Mar 08.qxd - Connection Magazine

y Elizabeth Holtzman
SINCE MID-DECEMBER, members
of the House Judiciary
Committee Robert Wexler (D.,
Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) and Tammy
Baldwin (D., Wis.) have called for hearings
on the impeachment of Vice
President Cheney.
This should not be surprising, given
the strength of the case for impeachment.
What’s surprising is that it took so long for
members of this committee, normally
tasked with holding impeachment proceedings,
to call for them.
They face huge political resistance
on Capitol Hill. But they aren’t alone.
Other Democratic members are joining
them. Former senator and Democratic
presidential nominee George McGovern
recently published an op-ed demanding
impeachment proceedings for both Bush
and Cheney. Bruce Fein, a Republican
who served in the Reagan Justice
Department, and many other constitutional
scholars also argue for impeachment.
There is more than ample justification
for impeachment. The Constitution
specifies the grounds as treason, bribery
or “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a
term that means “great and dangerous
offenses that subvert the Constitution.”
As the House Judiciary Committee determined
during Watergate, impeachment is
warranted when a president puts himself
above the law and gravely abuses power.
Have Bush and Cheney done that?
Yes. With the vice president’s participation,
President Bush repeatedly violated
the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, which requires court
approval for presidential wiretaps.
Former President Richard Nixon’s illegal
wiretapping was one of the offenses that
led to his impeachment. FISA was enacted
precisely to avoid such abuses by
future presidents.
Bush and Cheney were involved in
detainee abuse, flouting federal criminal
statutes (the War Crimes Act of 1996 and
the anti-torture Act) and the Geneva
Conventions. The president removed
Geneva protections from al-Qaeda and the
Taliban, setting the abuse in motion, and
may have even personally authorized them.
The president and vice president
also used deception to drive us into the
Iraq war, claiming Saddam Hussein and
al-Qaeda were in cahoots, when they
knew better. They invoked the specter of
a nuclear attack on the United States,
alleging Hussein purchased uranium in
Niger and wanted aluminum tubes for
uranium enrichment, when they had every
reason to know these claims were phony
or at least seriously questioned within the
administration. Withholding and distorting
facts usurps Congress’ constitutional
powers to decide on going to war.
Can a commander-in-chief disobey
laws on wiretapping or torture to protect
the country in wartime?
No. The Constitution requires the
president to “take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.” The Supreme Court
ruled Harry S. Truman could not seize
steel mills to prevent a strike, even during
the Korean War. Nixon’s claim of national
security as a justification for illegal
wiretaps was also rejected in impeachment
proceedings against him.
What then is the justification for
taking impeachment “off the table”?
Healthy Planet
Judiciary Committee Should
Move to Impeach Bush, Cheney
Congressional leaders
don’t defend the
administration, nor do
they contend that its
actions are unimpeachable
or less serious
than Nixon’s.
Instead they argue
there is no time, or that
impeachment proceedings
would distract the Congress from
other work, or divide the country. The
subtext seems to be fear that impeachment
could undermine Democratic election
prospects in 2008.
But, even these “pragmatic” arguments
are wrong. Let’s take them one at a time:
Insufficient time. In the case of
Nixon, the House officially instructed the
Judiciary Committee to act in early
February 1974. The committee finished
voting on articles of impeachment July
29, less than six months later. No presidential
impeachment proceeding had
taken place for almost 100 years, so the
committee had to start from scratch, analyzing
the Constitution and developing
procedures for the impeachment inquiry.
Now that the relevant legal spade work is
done and a road map for proper impeachment
proceedings exists, Congress might
conduct them even faster than in 1974.
Distraction. During Watergate, the
impeachment inquiry didn’t prevent
Congress from getting its work done. In fact,
the House Judiciary Committee also worked
on other matters during impeachment, just
as the Senate did during its impeachment
trial of former President Bill Clinton.
Divisiveness. True, President Clinton’s
impeachment was a highly partisan process
that divided the country - because most
Americans didn’t support it. They believed
his conduct was reprehensible, but not an
impeachable offense. Impeachment therefore
had negative repercussions for the
Republicans who instigated it.
Nixon’s impeachment united the
American people. The process was bipartisan,
demonstrating this wasn’t just a
Democratic ploy to undo an election. The
fairness of the process, the seriousness of
purpose, the substantial evidence - all
gave the public confidence that justice
had been done. This reinvigorated the
shared value that the rule of law and
preservation of democracy are more
important than any president or party.
This value is again asserting itself in
grassroots impeachment movements
across America. The Vermont Senate,
several state Democratic parties, and
many municipal governments have adopted
resolutions supporting impeachment.
More state legislatures would have acted
except for pressure from Washington.
Many polls show a majority of Americans
support impeaching Cheney (a Nov. 13
American Research Group poll says 70
percent of Americans believe he abused
his office), and slightly less than a majority
support impeaching Bush.
Stonewalling such widespread public
sentiment is itself divisive, leading at
least half the country to feel their concerns
about upholding the Constitution
are being ignored. Only a serious airing of
evidence in hearings would heal the split.
Undermining election prospects.
When the impeachment process began,
Nixon had just been reelected in one of
the largest landslides in history. Few, if
any, worried about whether impeachment
was a political winner for Congress or the
Democrats. Public opinion simply forced
Congress’ hand when Nixon fired Special
Prosecutor Archibald Cox. After the
Judiciary Committee conducted impartial
hearings and voted on impeachment,
Congress’ approval ratings soared.
Republicans were swamped in the
November 1974 elections.
Whether or not they bring electoral
rewards in 2008, impeachment proceedings
are the right thing to do. They will
help curb the serious abuses of this
administration, and send a strong message
to future administrations that no president
or vice president is above the law.
Former Congresswoman Elizabeth
Holtzman served on the House Judiciary
Committee during proceedings toward
Nixon’s impeachment. She coauthored the
1973 special-prosecutor statute, and
cowrote (with Cynthia L. Cooper) the
2006 book “The Impeachment of George
W. Bush.”
March 9 — Edible & Useful Plants
April 12 — Edible & Useful Plants
Page 21 ▲ The Connection Magazine ▲ www.theConnect.com ▲ March — April 2, 2008