thank you. :)

i'm not sure how i feel about having the independent (frohnmeyer) driving the terms of discussion and debate during the primary candidate. i've got mixed feelings about this announcement of novick's. i believe he lays his case out well and has his facts and research in order, but i'm not convinced starting up an impeachment investigation at this time is the best course of action (as has been discussed at length & ad nauseum in these very pages.)

i dunno. it will be interesting to see how this affects the race. will merkley be compelled to also issue a strong statement now?

We did not impeach Nixon and look what happened - it begat the Cheney, Rummy and PNAC of today. One hell of a mess.

This time let's take out the weed by the roots and impeach or otherwise bring to justice all responsible for breaking our laws.

It's interesting that candidates are talking about this, but really, they can take any position they want, because it's a non-issue as far as they're concerned. None of these guys will actually have to do anything about impeachment once in office; Bush will be a couple of weeks from the end of his term when the next Congress is sworn in.

Now, if somebody challenging a House incumbent in the primary were to make it an issue, that might make a difference: forcing a sitting Democrat to go on record for or against impeachment really could make a difference in securing nomination in his/her district.

Although I do not support initiating impeachment proceedings for a host of reasons, I appreciate Steve's rigorous (and even eloquent) argument. Steve himself obviously wrote this statement, which easily ranks as the most thorough white paper yet proffered by any of Smith's challengers.

I also expect high-quality analysis from John Frohnmayer, an equally distinguished lawyer. I like and respect John, but even he must recognize that he has yet to support his impeachment argument. I trust that John will remedy this deficiency soon.

In contrast to Steve's statement, John currently provides only a 96-second video that contains a factual error (1,100 signing statements) while summarizing his questionable argument that Congress should impeach and remove the President because he issued statements while signing bills. As an expert in the First Amendment, John presumably knows that the President can say anything he wants when signing bills. If, however, a person with standing wants to challenge an action or omission by the President with respect to his constitutional duties, the judiciary is the proper venue. Unless, of course, you don't buy into Marbury v. Madison.

Well, OK. Very principled. The practical implementation leaves me a little confused, though.

I'm assuming Alan Greenspan's comments have been widely read, as well as Cheney's talk to executives, in the late 90s about US strategic interests vis a vis oil.

It is US policy to secure oil reserves in the region, which plans call for an invasion of Iran before the end of the term. The Dems just won a clear referendum in the mid-terms regarding the direction voters would like to see policy take. There has been no practical effect on the current actions, and now we are seeing that there has only been about a 6-9 month delay in invading Iran.

Bottom line: Cheney is largely the resident architect of this policy. Why do you want him to be President? If the Dems eventually take over, what have they demonstrated they can/would actually do?

There's a well formulated US policy that you cannot affect or control. That we have lost control is the problem. Shrub is the flack guy. I have to feel that calling for impeachment is a diversion of obviously limited resources away from addressing the problem.

If an obnoxious organ grinder keeps harassing you, beating up on the monkey will not change the conditions that cause obnoxious organ grinders to plague the streets.

It's also more divisive talk/shout. The reality is that half of your fellow citizens voted for the monkey on the principle that the organ grinder would never run for office. There's a slight gulf between your principles.

Positive note: no knee-jerk "hang-em high" reaction from the blogosphere!

It's (impeachment talk) also more divisive talk/shout.

By this logic, the Las Vegas DA should let O. J. Simpson go because there is some controversy about his arrest with people arguing that he has been arrested because of his race and notoriety.

How can you call for impeachment but say that you have no judgment on the matter? Seriously you don't say you should start impeaching someone if you don't think they are guilty. That sounds like prejudgment to me.

Secondly, if you impeach Bush and Cheney, Pelosi (Robert Byrd is after Pelosi) becomes President in what seems like the most illegitimate power grab in American history. If you want a constitutional crisis imagine the last two presidents getting impeached and the opposition has a precedent for removing an elected President (well at least the second time) if they win a mid term.

And thats if its successful. Otherwise if you don't get the votes in the Senate (which is the more realistic scenario) you'll tie up the government and piss enough people off that like the GOP in 1998 we experience major backlash and loose the White House nationally and the US Senate race in Oregon.

Again this shows Novick's inexperience having never served in a legislative body. Novick doesn't understand how rhetoric interacts with the real world and how to make a difference. He would be a poor US Senator because he would be marginalized and useless.

It is about accountability. Taking accountability off the table in the interest of political expediency is short sighted.

If President Clinton would have demanded it with the first Bush on Iran/contra. [Please see MY LIFE p.457 where President Clinton decided to let him (BUSH) "retire in peace, leaving that matter between him and his conscience."] these bastards would not have been recycled in BUSH 2.

Imagine how much better things would be today if we had accountability back then!

previously called "questionable".

Is this the "neutral voice" of BlueOregon speaking or a Merkley.bot? Hard to tell since Kari "fixed the glitch."

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 11:04:04 AM p.s. The Google Reader thing was a glitch. It's now fixed. The "author" of the posts should read as "BlueOregon.com" - not any one individual.

<hr/>

P.S. Someone ought to tell (reputed Novick supporter and) Blue0 co-editor Charlie Burr...

Charlie Burr writes on Aug 29th, 2007 10:21am The "in the news" pieces are meant to be neutral, or neutral from a progressive voice, but they're actually not totally anonymous. If you click on the RSS feed button on the upper right side of the Blue Oregon home page, you can see who penned what, even as it's listed as "elsewhere" or "in the news".

Impeaching Bush and Cheney also gives Senate Republicans a chance to express their displeasure (if indeed they are displeased) with the administration by splitting the difference: removing Cheney from office and keeping Bush.

My guess is that Cheney resigns if it actually comes to a Senate trial.

Long-term, I don't think it's important that the Senate actually removes both of these guys from office, as nice as that would be. The more important precedent is that Congress actually attempts to reign in an administration for abuse of power, and to establish that certain types of acts, even if not "criminal," are the sort of "high misdemeanors" that constitute impeachable offenses.

By ignoring the massive power-grabs of this adminstration, Congress invites future Presidents to do the same thing, while simultaneously abdicating more of its own power to the executive branch.

I'm happy to report the press did take notice: Associated Press Register Guard Oregonian I also heard from supporters it was on OPB tonight.

I heard about Steve Novick's impeachment announcement on KPOJ as well. It seems to me that Merkley has an unfair advantage on Blue0 when it comes to scouring the media for "in the news" stories. Given the tasty hotlinks above, had the candidate been Merkley, Mandate's men would have rushed a "news roundup" post and linked it the new, old standby "BeaverBoundary."

Novick is not a serious candidate for U.S. Senate. He will be trounced in the primary.

And apparently "JIM" feels so strongly about this that he chooses to hide behind a veil of anonymity to say it. A real profile in courage, Jim.

The statement was a response to independent candidate John Frohnmayer's call for Bush's call for impeachment, which Novick had previously called "questionable".

I think what's questionable here is whether BlueOregon's Nick Wirth (or whomever crafted that introduction) is professional enough to rise above his bias for Merkley and treat Novick fairly.

HOO-RAH! John Frohnmayer, now Steve Novick.

Will Gordon Smith tumble to endorsing Impeachment, before our Oregon Representaives in the House?

Time is a wasting!!!

But, there is still time to impeach and remove the President and Vice President by July 2, 2008, five years after Marine Corporal Travis Bradach-Nall lost his life to a cluster bomb in Karbala and George Bush arrogantly proclaimed, "Bring Them On!"

Now, Oregon's Democrats in the House of Representatives should jointly sponsor and drop in the hopper comprehensive "Oregon Articles of Impeachment" of George Bush and Richard Cheney. Two weeks agon I provided the following draft to them, to assist their best legislative scrivners:

             ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

To initiate Impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush, President of the United States Richard Cheney, Vice President of the United States and all civil officers of the United States government who materially participated in the Constitutional offenses listed below.

1. WHEREAS, Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution, states that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.”

2. WHEREAS, The United Nations Charter, a treaty obligation of the United States, requires that all member states “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

3. WHEREAS, The Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles, a treaty obligation of the United States, declares that “To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime.”

4. WHEREAS, Evidence clearly indicates that the Bush Administration manipulated intelligence and conspired to defraud the United States government by providing false testimony to the public and Congress in violation of federal law, whether deliberate or through lack of due diligence, to fraudulently obtain from Congress a War Powers Resolution and lead the nation into an illegal war against another sovereign state without U.N. approval, resulting in the deaths of many tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens and causing the United States to incur loss of life, diminished security and billions of wasted taxpayer dollars.

5. WHEREAS, The above action violated international agreements and treaties, including Article 24 of the United Nations Charter of 1945, the Nuremberg Charter (1945) and Principles (1950), and the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, all of which prohibit aggressive war and to all of which the United States is a signatory, making these pacts and treaties the Supreme Law of the Land and their violation a high crime under the United States Constitution.

6. WHEREAS, As Commander-in Chief in the prosecution of this war, the President and his deputies have permitted use of prohibited and indiscriminate weapons causing many tens of thousands of civilian casualties (cluster bombs, depleted uranium, MK77 (napalm), fuel-air explosives, and white phosphorous, which violate the United Nations Charter, The Hague Rules on Land and Air Warfare, the Genocide Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles, to all of which the United States is a signatory, making their violation a high crime under the United States Constitution.

7. WHEREAS, As Commander-in Chief in the prosecution of this war, the President and his deputies have encouraged or permitted widespread torture and humiliation of prisoners, both directly and through “extraordinary rendition” to foreign “black sites” in violation of the U. S. War Crimes Act of 1996, the Anti-Torture Statute, The Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and The Convention against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, to all of which the United States is a signatory, making their violation a high crime under the United States Constitution.

8. WHEREAS, The Bush Administration has held American citizens and citizens of other nations as prisoners of war without charge or trial, in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution that guarantee indictment, due process of law if deprived of liberty, a speedy and public trial, opportunity to confront witnesses, and provision of legal counsel. These are impermissible abuses of power and high crimes that threaten our constitutional rule of law.

9. WHEREAS, President Bush has publicly admitted to authorization of wiretaps and other electronic surveillance without court authorization, in violation of the 1978 FISA law and the Federal Wiretap Act. In addition, the NSA domestic database program violates the Communications Act and the Stored Communications Act, which prohibits disclosure of phone records to third parties or the government. These actions violate the Fourth Amendment Constitutional right of American citizens “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and constitute high crimes threatening our constitutional rule of law.

10. WHEREAS, President Bush has subverted the Constitutional separation of powers by failing to seek or obtain congressional consent for (1) withdrawal from international treaty obligations, (2) reversal by executive orders of statutory laws enacted by Congress, (3) arbitrary revisions of, or declared intent to disregard, over 750 statutory laws enacted by Congress by “interpretive signing statements,” (3) evasion of U.S. courts and due process protections for suspects accused of terrorism, and (4) instructing subordinates to refuse compliance with congressional subpoenas.

11. WHEREAS, The Bush administration has obstructed justice and conspired to commit treason by: (1) active involvement in disclosing the identity of a covert CIA agent in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, thereby damaging national security by compromising the lives, safety, and operational capacity of covert agents and damaging ability to recruit human intelligence assets worldwide; and (2) providing false testimony and withholding information about this crime in interviews with federal investigators.

12. WHEREAS, The Bush administration failed to protect and defend the people of the United States by ignoring and failing to act upon multiple warnings from the preceding administration and numerous federal and international agencies that anticipated the 9/11 attacks; subsequent lying about the existence of these warnings; and Contempt of Congress and obstruction of justice by attempting to prevent formation of, and then withholding evidence from, the 9/11 Commission and its legally empowered investigation.

13. WHEREAS, The Bush administration failed to protect the people of the United States by politically motivated appointments of unqualified federal agency heads, including FEMA Director Michael Brown, failing to act upon explicit advance predictions of the likely destruction from Hurricane Katrina resulting in the death of over 1,300 American citizens, and lying to the people about this advance knowledge.

    NOW, THEREFORE, George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, or any other civil officer of the United States government responsible for the above-stated offenses should be impeached, tried in the Senate, found guilty of the charges contained herein, removed from office as required by Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution and disqualified to hold any other office in the United States.

...but i'm not convinced starting up an impeachment investigation at this time is the best course of action (as has been discussed at length & ad nauseum in these very pages.

The best time to take action on any problem - impeachment, health, anti-social behavior in children, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc. - is the moment there is reason to believe a problem exists. Making excuses to avoid taking action allows the problem to fester, become chronic and possibly be fatal.

How many lives have been sacrificed in vain, how many people have been maimed physically and psychologically, how many Iraqis have become refugees, how many billions of dollars have been poured into black holes in Iraq and income columns on war profiteers' balance sheets since it became apparent that the Bush/Cheney war machine and its enablers lied to get this nation into this illegal war and crime against humanity?

Here we go again.

Just as the far right in the Republican party stampeded more reasonable voices on an issue such as immigration, the far left in the Democratic party is stampeding the mainstream on the issue of impeaching an already discredited President, held at bay by a hostile Congress, who will be out on his butt in l6 months now anyway.

But let's look at the actual substance of Novick's reasons for impeachment.

First, the Iraq stuff. Did the Bush Administration play fast and loose with the facts to justify the war? Of course - any sensible person has known that for a long time now, some even as the distortions were first being aired. But impeachment is reserved for "high crimes and misdemeanors." It is a "high crime or misdemeanor" to twist and manipulate information to fit a political argument? If so, then we should be instituting impeachment proceedings against most of the members of Congress while we are at it. Such activities are well within the mainstream of political activity in this country, and to suddenly express outrage at Bush's conduct on Iraq is, to say the least, hypocritical by his opponents.

As for the wiretapping and FISA violations - the Bush administration made a legal argument as to why it was in compliance with the law. The solution for this claim lies with a judgment in the Courts as to whether the Bush Administration is correct or not (I don't think they are). If Bush defies a court judgment, then it's time to look at impeachment on this issue.

If Novick has let himself be stampeded on this issue, he's just gone a few notches down in my estimation.

Bill Bodden: You say that the war in Iraq is "illegal and a crime against humanity."

The Bush Administration received a vote from Congess authorizing the invasion of Iraq. How is this illegal? They manipulated and distorted information to buttress their arguments - which is what politicians do. Is it time to impeach 3/4 of Congress for similar actions while we are at it?

"Crimes Against Humanity." As a legal term, this term has been used most famously in the Nuremberg Trials to condemn the actions of Nazi leaders. Are you seriously stating that the Bush Administration's actions in Iraq, while mistaken and reprehensible, rise to this level? Get a grip!

Barring a miraculous discovery of Principle inside the beltway, neither Cheney nor Bush will be impeached. Despite the timorous saber-rattling of late by some of Oregon's Congressional delegation, it's clear none of them really mean it when they say "impeachment is always on the table."

When the new senator from Oregon (whoever it is) goes to Washington, Bush and Cheney will be out on the lecture circuit. The appropriate position for the candidates to clarify, therefore, is whether they would pursue criminal proceedings against those two men AFTER they have left office. If they don't think the criminal case is strong enough to pursue W. & Dick as private citizens, it's hard to understand their moot arguments for how they would push for impeachment in January of '09.

jumais, you bring up a really, REALLY good point, and one that i think is worth asking the senatorial candidates who are pushing for impeachment right now.

instead of saying what they think the sitting legislature should do to go after these criminals, what are they (frohnmeyer & novick) pledging to do that will be within their power if/when elected?

UPL,

I don't even think we'll ever find evidence of this: They manipulated and distorted information to buttress their arguments - which is what politicians do.

People conveniently forget that the Senate and House Intelligence Committees receive top secret briefings from the directors of the CIA and NSA. The Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committee received extensive testimony from the military and intelligence branches.

There will never be a smoking gun showing that Bush or Cheney said "please manipulate intelligence, distort facts, and lie in my national security briefings." They will have documents from the intelligence agencies that justify their every public statement--Tenet and Powell say as much in their books.

It's just like the FISA "charge"--Bush will point to an opinion written by the chief law enforcement officer of the US of A as his justification.

This is nothing, nothing like Nixon, who people also conveniently forget was heard, on tapes, ordering illegal wiretaps and break ins of his political opponents.

Sal,

You know I like you, but I believe you (and John's video) oversimplify the issue of signing statements. Although the President has issued many signing statements, he has not said, as you suggest: "I won't enforce the law I've signed because I don't agree with. (sic)" I understand that you are trying to convey a point, but we face a more ambiguous question that requires analysis, not rhetorical tricks.

You also raise a more complicated separation of powers question than your post suggests. An authoritative response would require legal research (for which I do not have time), but permit me to share my initial thoughts, for what they are worth. It is far from clear to me that the President must enforce legislation without discretion or interpretation, and it is even less clear that failure to do so is an impeachable offense. By way of hypothetical, suppose Congress overrode a President's veto and passed a manifestly unconstitutional bill (i.e. reinstated slavery). It is not obvious that the President is without discretion in whether to enforce it, much less how he enforces it. Assuming the President has a duty to enforce all legislation, the judiciary, not Congress, should review whether the President has met his constitutional obligations. Initiating impeachment hearings before the courts have clarified this issue would be irresponsible.

Please note that we are debating Presidential enforcement of legislation, not signing statements themselves. The President is free to express himself while signing legislation: he can whistle Dixie, perform a mime, or make a political statement. We can challenge his actions or omissions, not protected speech.

Also, do you really believe that every President since Reagan committed an impeachable offense when he issued a signing statement? If the Republicans initiated impeachment proceedings against Clinton because of his signing statements, can you honestly say that you would have supported it?

Questions regarding the separation of powers are complicated. John has chosen to make impeachment a central issue in his campaign, so he must support his position with more than a 96-second video (thank you, Steve). A serious candidate for U.S. Senate should not call for the extraordinary action of impeaching a President without a detailed argument. I respect John enough to assume such analysis is forthcoming.

The Bush Administration received a vote from Congess authorizing the invasion of Iraq. How is this illegal?

UBL: As noted authorities on international law have stipulated the unprovoked invasion of Iraq violated the UN Charter to which the United States is a signatory and was one of the Charter's principal authors and the Geneva Conventions.

Just because Congress authorized this act doesn't make it legal. I would have thought by now anyone capable of stringing a few words together to make up a sentence on this blog would have enough sense to know that Congress has a tradition of getting many things wrong. We might also note that Hillary and other senators trying to squirrel out of responsibility for their votes for authorization of this war have used the lame excuse that they thought Bush would exhaust all possible diplomatic means before going to war. An excuse that is pure bull. As Bush proved he wasn't interested in diplomacy. We might further note, that even if an argument can be made that the war was illegal it has nevertheless been an indisputable blunder costing hundreds of thousands of people their lives and creating over two million refugees in Iraq. Surely that qualifies as a crime against humanity.

Attempt to fix the italics...

Ok, I agree with the argument that it is meaningless for the non-office holding senate candidates to call for impeachment since GWB will be practically out of office when they take office. So why not advocate for something that has some potential meaning: repeal the portions of the Patriot Act that give war crimes immunity to the president. That should prompt some very interesting discussion.

Ok, I agree with the argument that it is meaningless for the non-office holding senate candidates to call for impeachment since GWB will be practically out of office when they take office.

This call is not meaningless. It shows where the author stands on the Constitution and the rule of law just as it shows that critics and opponents to impeachment are selective when it comes to invoking the Constitution and applying the rule of law.

People conveniently forget that the Senate and House Intelligence Committees receive top secret briefings from the directors of the CIA and NSA. The Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committee received extensive testimony from the military and intelligence branches.

Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Bob Graham (D-FL) where both on the Senate Intelligence Committee and voted against authorization to go to war. Durbin recently admitted that the intelligence he received in committee was different from what the Bush administration was saying in public. Others on the House Intelligence Committee have made similar statements. They claimed they couldn't tell the public the truth because they were bound by rules that let them have classified information. Durbin is basically a good man. Unfortunately, he passed up a chance to be like Dannel Ellsberg and be a profile in courage. How many lives lost and destroyed would have been saved if these people with inside knowledge had spoken out?

The Democratic Party of Oregon passed a resolution for investigation and impeachment.

http://www.oregondemocrats.org/resolution_2007-777

So it would seem logical that any Democratic candidate running for office will support and accept this resolution.

Is this a progressive forum? Blackwater goes on an unprovked killing spree in occupied Iraq, the big cheese at Haliburton is reported to have banked $16 million every year since 9/11, moved his business to Dubai, and what's left of my nephew, after his trip to Iraq, is sitting in a little box in his mother's den. Some of you need a big dose of reality. There is no soft and pleasant ending for the Bush administration, or any of us for that matter. One of the Kennedys once said something like: The hottest place in hell is reserved for the people, who in a time of universal moral crisis, seek to remain nuetral!

Anyways, I hardly think that the intro is a carefully crafted introduction that is subtly slanted towards Merkley.

Nick: You can prove this point when Merkley calls for impeachment (and he surely will since he's currently being outflanked on the left AND right). We'll be looking to make sure that story says: "Merkley's statement was in response to the calls for impeachment by Democratic rival Steve Novick and independent candidate John Frohnmayer."

I also want to second Barton's comments here. He's spot on with his analysis, and Frohnmayer is standing on pretty weak ground with his call for impeachment over signing statements. The statements the president issues when he signs bills are legally and constitutionally meaningless. The only thing that matters is how the bill is actually implemented. We should thank Bush for issuing those signing statements, because they indicate where Congress may want to follow up on actual implementation.

Article III gives the Judiciary, not the President, the authority to interpret the law.

Well, Sal, I think millions of pages of regulations in the Federal Register prove that this is not as simplistic as you make it out to be. The executive in fact does interpret every law that Congress passes, because running the government is more complicated than bloggers make it out to be. What the Constitution says is that the judiciary gets the final interpretation of the law.

Frohnmayer is just dead wrong on this. If he wants to get back on solid ground, he needs to argue that the impeachable action is NOT the signing statement, but the actual implementation. Even then, however, the issue only rises to the level of impeachment if the courts have ruled against the Administration, and they continue to act in violation of the court ruling. Every president has interpreted a law in a particular way, only to be overturned by the courts, so any argument on these grounds has to go beyond that.

As for your general comments about the executive having too much authority, I couldn't agree more. But Congress has willingly gone along -- the Republican Congress out of party unity, the Democratic Congress out of political fear. There are any number of checks that Congress could use short of impeachment to reign in the Administration. We should spend our time lobbying them to do so rather than jumping straight to impeachment.

Those who say the war in Iraq has been criminal make a good case (which I generally agree with.) But those who say the war has been incompetently managed and executed represent almost the entire country and political spectrum.

Aside from his criminal behavior, W.'s incompetence has shown the more serious flaw in our political system, which is no means of removing a president for poor performance. That is really the heart of the problem from Iraq to Katrina. But I've heard no discussion of that. It is a real problem that only gross, obvious criminal behavior can serve as a means to remove this administration.

James Bradach:

Which of the two following events will end American involvement in Iraq faster?

1. Devoting congressional time and resources to impeaching and then convicting a President (and, I assume, the Vice President as well, since it wouldn't do much good to replace Bush with Cheney). Do you remember how many months during 1973 and 1974 the House Judiciary Committee had to meet to research and come forward with the articles of impeachment? Or perhaps you would want the Democrats to do a half-assed job like the Republicans did with Clinton in 1998 ... And then have the Senate spend its time and resources on the actual trial?

2. Craft a budget that cuts off all funding for any military activities in Iraq. When the President vetoes it, and the veto can't be overriden, refuse to pass an alternative budget bill that includes any such funding. Shut down the government over the issue. If you want a political face-down between Congress and Bush that might actually accomplish your objective, this is the avenue to take.

steve novick is talking like a pirate today.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/19/161641/685

i don't know who wrote the above, steve or jake his campaign manager, or some other member of his staff, but regardless, well, color me gobsmacked.

Which of the two following events will end American involvement in Iraq faster? 1. Devoting congressional time and resources to impeaching

How soon they forget. Clinton's trial in the Senate lasted all of a month. The actual impeachment occurred just a month before. Bush has pledged to keep our troops in harms way as long as he occupies the White House. I say, let's hasten his removal. Two months from now, our national nightmare could be over.

2. Craft a budget that cuts off all funding for any military activities in Iraq.

Our glorious leaders in DC already tried that... and failed... gloriously...

UPO, Your events there don't seem to me to be mutaully exclusive. I don't need the "half-assed part" I'll go for both. My greatest concern is how long that war will continue under a democrat as president. I don't see any end. It is absurd to be covering this Presidents ass on such monumental failure.

"How soon they forget. Clinton's trial in the Senate lasted all of a month. The actual impeachment occurred just a month before. "

And what a sloppy impeachment it was. Can anyone name the only "House manager" of impeachment still on Capitol Hill--although not as a member of the House?

It seems to me an impeachment investigation of Cheney might be in order (look up the Watergate Impeachment Articles to see how a thoughtful impeachment was done).

It seems to me that a better way to get a debate going on the war to ask people you talk with 2 questions:

1) "Can you name anyone you know or have heard of who served in Iraq?" Those who can't, who don't even know that Iraq vet Boquist made a more hard hitting speech on HJM 9 than a lot of people would like to admit (one of the milder remarks was that "support the troops" doesn't mean a yellow magnet on a car), have a different view than those who do know veterans.

2) "Do you support the Webb-Hagel amendment to give troops as much time at home as they spent deployed?" gets to an inconvenient question. The same troops keep being sent to Iraq over and over and over until the become casualties or break down in other ways. But that is OK because we must believe the generals--and not 2 Vietnam vets, one of whom was Navy Secretary?

Too many people view Iraq as a theoretical debate, not about real people. Did anyone see the film of Sen. Mikulski on the Webb-Hagel debate today? That was a great speech!

But if there are only 57 Senators (incl. some brave Republicans) who resist White House arm twisting, something like impeachment won't change that. Those of us who recall the late 1990s know impeachment didn't change any minds, it just hardened attitudes.

Chris, Although I appreciate your thoughtful response, I disagree with your analysis and conclusions because I do not believe that signing statements have any legal significance. The President's actions or omissions, not his statements, are legally relevant. To borrow your phrasing, I do not believe that the President's purporting to have power that he does not have is an impeachable offense. However, the President's exercise of power that he does not have could constitute an impeachable offense in some circumstances.

I also disagree with your opinion that the onus rests with the executive to challenge legislation that he or she deems unconstitutional in court. Indeed, I suspect that such an arrangement would be unconstitutional in that it would seek "advisory opinions" from federal courts in violation of the Article III "case or controversy" requirement. Instead, a person with standing should challenge the President's actions or omissions in court. I appreciate that establishing standing can prove difficult, but this is hardly a new or insurmountable burden.

From a purely political perspective, a judicial remedy would probably check executive power in the long-run more than an impeachment proceeding that much of the country would consider politically motivated. Dozens of Supreme Court decisions constrain executive power today, in contrast to the impeachment and near-removal of Andrew Johnson.

This administration provides countless reasons for concern, but you may rest easy in your fears that the President is attempting to eliminate judicial review. The court itself determines whether it has jurisdiction to hear a case or controversy. Technically, Congress can strip federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain controversies, but even then, the judiciary determines whether Congress has done so. The most notorious example is Ex Parte McCardle.

In the case regarding the government wiretapping of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, the government argued that the court should dismiss the litigation on the "state secrets privilege," but Judge King rejected this argument. I do not know the current status of the case, but it would not surprise me if the government has appealed this ruling to the Ninth Circuit. This is the judicial system at work- slow and imperfect- but beautiful in its own way.

Urban Planning Overlord, be nice to my baby brother James.

The rest of you can soon tell someone who has a vote on this matter where the bear went in the buckwheats.

Earl will have a Town Hall on "Peace and Accountability", this Sunday. Come and give him your view. If you think impeachment now is the ticket, bring a sign. Many will not have a chance to speak, but Earl and his staff can see, read and count the banners.

The details from Earl's website.

What: Town Hall When: Sunday, September 23, 2007 1pm Where: Hollywood Theater 4122 NE Sandy Blvd Portland, OR 97212 Accessible by TriMet Bus #12 and MAX

Chris, you said that some of Bush's signing statements purport to nullify portions of a law on the grounds that the president finds them unconstitutional. As I understand it, they purport to refuse to execute those portions of the law.

Let's take a worst case example of a signing statement that says: "I hereby declare that the executive branch will not implement or enforce this law because I don't like it. Nyah, nyah, nyah."

Should he be impeached for that? No, because the signing statement is meaningless. It has no authority over anyone or anything.

Now, if the President actually directs his cabinet not to enforce the law, is that impeachable? No, because the president has discretion in terms of how laws are interpreted and implemented -- and there are a number of scholars who believe the President MUST refuse to implement a law that he believes is unconstitutional (you know, that whole oath of office thing). Congress should react harshly (say, by cutting funding for White House operations), but the president is still acting within his authority.

Now, if someone with standing sues, and the courts rule that the Administration is violating the law and order it to comply and they STILL refuse, that is an impeachable offense.

I know this sounds like hair-splitting, but the distinction between a signing statement and actual execution of the law is important. Can anyone link to some of the constitutional scholars arguing Frohnmayer's point?

What I'm most frustrated by is the Democratic Congress that refuses to use other tools available to challenge Bush's actions. Instead of calling for the impeachment of the president on specious grounds, Frohnmayer should be calling on Congress to take back the power that it has ceded -- that is the truth that I expect independent candidates to speak.. There are a number of tools available short of overturning a democratic election.

John Bradach: I repeat, the way to stop the killing of any more of our soldiers in Iraq is for Congress to get a majority vote to cut off funding for the war, and then take Bush to the wall and shut down the government over the issue.

If its brinksmanship that's needed to end this war, let's try some brinksmanship that only needs a majority vote, not 2/3 (as Senate conviction of an impeached President would take).

Miles, The newspaper article that sparked the fury over Bush's signing statements is Charlie Savage, Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws; President Cites Powers of His Office, BOSTON GLOBE, Apr. 30, 2006.

For a more academic perspective:

Curtis A. Bradley & Eric A. Posner, Presidential Signing Statements and Executive Power http://eprints.law.duke.edu/archive/00001594/01/23_Const.Comment.(2006).pdf

Phillip J. Cooper: George W. Bush, Edgar Allen Poe, and the Use and Abuse of Presidential Signing Statements, 35 PRESIDENTIAL STUDIES Q. 515 (2004);

Neil Kinkopf, Signing Statements and the President’s Authority to Refuse to Enforce the Law (June 2006), available at http://www.acslaw.org/files/Kinkopf-Signing%20Statements%20and%20President's%20Authority.pdf

Miles, Man you can tasser the crap out of me bro. You are never going to get me to accept this group as the result of a democratic election.

UHO, MF

It is clear that the Democrats in Congress do not have the courage to face off the "support the troops" argument, which arises on each vote to cut off funds.

That is why we have the Constitution. There are lines beyond which they may not go. And, they have gone. From the start. Everyone concedes that they sent us to War on a fraud.

<h2>Let us stand, there.</h2>