't have that much time left in office. It's not worth the effort."
Once again, we have an argument that sidesteps the question of whether impeachment is justifiable. It is often used in conjunction with the "more important business" argument discussed in part VI.
First, this argument pre-supposes that an impeachment trial will be a lengthy and drawn-out process. If we look at the history of the Nixon administration's last days, we can see that it is in no way certain that an actual trial would ensue. Nixon, at the urging of Republican leadership, promptly resigned when it became clear that articles of impeachment would pass in the House. If a trial did occur in this case, it would likely be as short as it could reasonably be. It would be in the interests of both Democrats and Republicans to settle the matter as quickly as possible.
Second, this argument hints that a successful impeachment would simply not be worth the time and effort to achieve. I find this stance to be frankly unbelievable. I have difficulty appreciating the mindset that allows one to look at it in this way. Does someone who thinks this way view impeachment as only a means to the end of removing Bush from office? If so, then the idea that it would take longer to impeach than to simply "wait it out" is understandable.
However, I vehemently disagree that impeachment is solely about this administration. As discussed in other posts in this series, there are greater Constitutional issues at stake. Quite simply, the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches has shown a dangerous erosion for some time, but has reached a critical tipping point in recent years. We cannot allow the example of the Bush administration's behavior to become the established precedent for future executives.
Such an established precedent should frighten Americans of any political orientation.
SUMMARY:
First, this argument pre-supposes that an impeachment trial will be a lengthy and drawn-out process. If we look at the history of the Nixon administration's last days, we can see that it is in no way certain that an actual trial would ensue. Nixon, at the urging of Republican leadership, promptly resigned when it became clear that articles of impeachment would pass in the House. If a trial did occur in this case, it would likely be as short as it could reasonably be. It would be in the interests of both Democrats and Republicans to settle the matter as quickly as possible.
Second, this argument hints that a successful impeachment would simply not be worth the time and effort to achieve. I find this stance to be frankly unbelievable. I have difficulty appreciating the mindset that allows one to look at it in this way. Does someone who thinks this way view impeachment as only a means to the end of removing Bush from office? If so, then the idea that it would take longer to impeach than to simply "wait it out" is understandable.
However, I vehemently disagree that impeachment is solely about this administration. As discussed in other posts in this series, there are greater Constitutional issues at stake. Quite simply, the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches has shown a dangerous erosion for some time, but has reached a critical tipping point in recent years. We cannot allow the example of the Bush administration's behavior to become the established precedent for future executives.
Such an established precedent should frighten Americans of any political orientation.
SUMMARY:
- An impeachment trial should not take long, and may not even be necessary.
- Impeachment is not merely a means to the end of removing the current administration. There are fundamental Constitutional concerns about the eroded checks-and-balance of a weakening legislative branch.
- Allowing the current administration's example to become established precedent should frighten Americans of any party.
