A effort by Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s, D-Ohio, effort to bring up a debate on impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney was sent back to Committee to die by democrats. Before the take-over by the Democrats, Speaker Pelosi promised not to impeach either Bush or Cheney – a strange waiver of constitutional authority. The Kucinich motion was not very serious. However, there are viable claims of impeachment to be made. These involve the domestic surveillance program and torture that constitute criminal acts. However, the Democratic leadership was informed of these practices and do not want to share the blame in an impeachment fight. Impeaching the Vice President is also a bit odd. It is the President who bears the responsibility for ordering these acts. While both could be impeached, the exclusion of the President weakened the motion as did its clumnsy language. For the full story, click here
SELECTED AS TOP LEGAL OPINION BLOG (2011)
SELECTED AS TOP LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG (2008)
Winner — Top Opinion Writer By Aspen Institute and The Week Magazine for Best Single-Issue Advocacy (Civil Liberties)
I am amazed at the lack of guts shown by the leadership of the Democratic party. It is as plain as the nose on my face that possible (duh) impeachable offenses could have been, at least, studied and acted on. Instead, the motion was tabled. If the Democrats will not stand up to the constitutional violations by this group of slugs now….today…this hour, when Chuckle Nuts is less popular than any president in history, when will they? The answer is never. I have given liberally to Democratic candidates in the past. I have answered the call of Pelosi, Shumer, and Reed in the past with financial contributions. No more. I will only contribute to people who will stand up to these thugs.
“However, there are viable claims of impeachment to be made. These involve the domestic surveillance program and torture that constitute criminal acts.” –Jonathan Turley
Also add to that the constitutional violations implicit in the signing statements.
Line item vetos are unconstitutional so sayeth the Court. What is the distinction between signing statements and line-item vetos?
This week Mr. Bush issued a signing statement on the Defense Authorization Bill of 2008. In it, he rejected sections 841, 846, 1079 and 1222 as interfering with his constitutional powers.
So far as I can see he made three unconstitutional claims.
1 He denied the Congress’s constitutionally mandated authority to control the expenditure of public revenues.
2 He infringed on Congress’s constitutionally mandated authority to approve treaties.
3. He obstructs Congress’ constitutional authority to conduct investigations and gather information
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080128-11.html
At issue are his attempted pseudo treaty with the Iraq government, his attempt to block private contractor whistleblower protection, as well as secure permanent bases within Iraq.
He is a rogue President the like of which we have never seen. He should be impeached regardless of the political considerations or the short time he has left in office.