Impeachment, inherent contempt, the universe and everything

The Smirking Chimp
by Weldon Berger

As calls for the Democratic majority in the US House of Representatives to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney are growing louder and more common, opponents of impeachment are getting louder and more impassioned on their own behalf.

At the center of the largely intramural argument is House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s pronouncement, echoed by other top Democrats — I won’t describe them as Democratic party “leaders” because the label is inappropriate in this instance — that “impeachment is off the table.”

The arguments against impeachment primarily involve apparent impracticality: impeachment would be a distraction from vital legislative initiatives, say opponents, and besides, the Senate, with its obstreperous Republican minority and a scant and divided Democratic majority, will never come up with the 67 votes needed to convict. On the pro side, the arguments are that Bush and Cheney have committed serious crimes for which the only Constitutional remedy is impeachment, that those vital legislative initiatives aren’t going anywhere so long as Bush and Cheney remain in office, and every minute they do remain in office is another minute during which they will continue to undermine the Constitution and the country. Bush and Cheney may, for instance, attack Iran, with all that that entails; a caretaker president probably wouldn’t.

Both sets of arguments contain flaws, but the ones on the anti-impeachment side are the most glaring. When a president says he has the authority to break laws, and then does so, and acknowledges openly that he has done so (see FISA), the appropriate response is impeachment whether or not conviction is assured. If a criminal threatens a crime, commits it and then confesses publicly, political considerations and the problem of a tainted jury pool shouldn’t dictate whether or not he’s even charged.

(Original Article)