Bush Unimpeachable?
Today at work, a co-worker presented me an article/opinion on why Bush can be considered as “unimpeachable”. Now with that in mind, consider this…
…impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.
Seems like every single election the media, political parties, and other groups are out spreading the message of going out and voting. Why? It’s actually very simple. The article I read states it perfectly..
Our failed Constitutional system means we’re stuck with this disastrous demagogue for three more years. Gloat now, Republican readers, but party loyalty’s stranglehold on impeachment can easily take the form of a complacent Democratic Congress overlooking the misdeeds of a batty Democratic president.
Meaning: if you don’t like whose in office, vote that person’s a** out of office. Read the article/opinion. It was a wonderful read.
This is a partisan article that suggests that the constitution has failed because impeachment is a political process rather than some objective criminal procedure. The article is flawed on so many points that I will argue that the Bush presidency is the norm and not the exception in the history of this Nation. For brevity sake I will cite a few examples:
The idea that the Founding fathers did not foresee the rise of political parties it overlooked the need to create a strong process of impeachment. Granted I have not read the Federalist papers to interpret the Founders vision, their distaste for parties was well known yet avoiding factional proved impossible. Although, the article points out of Washington warning in his 1796 Farewell address of factionalism, one could look, two years later, at the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 to see that factionalism in its dangerous form. The Federalist at the time were hostile towards France whilst the Republicans under Thomas Jefferson were sympathetic, in reaction to quell debate in this young Nation, the Federalist dominated Congress passed a series of laws banning dissension by jailing or even deporting those that were deemed “enemies of the State.” The Federalist would go on to lose in part to the fallout over this law.
1867 saw the impeachment of Andrew Johnson over the policy of reconstruction. Radical Republicans sweep into Congress after the Civil War demanding a more draconian policy towards the south. In reaction to Johnson’s differing set up a battle that would lead to impeachment preceding that failed by one vote. An examination of the circumstances would show it to be a purely political move.
Who would judge if a president is guilty of a impeachable offense? Deliberately deceiving the people? How many times has Bush “made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States” Would we have a stable presidency if that was the measure? Are we naive to say that is a crime? Our system would be chaotic at best if that was so.
The other “crack” in the Constitution is the apparent disregard of the High Court ruling on the Gitmo prisoners. Well funny thing about that ask a Cherokee about President Andrew Jackson enforcement of Worcester v. Georgia 1832, which was to protect the rights of Cherokees. Not only did he blatantly disregard it, he would then force them out of the South via the “trail of tears.” If there is a president that can be compared to Bush one could look to Andrew Jackson as a model.
If one looks at events through a partisan and emotionally charged lens, thing might look as though President Bush has taken over as dictator. But study American History objectively and one will find that Bush is not the “disastrous demagogue” but a rather more active president.
Examples of questionable dealing is replete in our history but the bottom line is that ‘We the People’ still have a vote greater than anytime before us and it is our responsibility how we exercise it. Barring whacked out conspiracies Republicans came to power on the vote of the people so if the nation is fed up with things — VOTE and stop bitching!!!