Works In Progress - June 2007 - Olympia City Council rejects Bush/Cheney impeachment

The Olympia City Council's General Government Committee voted 2 -- 1 not to endorse the resolution calling on Congress to begin an impeachment investigation of Bush and Cheney. Jeff Kingsbury and Joe Hyer voted against the resolution; T.J. Johnson voted in support.

Prior to that meeting, Hyer sent an email dated April 24 to all the members of the City Council. "I have researched and thought on this issue for several months, in addition to speaking with community members and local elected officials," he wrote. "In addition, I met specifically with Congressman Baird in Washington DC last week, and with Congressman Smith's staff, on this specific issue."

Much of what he wrote came from the familiar Pelosi script -- it's a lost cause, it's divisive, it will take two years and cost $50 million, will generate a backlash, distract from the Democrat's agenda, it will be seen as political, Bush is a lame duck so why bother, etc, etc. These reasons do not stand up to scrutiny and the memo should not go without comment.

Among the arguments against impeachment, Hyer tossed out this one:

"This plays into the President's hand. If Congress says, Sir -- you violated habeas corpus, did illegal wiretaps, and undermined the Separation of Powers...then the President says, 'Yes I did, and I would do it again and again if it means keeping Americans safe from terrorists. There is a higher law of the land, and protecting American citizens from attacks like 9/11 is primary concern...and if Congress has laws that run contrary to this, I will do the right thing every time -- and protect our people.' While I disagree with this statement, it will be made, and many in this country will buy the argument. Why give him the advantage of defending these actions?"

The whole point of impeachment is to answer this essential question: Does the President have the power to ignore laws when he deems it necessary? Those of us who support impeachment believe that Presidents do not have this power. A President is expected to work within the constraints of limited and divided powers, where the three branches provide checks and balances against tyranny. There is no higher law of the land than the Constitution.

If Congress does not stand up and affirm the Constitution by telling the President he does not have the power to violate our law, then we will move closer to a Unitary Executive form of government rather than a government with three co-equal branches.

Hyer also objected to specific statements in the resolution. For example, he objected to the resolution's statement that Bush and Cheney conspired to intentionally mislead Congress and the public to justify the Iraq war. "While one might be able to prove conspiracy, it is nearly impossible to prove 'intention'...often, the only way to prove intent is for an admission by those intending -- and that's most likely not going to occur," Hyer wrote.

I think, however, that most people will say it was "intentional" when the President and Vice President chose to continue to use information that experts told them was false. Some might even say it is the definition of lying. Experts told the President and Vice President before March 2003 that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq had no nuclear capability, nor were they seeking to obtain material capable of making a nuclear weapon, that Iraq was not involved in 9/11, and that there were no ties between Saddam and Al Quada.

Hyer also claimed that the signing statements are not an issue. "Signing statements, while not widely used previous to this President, did exist before," he wrote. "To say they are illegal/unconstitutional only now (based on their use by a specific president), seems more of a political argument than a legal one."

It is true that other Presidents have used signing statements and Congress did not object. It started innocently enough, as slippery slopes often do. Initially, they were used to make the law's intent clear. It is also true that Clinton's lawyers believed that a President could refuse to implement a law he believed was unconstitutional, although that was never tested by the Courts.

No President, however, has issued as many signing statements as Bush, which number over 1,000, to various provisions of laws. In many, he expresses the Unitary Executive doctrine. For example, the President issued a signing statement proclaiming he had the right to determine whether torture will be used. In another, he stated that he would decide what information a Federal agency could release to Congress.

Hyer's argument here is a perfect example of how precedents work: because other Presidents have used signing statements, every President can use them. To object, he implied, is "political."

It is now clear that signing statements are a danger to our form of government. It is hard to take back power but it is possible. Congress must assert that signing statements are, and always have been, unconstitutional.

Another interesting point raised here centers on what is political. Hyer implies that holding the President accountable is political and therefore bad. However, saying that the President should not be brought up on impeachment charges is just as political as saying he should. All actions in a political body are by definition political. Politicians who don't want to be political should choose another line of work.

Although Hyer makes the precedent argument for allowing Bush to use signing statements, he then goes on to dismiss the idea that a precedent will be established if the Congress does not impeach Bush for violating laws and eroding the Bill of Rights. "Not everyone is held accountable for speeding in Washington State -- but that does not give all drivers the authority to speed via 'precedent'," he stated. "If we simply want to avoid precedent, Congressional action to void signing statements (or not allow them by law) could be employed. Clarification of the War Powers Act, National Security Act, and others could easily avoid this being a precedent. Lastly, it seems odd that a bad example becomes a precedent, when the vast majority of citizens see it as an example we don't want to see again. Most citizens, I assume, are thinking 'we don't want this to happen again' -- that in and of itself cancels out the 'precedent'."

Without impeachment, every President who follows Bush will claim the power to make decisions that send our troops to invade and occupy other countries, the right to decide who will be tortured, the right to spy on anyone for any reason without a warrant, and the right to arrest and detain anyone without due process. To object, they will say, is merely "political."

How does Hyer think citizens could cancel out a "precedent"? Do they just call up the President to say that signing statements are a bad idea and he should stop -- or invading and occupying another country is a bad idea and shouldn't be done again? It does not work this way. They have to rely on their elected representatives to stand up to "bad ideas" and hold presidents accountable.

The suggestion that Congress can fix this problem by passing more laws that say "unconstitutional actions are illegal" is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Unless the Congress is willing to hold the president and vice president accountable, it really does not matter how many laws they pass. The laws only have force and effect if Congress is willing to hold the president and vice president accountable when they violate them. And the only way to do that is through impeachment.

It is a sad day for democracy when elected officials are willing to let the Constitution be dismantled -- and allow the rights of the people to be disappeared -- because they lack the courage to be political and do the right thing.

Gail Johnson is a member of the Citizens' Movement to Impeach Bush/Cheney. Email: impeachbush@riseup.net; http://www.citizensimpeach.org