BTR1701 wrote:
>
> In article <469BEF91.2D9@...>,
> "Brett A. Pasternack" wrote:
> > > > Of course. But it's still not *inherently* a partisan move.
> > >
> > > You're splitting hairs now. It's close enough for government work.
> >
> > You really don't see a difference? You really think that instructing
> > prosecutors to trump up investigations into Democrats and to cancel
> > legitimate investigations into Republicans--and firing them if they do
> > not comply--is no more partisan than any routine political appointment?
>
> That's not what I said. I said the court appointments are inherently
> political and you disagreed with that. I never compared that to trumping
> investigations.
I had said that the problem with Bush's actions was that it was based on
partisan interests. You replied by claiming that all appointments were
based on partisan interests. If you agree that the two aren't
comparable, and that Bush's actions were more partisan than the norm,
then I don't see your point. If we're in agreement about that then I
have no beef.
> > > > > And the idea of a president without a partisan agenda is kinda
> > > > > like the Loch Ness Monster. It remains merely a hypothetical for a
>
> > > > Sure, but that doesn't invalidate the argument.
> > > >
> > > > But to bring this back around to the issue: Of course presidents
> > > > have partisan goals in mind when they make decisions. But there is
> > > > a huge difference between making a decision for the good of the
> > > > country while keeping partisan interests in mind and making a
> > > > decision purely for partisan purposes while ignoring the good of
> > > > the country. When a new President asks for the resignation of all
> > > > the US attorneys, that's not a purely partisan move. We can then
> > > > evaluate his decisions and see if there's anything overly partisan
> > > > about them. But here the President was unabashedly attempting to
> > > > subvert the interests of justice and the nation by abusing his power
>
> > >
> > > I still say that even if it's true, the remedy is at the ballot box
> > > since nothing illegal was done.
> >
> > Well, I'm not at all convinced that nothing illegal was done--the
> > outing of Valerie Plame wasn't legal,
>
> Well, that has nothing to do with firing of the U.S. Attorneys.
No, but it's legal grounds for impeachment if we accept your definition.
> > I don't buy the argument that the Constitution procludes
> > impeaching the president for abusing his office.
>
> I buy it. If "high crimes and misdemeanors" is interpreted to mean
> "anything we (in the other party) don't like and consider abuse", then
> all we're going to have from this point forward is dueling impeachments.
> Every single president from now on will be impeached as each side tries
> to pay back the other side and that's just a ridiculous and
> counterproductive state of affairs.
Given that the Democrats have good reason to want to deliver such
payback, and that they have at the very least some arguable evidence
that Bush has broken the law, and that the Speaker has nonetheless said
that impeachment is off the table, that doesn't seem to be true of my
party, anyway.
But you'reuming the worst, and ifume that, they're going to be
able to manufacture such charges whether they're supported or not. What
concerns me more is that by your way of thinking, the President can
abuse his power endlessly and still complete his term. I don't believe
that was the intention.
> I didn't agree with the Clinton
> impeachment and unless a violation of law can be shown here, I don't
> agree with impeaching Bush. Impeachment should only be used (as the
> Founders explicitly indicated) for instances where the president has
> committed a criminal offense-- either a high crime or a misdemeanor. You
> can legitimately debate the meaning of "high crime" but there should be
> no question that whatever it means, it's fundamentally a crime.
The Judiciary Committee's report following Watergate pursuasively argues
otherwise:
The impeachment of a President must occur only for reasons at least as
pressing as those needs of government that give rise to the creation of
criminal offenses. But this does not mean that the various elements of
proof, defenses, and other substantive concepts surrounding an
indictable offense control the impeachment process. Nor does it mean
that state or federal criminal codes are necessarily the place to turn
to provide a standard under the United States Constitution. Impeachment
is a constitutional remedy. The framers intended that the impeachment
language they employed should reflect the grave misconduct that so
injures or abuses our constitutional institutions and form of government
as to justify impeachment.
This view is support by the historical evidence of the constitutional
meaning of the words "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." That evidence is
set out above.3 It establishes that the phrase "high Crimes and
Misdemeanors"-- which over a period of centuries has evolved into the
English standard of impeachable conduct-- has a special historical
meaning different from the ordinary meaning of the terms "crimes" and
"misdemeanors."4 "High Misdemeanors" referred to a category of offenses
that subverted the system of government. Since the fourth century
the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" had been used in English
impeachment cases to charge officials with a wide range of criminal and
non-criminal offenses against the institutions and fundamental
principles of English government.5
There is evidence that the framers were aware of the special,
non-criminal meaning fo the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the
English law of impeachment.6 Not only did Hamilton acknowledge Great
Britain as "the model from which [impeachment] has been borrowed," but
George Mason referred in the debates to the impeachment of Warren
Hastings, then pending before Parliament. Indeed, Mason, who proposed
the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," expressly stated his intent
to encompass "[a]ttempts to subvert the Constitution."7
In sum, to limit impeachable conduct to criminal offenses would be
incompatible with the evidence concerning the constitutional meaning of
the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" and would frustrate the
purpose that the framers intended for impeachment. State and federal
criminal laws are not written in order to preserve the nation against
serious abuse of the presidential office. But this is the purpose of the
consitutional provision for the impeachment of a President and that
purpose gives meaning to "high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_8.htm
(You'll find the footnotes there, too.)
> > > And why are we always so damned surprised when politicians act in a
> > > partisan manner? That's virtually the definition of "politician".
> >
> > There's acting in a partisan manner, and then there's acting in a
> > partisan manner. No one has come close to using the Presidency for
> > partisan purposes the way Bush and Cheney have.
>
> And before them, no one had come close to using the presidency for
> partisan purposes than Clinton and Gore had. And after Bush leaves,
> whoever gains office will probably also push the envelope. It's the
> nature of the beast.
I don't agree with youressment of Clinton and Gore. But it's
precisely because that IS the nature of the beast that it's important
that there be a way of reining in that beast. And that way is
impeachment. |
