Repudiation, Not Impeachment
By Scott Ritter
Truthdig
Thursday 31 May 2007
It is a question I am faced with at every public event I
participate in: What are my views on the impeachment of President Bush
and others in his administration? Generally, the question is preceded by
an emotional statement listing the "crimes" which Mr. Bush is accused of
committing, and the questioner has already found him guilty. Whether it
is the war in Iraq, conspiracy theories about 9/11, Hurricane Katrina,
or any given variation of the theme of constitutional abuse of power,
the one thing all of the questioners have in common (besides the
desirable outcome) is their singular conviction that the president is
guilty.
I have considerable sympathy for this stance. I myself have
stated on more than one occasion that I believe President Bush has lied
to Congress and the American people about the reasons for going to war
with Iraq (i.e., the whole WMD/al-Qaida intelligence
fabrication/misrepresentation fiasco). I also believe that the
president's sanctioning of warrantless wire-tapping, along with a litany
of other abuses of power stemming from the Patriot Act approved by
Congress after Sept. 11, 2001, likewise constitutes grounds for
impeachment. Several Democrats in Congress are actually discussing the
possibility of impeachment of President Bush and the irrepressible
Congressmen Dennis Kucinich has actually introduced articles of
impeachment for Vice President ***** Cheney.
Even some Republicans are getting on board the impeachment
bandwagon, although with caveats. "Any president who says 'I don't care'
or 'I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying
about Iraq or anything else' or 'I don't care what the Congress does, I
am going to proceed' - if a president really believes that, then there
are ... ways to deal with that," Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican from
Nebraska, said of President Bush in obvious reference to impeachment.
Hagel is correct: Impeachment is the constitutional remedy for a
unilateral president whose governance is an insult to traditional
American democratic norms and values. However, impeachment alone is
simply a measure which addresses the symptoms of a larger malaise that
has stricken America. The arrogance associated with the concept of the
unitary executive is prevalent throughout mainstream American political
life. The passivity of the legislative branch is one byproduct of the
dominance of the unitary executive. It is also an indicator that the
will of the people, as expressed through their election of the people's
representatives to the Congress of the United States, no longer has the
weight and bearing long associated with the American democratic
experience.
Any effort to impeach Bush and any of his administration found
to be engaged in activities classifiable as "high crimes and
misdemeanors" would fail to rein in the unitary executive core of any
successor. One only has to listen to the rhetoric of the Democratic
candidates for president to understand that this trend is as deeply
rooted among them as it is with President Bush. Americans today look for
leaders without recognizing the absolute necessity of electing team
players. The Founding Fathers deliberately designed the executive branch
to be strong and independent, but also made sure, through an elaborate
system of checks and balances, that it operated merely as one of three
separate but equal branches of government.
The "in your face" efforts of the Bush administration to
minimize the role of Congress and to achieve political control of the
judiciary are simply more public manifestations of trends that occurred
in a more quiet fashion in past administrations, Republican and
Democratic alike. When America elects a leader who states clearly that
he or she will work with their equal partners in governance, the
Congress, for the good of the country, and who will acknowledge the
supremacy of law set forth in the form of binding legislation passed by
the will of Congress void of any limiting or contradicting "presidential
signing statement," then we will finally have a leader who is truly
worthy of the title "President of the United States of America."
But this will not happen of its own volition. The impeachment of
President Bush would not in and of itself terminate executive
unilateralism. It would only limit its implementation on the most
visible periphery, driving its destructive designs back into the shadows
of government, away from the public eye, and as such, public
accountability. Impeach President Bush, yes, if in fact he can be
charged with the commission of acts which meet the constitutional
standard for impeachment (and I believe he could, if Congress only had
the will to do its job). But to truly heal America, we must repudiate
everything President Bush stands for, in terms of not only public and
foreign policy, but also in terms of his style of governance, since the
former is derived from the latter.
Repudiation is a strong term, defined as "rejecting as having no
authority or binding force," to "cast off or disown," or to "reject with
disapproval or condemnation." In my opinion, the complete repudiation of
the presidency of George W. Bush is the only recourse we have
collectively as a people to not only seek redress for the wrongs
committed by the Bush administration, but also to purge society of this
cancer that threatens to consume and destroy us as a whole, and which
would continue to manifest itself in our system of governance even after
any impeachment proceedings.
Like any cancerous growth, the Bush administration has attached
its malignancy to the American nation in a cruel fashion, its poisonous
tentacles stretching deep into our national fabric in a manner that
makes difficult the task of culling out the healthy from the diseased.
But we cannot truly repudiate something without its complete and utter
elimination from our midst. As such, there must be a litmus test to help
us differentiate the good from the bad, that which must be restored from
that which must be eliminated. For me, there is only one true test: that
of constitutionality. There will be those who argue, and have argued,
that the time is well past for an oppressed people (and one would be a
fool not to comprehend that under the Bush administration, the American
people have in fact been oppressed) to rely on the niceties of legal
argument, especially when the system of law we seek to use in our
defense has been so thoroughly corrupted by those who seek to impose
tyranny.
I was recently in Ireland, where I delivered a presentation on
the current situation in the Middle East. In criticizing the Bush
administration's policies, I launched into a staunch defense of the
Constitution of the United States and decried what I believed to be the
inadequacies of Congress and the American people in defending their
constitutional inheritance. Afterward, I was confronted by an Irishman
who challenged me on the validity of our Constitution. As he pointed
out, none other than President Thomas Jefferson himself, the author of
the Declaration of Independence and a proponent of constitutional law,
is famously quoted as saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its
natural manure." If, as I maintained, the Bush administration was
deviating so far off course from the ideals and values set forth in the
Constitution, was it not time for a new American Revolution to "refresh"
liberty with "the blood of patriots and tyrants?"
There can be no doubt that Jefferson was a promoter of
resistance to the forces of tyranny. It was he who, after all, who
penned the famous words proclaiming the need for American independence
from the tyranny of British rule: "That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
....when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security."
If faced with a situation today in which the American people
felt that our current form of government sought to imprison them "under
absolute Despotism," would we not be obligated to apply "natural manure"
in an effort to refresh the "tree of liberty?"
Short of a complete and total abdication on the part of the
Congress, the collapse of the judiciary system, and a shocking decision
by those men and women who wear the uniform of the armed forces of the
United States to lend force of arms to the will of a dictatorial
president, I cannot ever envision a time in which conditions in these
United States could deteriorate to the point that a violent revolution
"of the people and by the people" would be required to restore
constitutional legitimacy and authority. Having said that, I remind the
reader that with so few Americans professing any working understanding
of the Constitution, it is difficult to speak of people defending that
which they remain ignorant of.
While I reject violence as a means of redressing social wrongs,
especially when applied to issues of governance, and instead rely on the
rule of law as manifested by the Constitution and those legitimate
bodies empowered by the Constitution to remedy every situation, I cannot
help but fear the moment when the foundation of legitimacy which defines
who we are and what we are as a nation fades away into irrelevance
amidst a sea of complacency and ignorance. There is no greater breeding
ground for the forces of tyranny than the surrender of civic
responsibility on the part of those entrusted with the defense of
liberty. And in this I do not mean the Congress of the United States,
but rather the people of the United States, the duly elected
representatives of whom constitute the Congress.
I fear not the bloody rebellion of an outraged citizenry, but
rather the passive submission of a shameful mass which betrays the cause
of liberty and freedom through the abandonment of the Constitution, and
the obligations of citizenship derived thereof, in favor of the narcotic
of consumerism. Such a mass, foreswearing blind obedience to those who
profess how to best construct a cocoon that immerses the occupant in
transitory comfort, is the most pressing problem facing America today.
In a nation whose defining document begins, "We the People," I find that
it is we the people who constitute the greatest threat to the future of
America. It is not through the force of our actions, but rather the
vacuum created by our inaction and apathy, a vacuum all too readily
filled by those who would have us exchange our hard-fought freedoms for
a gilded cage of market-driven consumerism.
This is the main reason why I am not a proponent of the 'impeach
now' mentality so prevalent in political circles that oppose George W.
Bush. The expediency of impeachment simply replaces one source of
tyranny (President Bush) with another (whomever replaces him). It is not
the failures of an individual that have gotten us to where we are today,
but rather the failure of the collective. So before we speak of
impeachment and the notion of executive accountability, I would like to
address the issue of repudiation and the necessity of civic
responsibility.
Whatever field I endeavored to participate in, - whether as a
football player in college, an officer in the Marines or a firefighter
today, - whenever the going got tough, it was always pounded into my
head to fall back on "the basics." That is to say, a foundation of norms
from which everything else was derived. By adhering to these "basics," I
and others were able to navigate whatever treacherous course we were
attempting, more often than not with success. As such, in formulating a
coherent response to the challenge put to me by the Irishman concerning
the need to "fertilize the tree of liberty," I find myself falling back
on the "basics" of citizenship, to seek out the fundamentals of
individual responsibility in the American democratic experiment. And
there is no better source for these fundamentals than the most strident
defender of the individual American - Thomas Jefferson himself.
Jefferson was in France during the drafting of the Constitution,
and did not play a direct role in negotiating its content. But such was
his heft as a founder of America that his opinion was sought by many of
those who were so engaged. One of these critical players, James Madison
(who later became the fourth President of the United States, following
Jefferson), wrote a letter to Jefferson shortly after the Constitutional
Convention finished its work in September 1787, and prior to
ratification, interpreting critical aspects of the Constitution. I view
Madison's words to be worthy of consideration when addressing the issue
of citizenship and responsibility.
"In the American Constitution," he wrote on Oct. 24, 1787, "the
general authority will be derived entirely from the subordinate
authorities. The Senate will represent the States in their political
capacity; the other House will represent the people of the States in
their individual capacity. The former will be accountable to their
constituents at moderate, the latter at short periods. The President
also derives his appointment from the States, and is periodically
accountable to them. This dependence of the General on the local
authorities seems effectually to guard the latter against any dangerous
encroachments of the former; whilst the latter, within their respective
limits, will be continually sensible of the abridgement of their power,
and be stimulated by ambition to resume the surrendered portion of it."
In short, Madison underscored the fundamental role of the people
in the chain of accountability, and the necessity of their informed
involvement if the system of American constitutional governance was to
work. A breakdown on the part of the "general authority" would lead to
chaos and anarchy. Likewise, the failure of the "subordinate authority,"
inclusive of the people, to hold the "general authority" in check would
facilitate the slide toward tyranny and oppression.
Jefferson himself, before the convening of the Constitutional
Convention, had long reflected on the issues of constitutional
government. Just as Jefferson's rendering of the Declaration of
Independence drew from his earlier work, "A Summary View of the Rights
of British America," so, too, were his views on the American
Constitution drawn from his earlier writings on issues pertaining to the
Constitution of Virginia, which are contained in a collection of work
dating from 1781-82 known as "Notes on Virginia." The purpose of a
Constitution, Jefferson wrote, was " ... to bind up the several branches
of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts
shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people,
or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on
the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention
to surrender those rights."
Here Jefferson himself answers the question of the need to
"fertilize" the "tree of liberty" with the blood of rebellion: It is not
required, nor desired, so long as a system of rule by law (i.e., a
Constitution) is present and adhered to. The importance of a
Constitution in preserving the character of a nation through perpetuity
was paramount in Jefferson's view. "It is true," he argued in his "Notes
on Virginia," that "we are as yet secured against tyrannical laws by the
spirit of the times. ... But is the spirit of the people an infallible,
a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection
we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of
the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our
people careless."
Today one only needs to observe the corruption of our rulers and
the carelessness of our people to understand the significance of the
Constitution when it comes to preserving these United States of America.
The nefarious nature of the Bush cancer is that, in its infection of the
American system, it seeks to draw legitimacy for its tyrannical actions
by citing the very same Constitution it seeks to destroy. The promoters
of this point of view cite the academic term "Unitary Executive Theory"
when defining their philosophy. To me, it is nothing less than treason.
The Founding Fathers, in discussing the concept of a "unitary
executive," made use of the term in a manner reflective of their desire
to restrain executive power, versus the extreme interpretation embraced
by counsels to President Bush and Vice President Cheney who seek to
expand executive power and authority to near dictatorial levels,
especially during a time of war. The tendency on the part of President
Bush to obviate the role of Congress is well documented, in matters
pertaining to governance in times of peace as well as war. The
unprecedented number of presidential signing statements issued by Bush
speaks volumes to this trend. These signing statements, historically a
device used by executives to protect presidential prerogative when it
comes to how a bill might be interpreted in a court of law, have been
used by the Bush administration to negate the legal impact of a given
piece of legislation by clearly stating the intent of the president to
act in a manner inconsistent with the letter of the law. That the
president believes he has a right to conduct himself in this manner is
the height of hubris; that Congress continues to facilitate this
behavior unchallenged represents the depth of legislative depravity.
It would be interesting to have a national debate on the concept
of a "unitary executive," where the proponents would cite the "vesting
clause" (Article II, Section 1) of the Constitution, which states, "The
executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America." The advocates of a "unitary executive" combine the "vesting
clause" with Article II, Section 3, Clause 4, the "take care" clause,
which states that the president must "take care that the laws be
faithfully executed" to make a case for a seamless hierarchy of power
solely vested in the executive. Stephen Calabrisi and Kevin Rhodes
staked out this argument in their 1992 article, "The Structural
Constitution: Unitary Executive, Plural Judiciary," in the Harvard Law
Review (Issue 105, 1992). The foundation of their argument is drawn from
a backwards reading of the Constitution, which addresses the issue of
"Mandatory Jurisdiction" as set forth in the "vesting clause" not of the
executive, but rather the judiciary, in Article III of the Constitution.
By establishing a link between the exclusive authority of the
courts derived from the "vesting clause" of Article III, Calabrisi and
Rhodes argue that a similar exclusive authority, this time for the
executive, is derived from the "vesting clause" of Article II.
Of course, the Constitution was not written from back to front,
and should neither be read nor interpreted from back to front. Missing
from the entire dynamic of the underlying theory of the proponents of a
"unitary executive" is the pressing reality of the Constitution itself,
in particular the "vesting clause" of Article I, Section 1, which states
that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House
of Representatives."
Likewise, Calabrisi and Rhodes ignore Article I, Section 8,
which enumerates the powers of Congress, and Article I, Section 8,
Clause 18 (the "necessary and proper" clause), which states that
Congress shall have all the power "[t]o make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
The "necessary and proper" clause gained preeminence with the
landmark case of "McCulloch v. Maryland," decided by the Supreme Court
in 1819. The decision by Chief Justice Marshall clearly established the
principle that that the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers
for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a
functional national government. Marshall noted that the "necessary and
proper" clause "purport[s] to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested
in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a
restriction on those already granted." Marshall went on:
This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated
powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to
it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all
those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending
before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now
universally admitted.
That Chief Justice Marshall was speaking about the Congress of
the United States when addressing the issue of the expansion of
enumerated power should not be missed by those who seek to invalidate
the theory and practice of a "unitary executive."
The sad fact is, however, there are far too few Americans who
are equipped and/or prepared to engage in a constitutional discussion,
not to mention one of this magnitude. Having failed to read and
comprehend this vital cornerstone of America, they are poorly positioned
to come to its defense in this, the Constitution's time of need. You
cannot defend that which you remain ignorant of. Thomas Jefferson, in an
1802 letter to his friend and confidant, Joseph Priestly, noted that,
"Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or
delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may
again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the
principles of their political creed." Thus, an American people ignorant
of their Constitution remain a people collectively void of principle or
creed. Given that state of affairs that is the American body politic
today, this is a harsh yet far too accurate indictment of the state of
American citizenship.
Those who espouse the nobility of patriotism by extolling
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which addresses the issue of
impeachment of the president and vice president, are all too mute about
the remainder of that great document. Whether this silence is derived
from negligence or ignorance, or a combination thereof, is not the
point. What lies at the heart of this issue is that void of a solid
foundation of "creed," as Thomas Jefferson put it, to fall back on in
times of constitutional crisis derived from the abuse of power and
authority. The American people have only a bottomless pit as their
support, and this is no support at all. Impeach President Bush? Maybe,
if due process dictates. Repudiate President Bush? Absolutely,
especially if one aspires for an America that truly matches the visions
and ideals set forth by the Founding Fathers.
Repudiate the notion of a "unitary executive."
Repudiate presidential signing statements.
Repudiate executive violation of Article 6 of the Constitution,
which binds municipal law in America with binding treaty obligations
incurred when the Senate ratifies a treaty or agreement by a two-thirds
majority or better.
Repudiate "faith-based initiatives" pushed by any branch of
government.
Repudiate a weak Congress.
Repudiate weak senators or representatives, especially those
with a track record of abrogating their constitutional mandate.
Repudiate ignorance, especially that of the American citizen who
knows little or nothing about the Constitution which empowers him or her.
Repudiate consumerism, especially the virulent form it takes in
the selfish framework of American-centric capitalism.
Repudiate pre-emptive wars of aggression.
Repudiate American Empire.
Instead, embrace the empowerment of education. Embrace active
citizenship. Embrace the rule of law, as set forth by the Constitution.
Do all of this and, in the end, if conditions and circumstance warrant,
impeach President Bush and any of those in his administration so
deserving.
Thomas Jefferson was prescient in his musings to another
confidant, Moses Robinson, in 1801 when he wrote, "I sincerely wish ...
we could see our government so secured as to depend less on the
character of the person in whose hands it is trusted. Bad men will
sometimes get in and with such an immense patronage may make great
progress in corrupting the public mind and principles. This is a subject
with which wisdom and patriotism should be occupied."
That wise American patriots would be so occupied today is my
wish and dream.
----------
Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984
to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to
1998. He is the author of numerous books, and his latest is Waging
Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement (Nation Books, April
2007).
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored
by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers
and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating
pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions
posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking
the "Go to Original" links.
TruthOut.org
--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
All problems look like nails.
.
|
