Articles like this by Sandy Levison are a bit annoying. SL with his Balkanization crew simply despise President Bush. This is shown in part by personal cries from the heart that shown quite baldly how little they think of the man and his crew. They are resorting to citing the number of days left in his presidency, though refuse to just put a damn counter on the blog. SL's latest campaign is to underline how horrible it is that we do not have some sort of "no confidence" option in this country ala parliamentary practice. One proposal was to allow this if 2/3 of Congress so decides, perhaps the decision setting forth a sort of recall election to give the public a chance to override the call.
We are just stuck with an incompetent, dangerously so, maroon (comments at times cited) for x amount of time until 1/20/09. Upon challenge, someone like Marty Lederman will note that Congress has significant powers, including to put limits on his commander-in-chief authority in various ways. This, however, is downplayed ... partially because of the possibility of a veto, even though the supermajority that would be required for that removal surely would be harder to obtain that overriding a veto on specific matters. IOW, the chance for real restraints -- an uphill battle but constitutionally possible now -- ironically are somewhat downplayed. And, another "if only we had a way to get rid of an incompetent president" woe is us cry is raised.
It is pointless imho to add a parliamentary override feature like this if the Congress is not willing to faithfully practice the power they already have. I don't think such a "no confidence" vote should be submitted just because a majority vote is met (is this what SL deep down wants?). But, it might work. All the same, there are alternatives, if the will was there. A will that is required for the other way to work as well. This includes impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors as well as treason and bribery. Again, Elizabeth Holtzman submits the option is open:
His impeachable offenses include using lies and deceptions to drive the country into war in Iraq, deliberately and repeatedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on wiretapping in the United States, and facilitating the mistreatment of US detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act of 1996. [The lastest on Arar.]
People against impeachment like SL surely doesn't disagree that some or all of these charges are in place. The fact that Bush is incompetent doesn't change this fact. Yes, it is true that there are political and time restraint problems. But, SL goes further. He raises the claim that somehow it is hard to make a strong credible case. For instance, sometimes presidents lie ... should FDR be impeached for fudging Lend Lease? Why in the hell are you giving aid and comfort to the enemy? The two cases are not comparable! Bush and company lied (by any fair definition, their b.s. rose to that level at times, see John Dean) about the very triggers. Did FDR lie about invasion of Pearl Harbor and Germany declaring war on us? Uh no.
Other counts can be supplied, including to the Vice President and lesser officials, such as the Attorney General. For instance, Balkanization had many posts on how the administration clearly -- and disgustingly -- violated limitations on torture and cruel/inhumane treatment of detainees. This was a breach of the law. It was (and probably still is, since some acts are probably ongoing right now) a high crime and misdemeanors, which is not even necessarily a clear violation of statutory law. Politically, the American people might not be at the point to fully demand Congress to impeach and remove the President. This is a different matter from there not being any "there" there.
Are we not helping the President -- see all those late night t.v. jokes -- by damning him as some incompetent boob (see also Reagan, who was left off the hook for Iran Contra, since hey, he probably didn't even know what was going on)? He is worse -- he is a common criminal. He is intentionally as well as (criminally) negligently breaking his oath and the laws of this nation. How we realistically can handle this is one thing, but please, please, at least don't challenge his very liability! The alternative, honestly, is stereotypical weenie liberal whining about how horrible things are ... but darn if we are left with just that, whining and gnashing of our teeth about how terrible, just terrible, he is.
Sure. He is also a criminal. Not all criminals are brought to justice, but don't make it out like it is libel to call a spade, a spade! Not so says SL:
It is not enough that the President be a criminal; he must be a criminal of a certain gravity. If there is anything the country needs less at this point than a self-defeating political strategy, it is the further domination of public debate by lawyers trading jargon-ridden charges and countercharges about the criminal liability of the President.
Yeah. You know like torture. Just jargon. Only smart people like you can understand. [BTW, again, it is very arguable even the "criminal" part is right. The impeached, especially before the current era, could very well have done various things not clearly addressed by statutory law. Surely, various articles of impeachment covered such "non-criminal" areas. The "certain gravity" is fair, if somewhat implied.] Such gibberish.
SIGH.