Kicking the lame duck out

» Discuss Article    (85 Comments)

Jeff,

Today's topic, as requested by our editors, is, "Legally, do those agitating for impeachment have a case? Politically, would pursuing impeachment be wise at this point?"

All I have to say is, Hurry! Eleven months from today will be President Bush's first full day out of office. If they want to impeach him before that, Democrats are going to have to act fast.

As far as the first question is concerned: There's no requirement for there to be a legal case for impeachment. Many years ago, Gerald Ford was ridiculed for saying that grounds for impeachment were anything the House of Representatives said were grounds for impeachment. He was right.

The House can do what it wants, and if, in their collective wisdom, members of the House want to impeach Bush for cycling without a helmet (although, to my knowledge, the president always wears appropriate safety gear when he goes on his brutal all-terrain bike rides), they can.

In November 1983, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who today is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and would play a key role in any impeachment action, introduced a resolution to impeach President Reagan for invading Grenada. According to a United Press International report from the time, the resolution written by Conyers and six other Democrats argued that the invasion was unconstitutional because it "usurped Congress's power to declare war, ignored treaty obligations, and violated First Amendment rights of the public and press in preventing reporters from covering the invasion in its first few days." So there.

These days, you would think that Conyers, 25 years older, would be a bit more circumspect about the issue. But he and his staff have spent a long time carefully putting together a case to impeach Bush. In August 2006, before Democrats won the House, Conyers released a 350-page report entitled, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance." On the day it was released, Conyers wrote on the DailyKos and Huffington Post websites, "Approximately 26 laws and regulations may have been violated by this administration's misconduct. The report compiles the accumulated evidence that the Bush administration has thumbed its nose at our nation's laws, and the Constitution itself."

Now, Conyers didn't use the word "impeachment." But his talk of broken laws as well as the entire organization of his report made clear that he was working on a road map for impeachment. The only problem is that most of his fellow Democrats thought it was a terrible idea. In late 2006, just before the elections that brought Democrats to power, Nancy Pelosi pooh-poohed the whole impeachment idea. "Impeachment is off the table," she told CBS back then.

"And that's a pledge?" she was asked.

"Well, it's a pledge in the — yes, I mean, it's a pledge," Pelosi said. "Of course it is. It is a waste of time."

So politically, I think it's clear Democrats believe that pursuing impeachment proceedings would not be wise at this point. And the fact that they have been in power for a year and haven't done anything about proves the point. Smart decision.

Best,
Byron

Byron York is the White House correspondent for National Review.

---