impeach the president

Brother of Pat Tillman, also a former Ranger who’s now out of the military, had this to say about his and his brother’s time in service and what our obligation as American citizens now is:

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.
<<

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601019_after_pats_birthday/

Bush really likes these signing statements.

This caught my eye about the Patriot Act.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060324/NEWS06/603240464/1012

From article:
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9. But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a “signing statement,” an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law’s requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would “impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties.”
Thursday, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., said Bush’s statement represented “nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law.”
end article

For a bit more about signing statements, since I am a mere peon, I found some interesting opinions offered by an attorney at FindLaw.com. And this attorney was counsel to Richard Nixon’s presidency, so he is well versed in these matters.

This was written in January, 2006.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

For those who do not want to read the full text, here’s a clip:

[Note, I would URGE you to read the whole thing since it’s quite informative.]

Start:
Generally, Bush’s signing statements tend to be brief and very broad, and they seldom cite the authority on which the president is relying for his reading of the law. None has yet been tested in court. But they do appear to be bulking up the powers of the presidency. Here are a few examples:

Suppose a new law requires the President to act in a certain manner – for instance, to report to Congress on how he is dealing with terrorism. Bush’s signing statement will flat out reject the law, and state that he will construe the law “in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.”

The upshot? It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all.

Or suppose a new law suggests even the slightest intrusion into the President’s undefined “prerogative powers” under Article II of the Constitution, relating to national security, intelligence gathering, or law enforcement. Bush’s signing statement will claim that notwithstanding the clear intent of Congress, which has used mandatory language, the provision will be considered as “advisory.”

The upshot? It is as if Congress had acted as a mere advisor, with no more formal power than, say, Karl Rove – not as a coordinate and coequal branch of government, which in fact it is.

As Phillip Cooper observes, the President’s signing statements are, in some instances, effectively rewriting the laws by reinterpreting how the law will be implemented. Notably, Cooper finds some of Bush’s signing statements – and he has the benefit of judging them against his extensive knowledge of other President’s signing statements—“excessive, unhelpful, and needlessly confrontational.”

The Constitutional and Practical Problems With Bush’s Use of Signing Statements

Given the incredible number of constitutional challenges Bush is issuing to new laws, without vetoing them, his use of signing statements is going to sooner or later put him in an untenable position. And there is a strong argument that it has already put him in a position contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and the Constitution, vis-à-vis the veto power.

Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.

endquote…

When can we get this guy out of office? Hello, Supreme court? Congress? Can you do anything?

This week, Bush decided that as commander in chief he could “go around” around the McCain anti torture bill. I saw these two articles in the Boston Globe someone leaves at work for us every day (one article Jan 5, the other Jan 6). You can look for something like ‘signing statement Bush torture’ if you want to find other sources and views.

An excerpt from Boston Globe article from 5 Jan: Legal specialists said the president’s signing statement called into question his comments at the press conference.

’’The whole point of the McCain Amendment was to close every loophole,” said Marty Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor who served in the Justice Department from 1997 to 2002. ’’The president has re-opened the loophole by asserting the constitutional authority to act in violation of the statute where it would assist in the war on terrorism.”

Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush’s signing statement an ’’in-your-face affront” to both McCain and to Congress.

’’The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch,” she said.

.....

McCain, needless to say, is ticked off.

Cliff notes: Congress passed a law. Bush says he can ignore it.
Congress can use any means it deems appropriate to use it’s power against the President, including from the article on Jan 6, “In an extreme and politically unlikely scenario, it can impeach the president.”

So it IS possible.

Also, in a perhaps lesser noticed move, “Bush’s interpretation of another detainee-related provision in the new law sparked further friction yesterday with some lawmakers.

The provision stripped courts of the jurisdiction to hear most lawsuits from detainees held at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Citing that provision, the administration said this week that it would ask courts to dismiss more than 180 Guantanamo lawsuits.”

Of course my .02 on the matter, is it is absolutely ABSURD that we as a country would have Executive leadership that thinks it can
a) ignore LAW passed by the legislative branch.
b) ignore common decency treatment standards upheld by most nations of the world
c) put our own citizens at risk of the same treatment (after all, if we won’t promise not to do it to them, why should they promise not to do it to us?)

What exactly does it take to see that this guy needs to be removed from office?

I will admit, I have no idea how to do this as one little peon out in the world. I hope for all our sakes, Congress grows some fortitude and puts the pressure on him. Among other things, how can one possibly not think the republican party is a laughingstock at this point?

Finally, for a man who calls himself a follower of Christ, how can Bush accept torture as an appropriate recourse ever?
I am no religion expert, but this does not seem to align.

Edit: I realize I should comment on why I think he is worth impeaching, vs why I do not like him. 1. I think he has lied to the American people about the motivations behind the Iraqi conflict (but yes, many of us suspected this all along, it would just have been common decency to be honest with his constituents) 2. He is jeopardizing our world relations and there is virtually no way for us to stop this short of impeachment 3. He is ignoring basic tenets of the US Constitution and subjecting it to his own will 4. As commander-in-chief he is allowing our military personnel to be put in harm’s way and even killed with no plan for fixing, or eradicating the situation. This is using the government for its own purposes rather than to serve the will of the people.

Those are separate from the reasons that I don’t like him, which are numerous but I won’t go into them. John Locke would probably be aghast at our political affairs today, principles our founders wrote into our civil government treatises: Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society. What I have said here, concerning the legislative in general, holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislative, and the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society. He acts also contrary to his trust, when he either employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society, to corrupt the representatives, and gain them to his purposes; or openly preengages the electors, and prescribes to their choice, such, whom he has, by sollicitations, threats, promises, or otherwise, won to his designs; and employs them to bring in such, who have promised before-hand what to vote, and what to enact.