Journal pudge's Journal: Blah Blah Impeachment Blah Blah Madison Blah 6
The looniness of today is regarding a speech by James Madison to Congress in 1789, in which Madison said:
Perhaps the great danger, as has been observed, of abuse in the executive power, lies in the improper continuance of bad men in office. But the power we contend for will not enable him to do this; for if an unworthy man be continued in office by an unworthy president, the house of representatives can at any time impeach him, and the senate can remove him, whether the president chuses or not. The danger then consists merely in this: the president can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the motives which the president can feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the first place, he will be im-peachable by this house, before the senate, for such an act of mal-administration; for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust. But what can be his motives for displacing a worthy man? It must be that he may fill the place with an unworthy creature of his own.
This, it is implied, tells us that Bush should be impeached, because of the U.S. Attorneys who were fired. The insipid discussion dwells on whether Bush "wanted" it; but Madison's point is not that this particular "crime" merits impeachment, but that simply being a bad executive merits impeachment. Hyperfocusing on the Gonzales flap is nonsensical when you consider that this incident is but one incredibly minor part to what many people consider to be the mismanagement of the government.
According to Madison, it doesn't even matter if you can prove Bush had anything to do with the U.S. Attorney firings. You think he is a terrible manager, you impeach him and remove him. That's it.
Madison is exactly right, too, when it comes to legality. The Constitution allows impeachment for any reason. And the Court won't stop it, and in my mind, should not.
But, this is not a legal question. This is a purely political question. You really think many Senators will impeach the President for firing someone they think was meritorious, when those same Senators may wish to exercise that exact same power someday?
We saw this just a decade after Madison's speech, when President John Adams, with a Federalist Congress, fired a popular Federalist from his cabinet, Secretary of State Timothy Pickering. Pickering was a close friend of Alexander Hamilton, the most powerful man in the Federalist party (despite Adams also being a Federalist).
However, the Congress did not even seriously consider impeaching Adams for firing a meritorious officer. Why? Well, as a famous radio voice says, now here's the rest of the story:
Can he accomplish this end (of firing a worthy man to replace him with an unworthy one)? No; he can place no man in the vacancy whom the senate shall not approve; and if he could fill the vacancy with the man he might chuse, I am sure he would have little inducement to make an improper removal. Let us consider the consequences. The injured man will be supported by the popular opinion; the community will take side with him against the president; it will facilitate those combinations, and give success to those exertions which will be pursued to prevent his re-election. To displace a man of high merit, and who from his station may be supposed a man of extensive influence, are considerations which will excite serious reflections beforehand in the mind of any man who may fill the presidential chair; the friends of those individuals, and the public sympathy will be against him. If this should not produce his impeachment before the senate, it will amount to an impeachment before the community, who will have the power of punishment by refusing to re-elect him.
That is: the President would have a tough time of getting much harm past the Congress, and even then, would still be accountable to the people.
Impeachment is a huge step to take, and you surely make enemies if you try it, and set a precedent -- a bad one if undertaken frivolously -- for yourself or members of your party. And if the offense is truly serious, "impeachment before the community" will usually be sufficient.
That's not to say impeachment should never happen, but the consequences and risks are so high that it is rarely a wise move. Madison did not have much to say on that subject, in part due to his desire to gain acceptance for the Constitution (even after ratification, there was still a huge risk of disunion that he and Hamilton fought to avoid), and in part perhaps due to his naivite. But impeachment should be a last resort.
I am sure many Democrats think that we are long past that point with Bush. But they should consider that it is unlikely most of the country agrees with them, and that if they do attempt impeachment, this will be a precedent set for the next Democratic President, too. And this is why, even though impeachment can happen for any reason, it has been reserved in recent years for actual verifiable wrongdoing (such as lying under oath, and even that was, in retrospect, a big political mistake).
I'm a peach (Score:2)
That is: the President would have a tough time of getting much harm past the Congress, and even then, would still be accountable to the people.
One of the items at issue is the provision the DOJ slipped into the patriot act renewal that allowed US Attorneys to be replaced without Senate approval.
Now the problem is being corrected and we can argue if congress should have maybe caught it in the first place.
Certainly the President is taking a drubbing in public opinion over this matter.
As to impeachment it probably isn't a good idea with this president unless there are a number of Republicans who support it as well along with a large segement of the
Re: (Score:2)
That is: the President would have a tough time of getting much harm past the Congress, and even then, would still be accountable to the people.
One of the items at issue is the provision the DOJ slipped into the patriot act renewal that allowed US Attorneys to be replaced without Senate approval.
Now the problem is being corrected and we can argue if congress should have maybe caught it in the first place.
Yeah, this is a side issue I don't really care about. The President had the right, granted by Congress, and they exercised (or planned to?). That's fine by me. Congress doesn't like it and is revoking it. Also fine by me.
Certainly the President is taking a drubbing in public opinion over this matter.
Which is silly since there's no solid evidence that anyone did anything seriously wrong (except for some of the U.S. Attorneys themselves, including McKay, and I was glad to see him go, and I think he is lying right now about his own record).
As to impeachment it probably isn't a good idea with this president unless there are a number of Republicans who support it as well along with a large segement of the voters.
Even then, it would be a terrible idea. T
Re: (Score:2)
Which is silly since there's no solid evidence that anyone did anything seriously wrong (except for some of the U.S. Attorneys themselves, including McKay, and I was glad to see him go, and I think he is lying right now about his own record).
There is a bit more to it than that. I won't go into all the detail as you can well find it yourself if you bother to look. At the very least some members of the house and senate may have made some inappropriate contacts with US Attorneys and some DOJ officials may have perjured themselves in front of Congress.
As for McKay, my understanding is he was very well respected by those who dealt with him regularly. I know some Republicans are upset he didn't file charges relating to the 2004 recount, but that sim
Re: (Score:2)
Which is silly since there's no solid evidence that anyone did anything seriously wrong (except for some of the U.S. Attorneys themselves, including McKay, and I was glad to see him go, and I think he is lying right now about his own record).
There is a bit more to it than that. I won't go into all the detail as you can well find it yourself if you bother to look. At the very least some members of the house and senate may have made some inappropriate contacts with US Attorneys and some DOJ officials may have perjured themselves in front of Congress.
I know about the contacts, and there is no solid evidence that they were wrong, even if they were "inappropriate." In every case, the Attorney ended the conversation before anything wrong happened, and it is only speculation that anyone intended to do anything wrong (such as put pressure on one of the Attorneys).
As to the potential for perjury, I was speaking of "anything seriously wrong" in the context of the firings themselves, not the investigation that has commenced since. Yes, obviously, there is ev
Re: (Score:2)
That's what he says, but I trust Bob Williams more than I trust McKay. McKay's office told the EFF and Bob Williams that McKay, according to Williams, "had no authority to conduct a grand jury investigation of election fraud." Now, McKay is saying they simply found no evidence of a crime (well, actually, I think he is saying the more correct statement than what you said, that there was not sufficient evidence, but since by all indications there was no serious investigation conducted, that claim too is specious)
As I said McKay was very well respected by the local Legal community, Law Enforcement, and the Federal Judges he dealt with.
As for the election I notice that the King County Prosecutor and the Washington State AG didn't file any charges either. I find it much more likely that if there was any criminal malfeasance it would violate State Law. But I don't see the vilification of either Maleng or McKenna that I see of McKay.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what he says, but I trust Bob Williams more than I trust McKay. McKay's office told the EFF and Bob Williams that McKay, according to Williams, "had no authority to conduct a grand jury investigation of election fraud." Now, McKay is saying they simply found no evidence of a crime (well, actually, I think he is saying the more correct statement than what you said, that there was not sufficient evidence, but since by all indications there was no serious investigation conducted, that claim too is specious)
As I said McKay was very well respected by the local Legal community, Law Enforcement, and the Federal Judges he dealt with.
As for the election I notice that the King County Prosecutor and the Washington State AG didn't file any charges either. I find it much more likely that if there was any criminal malfeasance it would violate State Law. But I don't see the vilification of either Maleng or McKenna that I see of McKay.
I don't think you are understanding me. My point expressed above has nothing to do with whether he filed charges, and are specifically about improper things McKay is alleged to have done, that Maleng and McKenna are not.
McKay at the time, apparently, stated as the reason WHY he was not investigating, that he was not allowed to, which was and remains false. His office absolutely had that authority. And now he is saying he did look into it, but only did nothing about it because there was insufficient evid