Daniel Ellsberg to Headline Historic Impeachment Event in Concord
Brookline, NH – NH State Representative Betty Hall is hosting Dr. Daniel Ellsberg, Vietnam War critic, for a special event at the Capitol Center for the Arts Monday April 14 at 7pm. It was Ellsberg who released the Pentagon papers which helped end the Vietnam War. Ellsberg will be headlining a group of supporters for Betty Hall’s HR24, which, if passed in the NH House would ask the US House to begin an investigation to verify if there is sufficient cause to hold our government leaders responsible, as provided in Jefferson’s Manual, Section 603. Hall’s petition specifically cites President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. The historic vote will come to the NH House on Wednesday, April 16.
If passed, it will represent the first time that a state legislature would have invoked the special privilege to ask the US House for investigations to begin with a President and Vice-President. It does not need to be passed through the NH Senate, nor obtain the signature of NH Governor Lynch.
Hall has stated, “My failure to vote for the NH House Resolution for the Nixon Impeachment is the absolutely biggest regret of my legislative career. That is why I am so dedicated to doing this now.”
Also present will be former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who served under President Lyndon B. Johnson; Dr. Robert Bowman, who was the director of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter; John Nichols, writer for The Nation magazine and author of “The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism”; Phil Burk, businessman and impeachment scholar who is versed in the rules of law outlined in Jefferson’s Manual. Other dignitaries are rescheduling commitments to attend the historic gathering, which is open to the public.
Speakers are scheduled for a 4 pm press conference at the restored Victorian mansion, Kimball House, as well as a 5:30 pm reception with NH State Representatives who will be able to personally exchange opinions with the honored guests.
The public is invited to contact the Capitol Center for the Arts for tickets (225-1111) for the Monday April 14, 7pm event; tickets go on sale Monday, April 7. Free on street parking and free parking at the Capital Commons Garage on Storrs Street, after 5:00.
The measure may very well, and sounds like it probably will fail to gather enough votes tomorrow. That does not mean that it was without merit nor that it was impossible – only that there are not enough members of the New Hampshire legislature aware enough of the impeachable offenses of the Bush Administration and/or not enough members with the integrity to honor their oaths of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic”.
Domestic enemies to the Constitution have been infesting our White House for more than seven long years and likely will continue to hold office until January of ’09. They should have been impeached and may yet be impeached. If not, the effort to defend the Constitution, the country and the world from them was not a wasted effort and it was indeed a noble cause – one based upon integrity, not popularity – on truth rather than partisanship.
They will be vulnerable to criminal legal action once out of office. This effort to hold them accountable is far from over.
Jodin,
Your group is wrong, which will play out tomorrow. Mr. Sullivan is not familiar with NH protocols and procedures. I have never disputed that the full, elected body of the State of New Hampshire could petition the US House of Representatives. My contention has been, and will be proved correct tomorrow, that one body of the NH Legislative Branch does not have the authority to force this issue in this manner.
By putting your faith in UFO Hunter Kucinich, as well as the obviously biased members of your organization, you only further illustrate the depreciative of your cause, and your lack of understanding of the NH Constitution and the US Constitution.
You should take your own advise, and give it up. George Bush will be the President of the United States until 01-20-2009. Be prepared to watch all of your “research” fall flat on its face tomorrow.
Jeffrey: Our organization has researched this quite thoroughly. We’ve spoken to the U.S. House’s chief parliamentarian and his aide who have both told us the method is valid. We’ve also met with House Rep. Dennis Kucinich who has helped with this process. You mislead by using the term ‘Constitutional.’ The Constitution gives the impeachment power TO THE HOUSE. The House then decides the specific rules. In their rules, they’ve defined the right for a state to go through this process. Now you either need to name some actual sources for your info, or give it up.
Feeling frustrated because my elected representatives refused to “represent me,†I forwarded my research to the NH House Leadership and the Secretary of States Office. One the condition of anonymity, I received two calls from high ranking members of both offices. I know you hate unnamed sources, but due to the fact that they are Democrats, and did not want to be named, I will honor their request and not name them.
Several points were made very clear to me during both conversations:
1- That the resolution is considered without merit by the House Leadership, and is not supported by House Rules or Mason’s Rules on Parliamentary Process (the only approved processes used in NH).
2- That the Jefferson Manual has been misquoted, and that it has NO Constitutional bearing in the State of NH.
3- The resolution method that Ms. Hall is attempting does not allow for this type of action. The resolution rule that Ms. Hill is using was designed to allow each Chamber to pass fluff honorariums (name a day after someone, recognize someone’s service, acknowledge the passing of a prominent citizen, etc.). The language of the resolution even cites these examples.
4- If the resolution does pass the Secretary of State has no intention of delivering it to the US House. Additionally, if this resolution does pass, both the Democratic and Republican leadership have prepared alternative legislation to counter the illegality of the resolution.
In closing I would like to state that I have the greatest respect for Ms. Hall. I appreciate her passion and have determined that she truly believes in her cause. I may disagree with her, and believe this methodology was flawed, but Ms. Hall is committed to what she felt was right. Additionally, Ms. Hall was the only representative who bothered to e-mail me back. People in my own district ignored my request to talk, but not Ms. Hall. We can agree to disagree, but at least Ms. Hall was willing to enter into a dialogue.
KITTENS! I demand KITTENS!! I HUNGER!! DAMN YOU ALL!!
Jeffery,
Your specious arguments leave much to be desired. It is obvious that despite your claims to the contrary, your loyalty is NOT to the Constitution or you would be doing everything in your power to defend it from the comprehensive domestic threat to it being waged by CheneyBushCo through surrogates, Gonzales, Woo, Mukasey, et al.
Yes I read what you stated. You are simply wrong.
“Neither document can circumvent the US Constitution.”
Nobody is claiming that. You are the only one who seems to think this is the case. The rules of the House inclusive of ‘Jefferson’s Manual’ are voted into usage every year, not as “tradition” as you claim, but rather as the agreed upon channels through which the House conducts its day-to-day business.
“If Ms. Hall’s resolution is based on “very sound political means,†please explain to me why it has NEVER been used in the history of our country?”
We find ourselves in a unique place in our short history. The domestic threat to our nation from these criminals is greater than any other domestic threat this Democratic Republic has ever faced. Ms. Hall is simply following the unique procedures of New Hamshire by which only one branch of the state legislature can pass a resolution and get it brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. Most other states require both houses to pass such legislation. That is why the impeachment resolution in New Mexico came close but didn’t make it, for instance. It passed one house but not the other.
“And what about HR333, sitting in committee? HR333, to which neither of our sitting Representative have signed on to support! HR333, although weak in charges, has some basis in Constitutional protocol.”
HR333 has much more than “some basis in Constitutional protocol”. It was submitted to the House Judiciary, which then assigned it to the subcommittee on Civil Rights, Civil Liberties and the Constitution where it has not received enough support yet to be sent back to the full HJC with a recommendation to act. You reveal your bias here by not acknowledging these facts.
“My loyalties are with the NH Constitution and US Constitution, and nowhere else.”
Nice try. Your loyalties are otherwise exposed.
“The US Congress has NO POWER to instruct a State Legislation to conduct business in manner that is contrary to their State Constitution.”
Nobody is claiming this. You are erecting a straw man argument here. Enjoy huffing and puffing and blowing down your own construct.
The only one looking foolish is you, Sir.
“I love the fact that you can’t except [sic] that the US Constitution is the only legal authority when it comes to impeachment…”
I never said that. You are imposing your obvious bias onto my stance and putting words in my mouth of your own design. What is true is that you are not aware of the full process and many options by which impeachment can be initiated. The Constitution is the basis of our laws and the basis of the workings of our government, but there are laws and procedures that have grown out of that Constitution that extrapolate upon its original claims and statements. Case law precedent guides the legal decisions that unfold from that basis. Political procedures, such as the published Rules of the House of Representatives are also an outgrowth from the same Constitutional foundation.
“Your text is right from Code Pink (as well as others). This resolution, if passed, will hit the doors of the outer chambers of the US Congress, and Ms. Hall (as well as NH) will be the laughing stock of the country.”
Bingo! … Jeffrey Chidester shows his true colors – revealing himself to be a NeoCon agenda supporter and an opponent of Code Pink and other courageous defenders of the Constitution.
Mr. Chidester, stop playing games and start screaming “f**ing liberals!” and “moonbats!”. Your attempt to claim your only agenda is to stand up for the Constitution of the U.S, and that of New Hampshire is laughable.
As far as how I communicate to tiresome troll margaret, she has been wasting my time on here for months, showing herself to be limited to regurgitating GOP Lying Points and NeoCon thinktank bullshit as vomited onto the masses through FAUXNews and other corporate media NON-news sources. She wouldn’t know an original thought if it jumped up and bit her on her fat ass.
I am hoping you are actually capable of more than she, but I am not holding my breath.
Mikael,
You are truly drinking the Kool-Aid. I love the fact that you can’t except that the US Constitution is the only legal authority when it comes to impeachment, so you belittle people. Your text is right from Code Pink (as well as others). This resolution, if passed, will hit the doors of the outer chambers of the US Congress, and Ms. Hall (as well as NH) will be the laughing stock of the country.
Mikael,
Did you read what I stated, or just dismiss it because you don’t want the facts to get in the way of the truth (as you see it)?
Jefferson’s “A Manual of Parliamentary Practice†was approved in 1803, and the Impeachment section (53) IS VERBATIM TO THE us CONSTITUTION. As a point of policy, the House Rules and Manual is approved every new session as a matter of tradition. But once again, you are confusing two documents as one. Neither document can circumvent the US Constitution. You are relying too much on people whose motivations are corrupted.
If Ms. Hall’s resolution is based on “very sound political means,†please explain to me why it has NEVER been used in the history of our country? And what about HR333, sitting in committee? HR333, to which neither of our sitting Representative have signed on to support! HR333, although weak in charges, has some basis in Constitutional protocol.
My loyalties are with the NH Constitution and US Constitution, and nowhere else. Ms. Hall’s resolution has no merit, and your arguments are feeble. The US Congress has NO POWER to instruct a State Legislation to conduct business in manner that is contrary to their State Constitution. You need to stop letting your emotions drive your passions, sit down and careful read each of the documents, because you look foolish when you so willing show disregard for our State and Federal Constitution, because “someone†told that a “rulebook†was the answer to your prayers.
tiresome troll margaret,
Once again, I’ll attempt against my better judgement to explain something apparently beyond your capacity to comprehend.
Senate tries impeachment cases as is stipulated in the Constitution. YES! You got that single point correct. Congratulations… on to PoliSci 102.
Before that the House must decide whether or not an impeachment trial is warranted as also stipulated in the Constitution.
ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – WHICH INCLUDE JEFFERSON’S MANUAL – AS RATIFIED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE 110TH CONGRESS…
with me so far?
…THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS BY WHICH IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS CAN BE INITIATED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE ‘HOPPERING’ AN IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION BEING ONLY ONE.
Proving you conclusively ignorant of the workings of Congress and your absolute and total error on this topic, Rep. Dennis Kucinich DID NOT HOPPER a resolution resulting in successfully pressing for a vote on impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney, he utilized a “Privileged Motion” from the floor of the House.
Each state has its own rules stipulating by what means a resolution or bill can or must be brought to DC and introduced on the floor of the House of Representatives.
What Ms. Hall is doing is one of those methods – unique to her home state as only one branch of her state legislature is needed for a resolution or bill to be forwarded to the House of Representatives for consideration.
Sorry if this is so difficult for you to understand. Try disconnecting the FAUXNews hardwiring from your frontal lobe before attempting any further discussion.
You mean the House of Representatives can alter the Constitution of the United States by ratifying House Rules? Is that what you are saying Mikael?
Mr. Chidester,
Very simply put, the Jefferson’s Manual, which lists a number of different ways by which impeachment can be initiated, was ratified once again as part of the House Rules for the 110th Congress.
Ms. Hall is attempting to employ one of those very sound political means to see that impeachment is initiated. Your objection to impeachment being initiated is no justification for your attempt to negate Ms. Hall’s solidly based efforts.
Fight the effort on the merit of the case against Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush if your loyalty to them demands it, but you have no case whatsoever against this proper use of the House Rules as clarified in Jefferson’s Manual and voted into the House Rules for this session of Congress by members of the House themselves.
Ms. Morey:
There is nothing false about any of my statements, nor am I mistaken. I am extremely well educated in the matter of all historical documentations, in particular the US Constitution and “A Manual of Parliamentary Practice.†The simple fact that Ms. Hall’s resolution references the US Constitution numerous times is inference enough that she believes that it supports HR24.
First and foremost the US Constitution of the United States is the only authority as it pertains to impeachment. I challenge you, or anyone, to show me in the US Constitution where the States have any authority to initiate “Articles of Impeachment.†Secondly, Jefferson’s “A Manual of Parliamentary Practice,†was a guild meant for the members of Congress, and no one else. “A Manual of Parliamentary Practice,†section 53 (Impeachment) is verbatim of the Constitution, and makes no mention to any State Legislation having the rights to partition for impeachment. Additionally, just the mere fact the A Manual of Parliamentary Practice us words such as parliamentary, lords, house of commons, would require closer examination of its use in modern times. It is a great document, but it is not member of the “Charters of Freedom.â€
The so-called “section 603†that people are referring to was never part of Jefferson’s original text, which should make everyone very cautious. 603 (Inception of Impeachment Proceedings) is a note contained within House Rules and Manual, as a possible example of how impeachment might be initiated. But here the catch, only a duly elected US Representative can place the articles for impeachment within the “house hopper (the in-box on the House Floor).†So once again, the reasoning behind Ms. Hall’s resolution is flawed.
The fact that Ms. Hall used a “rulebook†incorrectly shows the ignorance of the methodology. Section 603 is invalid based on the mere fact that as a document with Federal roots, it tries to circumvent the sovereign rights of the States by imposing a methodology in stating that the “House Body of a State†need to do nothing more than transmit the instructions for impeachment to the US Congress. How dare a Federal entity, in violation of the US Constitution (Bill of Rights – Amendments Nine and Ten), the NH Constitution (Bill of Rights, Article Seven, as well as Parts Two –Form of Government) suggest that one part of the State government can impose its will on the entire State, and shame on us for freely participating in such recklessness.
As far as demanding accountability, that is fine, but to do so in this manner is an insult to the US Constitution, and is nothing more than political folly. I am well aware of Ms. Hall’s position, as well as yours, regarding President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. But to try and invent different ways (which are not legally binding) to remove both from office is dangerous, and makes all those that support this attempt worse than what they are accusing the President and Vice-President of doing.
You may not like what I have to say Ms. Morey, but please refrain from suggestion that I have made any false statements. You Ms. Morey show you “willful ignorance†when you chose by support Ms. Hall “reckless disregard for the law.â€
Jeffrey: You are mistaken. Ms. Hall doesn’t (as far as I’ve ever seen) say that the Constitution requires the House to follow the state initiative. What DOES require the House to follow the state initiative is the House’s OWN RULES. The specific rules I refer to are the Jefferson Manual which is included (along with the Constitution) in the House Rules and was approved by the House for use in the current 110th Congress. More details and links to the relevant pages on the House’s OWN website cand be found near the bottom half of this page:
http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html
The political means being pursued are yours, Mr. Chidester. Ms. Hall is demanding accountability and the rule of law, something this administration left behind the day they took office. I’m not sure what you’re attempting to justify by your wilful ignorance to what this administration has done to every citizen in this country by their reckless disregard for the law, and I don’t really care. What I do care about is making sure your false statements don’t corrupt the others viewing this board.
There are several factual and political misrepresentations on the part of Ms. Hall.
The Constitution of the United States does not provide for any direct input into impeachment by the states. Impeachment is the purview of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the oversight is afforded to the chief justice of the Supreme Court. The passing of HR24 does not mandate the U.S. House initiate anything. At best, it instructs our U.S. representatives as to a course of action they could take, but Ms. Shea-Porter and Mr. Hodes are under no obligations to carry the message of HR 24 onto the House floor. Anyone suggesting such a power exists is woefully misguided.
As to Ms. Hall’s resolution. From the very beginning, it is a poorly written declaration and reeks of political bias. Ms. Hall tries to legitimize HR24 by referencing a manual written by Thomas Jefferson called “A Manual of Parliamentary Practice,” in particular Section 603. Guess what, there is no 603, nor was there ever. Jefferson covered impeachment under section 53 of the manual. Section 53 affords no such impeachment recourse on the part of the states. The Manual of Parliamentary Practice was never intended to be used as a replacement to the Constitution of the United States, as Ms. Hall is attempting to do with HR24.
As to the charges listed within HR24. They are vague, or worse
The NH House must be aware that there are articles of impeachment currently sitting in committee (U.S. HR333). Do you know whose names are absent from HR333? Our very own Ms. Shea-Porter and Mr. Hodes. Why would the N.H. House ever waste time on HR 24, when there are already articles to impeach sitting in committee that our very own sitting representatives have not signed on to support?
Ms. Hall is using a flawed process for political means. There is no integrity in House Resolution 24, and its text is taken almost verbatim from the pages of MoveOn.org and Code Pink, as well as other progressive propagandists. Do not make New Hampshire look foolish. Vote NO on HR24.