ON THE NECESSITY OF IMPEACHMENT: ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE THE CONSTITUTION A CH

[Guest guest]

Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:16:28 -0800 (PST)

S

ON THE NECESSITY OF IMPEACHMENT: ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE

THE CONSTITUTION A CHANCE

 

 

http://orbstandard.com/News/Peterson/Peterson_On_the_Necessity_of_Impeachment.ht\

ml

 

ON THE NECESSITY OF IMPEACHMENT: ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE THE

CONSTITUTION A CHANCE

Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., OrbStandard

 

 

January 11, 2006

 

" Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary

Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "

- Benjamin Franklin's motto in the

" Historical Review Of Pennsylvania " (1759). [1]

 

 

2006 began with Mr. Bush brazenly insisting that he can unilaterally

order wiretaps on American citizens without judicial oversight, even

if warrantless domestic wiretaps are explicitly prohibited by federal

law. Under what rationale? Mr. Bush claims the virtually unlimited

presidential power to override any laws, and even to cancel our

constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties, because the US is at war.

According to his legal advisors, this imperial presidential power

supposedly comes from: (a) an expansive interpretation of the

Constitution's commander-in-chief clause; and (b) a post-9/11

Congressional resolution authorizing the use of armed force against

terrorists. [29]

 

This raises a question: may the president abuse an ostensible state of

war to curtail the people's civil liberties? And that raises a

sub-question: is the nation, in actual point of law, at war right now,

Congress having made no formal declaration of war?

 

Not surprisingly, 2006 also began with everybody talking about

impeachment: politicians; journalists; scholars; and lawyers. Their

illuminating articles and discussions have put six important questions

before us: I. Is the current talk about impeachment nothing more than

quixotic tilting at windmills, or is it a substantively-serious

constitutional crisis? II. Do sufficient legal grounds exist to

warrant Messrs. Bush and Cheney's impeachment by the House, conviction

by the Senate, and removal from office? III. If sufficient legal

grounds exist, will our Democratic Congresspersons file formal

articles of impeachment in 2006? IV. If the Democrats file articles of

impeachment, will the Republican majority leaders allow the House of

Representatives to consider them in 2006? V. If not in 2006, will

Messrs. Bush and Cheney undergo the constitutional process of

impeachment after this November's mid-term elections, in early 2007?

VI. If not in 2007, who will hold Messrs. Bush and Cheney accountable

to the rule of law?

 

I. IMPEACHMENT: QUIXOTIC TILTING AT WINDMILLS OR A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS?

A large volume of competent scholarly and journalistic articles about

impeachment has been generated in the last month, which militates

against the conclusion that it's merely quixotic tilting at windmills.

For example, the author has found more than 70 recent articles

addressing, and 14 websites advocating, the impeachment of Messrs.

Bush and Cheney (see endnotes 2 through 90, below).

 

Even if the current discussion about impeachment isn't dismissible as

nonsense, does it rise to the substantive level of a constitutional

crisis? Many scholars and pundits think it does. For instance, former

Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts contends that we're

immersed in a constitutional crisis: " Compared to Spygate, Watergate

was a kindergarten picnic. The Bush administration's lies, felonies,

and illegalities have revealed it to be a criminal administration with

a police state mentality and police state methods. Now Bush and his

attorney general have gone the final step and declared Bush to be

above the law. Bush aggressively mimics Hitler's claim that defense of

the realm entitles him to ignore the rule of law. " [34]

 

Dean Lawrence Velvel of the U. Massachusetts Law School agrees: Mr.

Bush is attempting to consolidate power in the executive branch

through an intellectually-dishonest interpretation of the

Constitution's commander-in-chief clause. Therefore, he correctly

characterizes the Bush administration's power-grab as a constitutional

crisis: " Almost daily it becomes ever more clear that we are faced

with an attempted constitutional coup d'etat, an attempted

constitutional revolution. ... Led by Cheney, protected on his flanks

by Fawkesian legal outriders, the 'profoundly mediocre man' who is

president seeks to become all-powerful in the name of protecting his

subjects, the citizens of the United States. " [12]

 

Any reader who still doubts that Mr. Bush's power-grabs are based on

unconstitutional sophistry should consult UCSD constitutional scholar

Peter Irons' book, " War Powers: How The Imperial Presidency Hijacked

The Constitution " (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2005). Professor

Irons presents powerful historical and legal evidence which proves:

(a) that the Framers drafted the commander-in-chief clause solely to

rein in military authority by placing it under civilian control, and

NOT to allow the president to gain additional powers during an

" emergency " ; and (b) that the commander-in-chief clause has been

interpreted in accordance with the Framers' intent by every Supreme

Court and every president, except the imperial presidents Richard M.

Nixon and George W. Bush (unlike them, the earlier imperials - Abraham

Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Rooselvelt - were dealing with

an ongoing civil war or a full-fledged world war).

 

Four decisions by the US Supreme Court imposed limits on presidents who'd

invoked the commander-in-chief clause during wartime to expand their

" emergency "

powers:

(a) Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall. 2) (1866) [President may not

invoke

commander-in-chief powers during wartime to try civilians in military

courts,

if civil courts exist.];

 

(b) Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

[President

may not invoke commander-in-chief powers during wartime to nationalize the

steel industry.];

 

© Rasul v. Bush, 124 S. Ct. 2686 (2004) [President may not invoke

commander-in-chief powers during wartime to deny US courts the right

to hear writs of habeus corpus from prisoners incarcerated overseas;

however, the Senate recently passed the Graham-Levin Amendment to

repudiate Bush v. Rasul, thus enabling

Mr. Bush to ignore writs of habeus corpus and hold prisoners

indefinitely, without a hearing, in his overseas gulags.];

 

(d) Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 597 (2004) [President may not invoke

commande r-in-chief powers during wartime to claim the unchecked

authority to imprison anyone he deems to be an " enemy combatant. " ].

 

Finally, juxtapose these excerpts from US Supreme Court opinions

against Mr. Bush's notorious quest for unlimited presidential power

during the undeclared " war on terror " :

 

1) " The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and

people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its

protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all

circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences,

was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions

can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. "

[Justice David Davis' majority opinion in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S.

(4 Wall.) 2 (1866) at 120-121.]

 

2) " We have long since made clear that a state of war is not blank

check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's

citizens. " [Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's majority opinion in Hamdi v.

Rumsfeld, (03-6696) 542 U.S. 547 (2004).]

 

Of course, Messrs. Bush and Cheney vehemently disagree with the

aforementioned opinions. Hence, it should be clear that the USA is

immersed in a constitutional crisis.

 

II. DO SUFFICIENT LEGAL GROUNDS EXIST TO SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT AND

CONVICTION?

 

The short answer is " yes, sufficient legal grounds do exist. " First,

let's define the term " impeachment. " When the Framers distributed the

Constitution's checks and balances, they granted the legislative

branch the right to conduct impeachment proceedings to remove members

of the executive and judicial branches for egregious misconduct:

 

* Article II, Section 4, states who can be impeached, and on what

grounds: " The president, vice, president, and all civil officers of

the United states, shall be removed from office on impeachment for,

and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and

misdemeanors. " Legal commentators agree that impeachable misconduct

need not necessarily be " criminal, " in the sense of the criminal law.

Nevertheless, they have identified intelligible categories of " high

crimes and misdemeanors. " [see Chapter II, pp. 67-78, in Harvard Law

Professor Raoul Berger's outstanding book, " Impeachment: The

Constitutional Problems " (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1973).]

 

* Article I, Section 2 assigns the impeachment power: " The House of

Representatives shall ... have the sole power of impeachment. " Members

of the House must submit articles of impeachment, debate the merits of

their charges, and then vote. A simple majority vote in favor of

impeachment sends the case to the Senate for trial.

 

* Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6, assigns the power to try

impeachment cases and describes the trial: " The Senate shall have the

sole power to try all impeachments. ... When the president of the

United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside; and no person

shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the

members present. " Today, the two-thirds majority vote is called a

" supermajority. "

 

* Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 7, states the consequences of a

conviction by the Senate: " Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not

extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to

hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United

States, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and

subject to [future] indictment, trial, judgment and punishment,

according to law. "

 

In the case of President George W. Bush, the narrow legal issue is:

whether Mr. Bush acted within the law when he overrode a law passed by

Congress, thus bypassing its clear-cut requirement of judicial

oversight, so he could authorize the National Security Agency ( " NSA " )

to conduct warrantless domestic wiretapping on American citizens?

 

The broader constitutional issue is: whether Mr. Bush committed an

impeachable offense, such as abuse of executive power, attempting to

subvert the fundamental laws and substitute arbitrary power, violating

the constitutional system's separation of powers by encroaching on

Congressional prerogatives, or violating its checks and balances by

encroaching on the judiciary's prerogatives?

 

With all due respect to the many journalists who've already concluded,

in their eloquent essays, that Mr. Bush has committed an impeachable

offense, it nonetheless would be helpful to know what the legal

experts are thinking. And the overwhelmingly consensus among

constitutional scholars is that Mr. Bush has, indeed, committed

serious felonies. For example, three distinguished law professors - U.

Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey Stone, Georgetown U. Law Professor

David Cole, and U. Massachusetts Law School Dean Lawrence Velvel -

agree: " Some legal questions are hard. This one is not. Mr. Bush's

authorizing of the NSA to spy on Americans is blatantly unlawful and

unconstitutional. " [12] [35]

 

But is it an impeachable offense? George Washington U. Law Professor

Jonathan

Turley is one of our foremost experts on national-security law, and he

agrees with Stone, Cole and Velvel. Professor Turley hastens to add

that: (1) Mr. Bush has committed an impeachable offense; (2) Mr. Bush

is the first president ever to admit that he committed an impeachable

offense; and (3) the opposite opinion - that Mr. Bush's warrantless

domestic wiretapping program is legal, as contended by his lawyers -

simply cannot be taken seriously. Indeed, it's so erroneous that " it's

not even close. " [57]

 

Moreover, federal judges and prosecutors reject Mr. Bush's chief

defense - that the government must act quickly, without a warrant, in

its pursuit of terrorists - because it's legally-meritless poppycock.

Here's why: the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( " FISA " ) is

quite flexible about its requirement that a warrant must be obtained

for domestic wiretaps; so much so that it allows the government to

retroactively obtain a court warrant within 72 hours after commencing

a domestic wiretap.

 

Did you get that? FISA already provides for exigent circumstances,

like stopping a terrorist cell, by allowing the NSA to wiretap any

suspected terrorist immediately, and then get a court warrant three

days later. Hence, Mr. Bush's ulterior motive for the ongoing evasion

of FISA's warrant requirement must be foreknowledge that the courts

would deny the NSA's warrant requests because it isn't collecting

foreign intelligence, but rather randomly spying on American citizens

without adequate justification.

 

That's why US District Court Judge James Robertson - who, as a member

of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts ( " FISC " ), was

responsible for adjudicating those domestic wiretap warrants -

resigned last month in livid protest against Mr. Bush's four-year-long

violation of the FISA warrant requirement. [67] And that's why AG

Ashcroft's Justice Department refused to sign off on Bush's

warrantless domestic spying program. [12]

 

Additionally, former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean states that

more-than-sufficient legal grounds exist for Bush's impeachment [39],

and eminent New York trial attorney Martin Garbus agrees [46]. As does

conservative AEI scholar Norman Ornstein, who recently argued on a

radio talk-show that Mr. Bush should be impeached if he continues to

defiantly contend that he can authorize warrantless domestic spying. [79]

 

Finally, former Reagan administration Deputy AG and constitutional

scholar Bruce Fein recently warned us that: " President Bush presents a

clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to

conduct the war on terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties

and checks against executive abuses. " [79] Therefore, Fein urges

Americans to reject Bush's unconstitutional claim of " wartime

omnipotence. " [23]

 

These are only a few examples of the overwhelming consensus among

legal experts that Mr. Bush has committed a highly-consequential and

impeachable offense by defiantly violating a federal statute, and its

underlying Fourth Amendment guarantee against warrantless searches.

Furthermore, this is only the tip of the submerged evidentiary

iceberg, because we haven't considered Mr. Bush's other impeachable

offenses.

 

For instance, it's the overwhelming consensus among international law

jurists and scholars that Mr. Bush committed: (a) the supreme war

crime when he ordered the commencement of his elective war of

aggression against Iraq [31]; and (b) additional war crimes by

encouraging and condoning the torture of civilian detainees and

prisoners of war by US personnel and, through " extraordinary

rendition, " by foreign personnel [21]. Although many Americans

couldn't care less what the world's international law experts think,

the author implores them to reconsider, as the law of nations and

universal human rights are, quite rightly, held in high regard almost

everywhere else on the globe.

 

Therefore, it's fair to conclude that sufficient legal grounds exist

to support the impeachment and conviction of Mr. Bush (and the shadow

president, Mr. Cheney).

 

III. WILL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSPERSONS FILE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT IN 2006?

 

US Representative John Conyers (D-NY) has already filed an

" impeachment resolution " (H.R. 635), plus two motions for censure

(H.R. 636 and 637), in the House Judiciary Committee. [81] His

impeachment resolution (H.R. 635) will create a select committee to

investigate the Bush administration's potentially-impeachable

offenses: intent to invade Iraq prior to Congressional authorization;

manipulation of pre-war intelligence to create a casus belli under

false pretenses; encouraging and countenancing torture; vindictive

retaliation against the administration's critics; to which he should

add Mr. Bush's authorization of the NSA's warrantless domestic spying

program. Finally, the select committee will recommend grounds for

possible impeachment.

 

Hence, the Conyers impeachment resolution lays the foundation for

bipartisan impeachment proceedings, but should not be confused with

formal articles of impeachment. One author contends that John Conyers'

impeachment resolution and motions for censure are the WRONG

constitutional remedies; instead, she recommends that the Democrats

promptly file formal articles of impeachment. [73]

 

Therefore, it remains to be seen whether the Conyers impeachment

resolution will embolden timid Congressional Minority Leaders Harry

Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) enough to file formal articles of

impeachment. They appear to be reluctant to muddy the waters by

commencing impeachment proceedings, perhaps because they believe the

voters are poised to " throw the rascals out " in the 2006 mid-term

elections.

 

IV. WILL THE REPUBLICANS ALLOW THE HOUSE TO CONSIDER IMPEACHMENT IN 2006?

 

The answer is " no, they won't, " for two reasons. First, the House

Republican Majority Leaders are Bush ideologues who've rubber-stamped

every move he's made toward a police state. They'll never allow

articles of impeachment to be taken up by the House, even if they know

the charges rest on rock-solid legal grounds. Second, even if a minor

miracle occurred and the articles were taken up, the lemming-like

House Republican majority almost never breaks ranks to vote according

to their conscience. So the Reps, unlike the Dems who voted for Bill

Clinton's impeachment, cannot be persuaded on the merits to cast

honest votes in favor of impeachment.

 

Therefore, Messrs. Bush and Cheney deserve to be impeached in 2006,

but simply cannot be impeached this year for practical reasons - that

is, UNLESS the national impeachment movement swiftly snowballs into a

massive avalanche which buries the Republicans' misplaced Republican

loyalty to Bush and Cheney over the Constitution.

 

V. WILL BUSH AND CHENEY UNDERGO THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IN EARLY 2007?

 

Everyone knows that the impeachment process begins in the House of

Representatives, which is under regressive Republican control.

Therefore, the progressive Democrats cannot seriously hope to impeach

Messrs. Bush and Cheney UNLESS they can retake majority control of the

House. If the 2006 mid-term elections produce a Democratic House

majority, its new leaders should be amenable to filing articles of

impeachment, so Bush and Cheney could end up being impeached in 2007.

 

If Bush and Cheney are impeached by the House, they must undergo a

trial by the Senate, and they must be convicted by a two-thirds

" supermajority " before they can be removed from office. However, the

same analysis applies: this GOP-controlled Senate will never convict

them; so Bush and Cheney simply cannot be removed from office - that

is, UNLESS the Democrats retake majority control after the 2006

mid-term elections.

 

Therefore, the prospects for impeachment depend on the will of the

people: is it foreseeable that the voters will elect a Dem majority in

the House and Senate?

 

Yes, it's foreseeable that the blue-state voters will elect a

Democratic majority. They know that " Bush has deceived the public and

Congress in order to invade Iraq, illegally detained Americans,

illegally tortured detainees, and illegally spied on Americans. Bush

has upheld neither the Constitution nor the law of the land. A

majority of Americans disapprove of what Bush has done. " [34] Yet they

know the Democrats will be muted spectators so long as they're the

minority party. And they know we're approaching the point of no

return, where any minimally-diligent Congress already would have

impeached this out-of-control president to defend our constitutional

system's checks and balances, separation of powers, and inalienable

rights.

 

What will the red-state voters do? On the one hand, red-staters might

vote for a Democratic majority if they've finally realized that: (a)

their supposedly " anti-Big Government " Republicans have cynically

promoted the fearful overreaction to 9/11 as a pretext for granting

the executive branch enormously expanded powers, like the intrusive

power to secretly spy on the average American's e-mail and phone calls

without judicial oversight; (b) even conservative scholars think the

Republicans' domestic spying program is " blatantly unconstitutional "

because it's a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee

against warrantless government searches [79]; and © Bush and Cheney

are diametri cal opposites of freedom-loving Benjamin Franklin, for

there is no freedom that they won't sacrifice on the altar of

" national security " [82].

 

On the other hand, red-state voters might not vote for Democratic

majority because they're cynical about the kind of defense the

milquetoast Dem leaders can muster against the Rep's totalitarian

encroachments on their civil liberties. Red-staters must be convinced

that the Dem leaders are kindred spirits - which is to say, principled

and vigorous civil libertarians who'll not only " talk the talk " but

also " walk the walk. " [17] [22]

 

Hence, the composition of Congress after the 2006 mid-term election

cannot be foreseen with anything approaching clarity until the

red-staters decide whether they want to reject one-party totalitarian

rulership by voting in a Democratic majority, so they can impeach Bush

and Cheney in 2007.

 

Meanwhile, the Dem leaders can help the red-staters to decide wisely

by emphasizing: (a) that we shouldn't be squeamish about implementing

the impeachment process, because it's neither too cumbersome nor too

acrimonious, but is the Framers' intended remedy for precisely these

circumstances; and (b) even if the Senate ultimately cannot achieve

the requisite supermajority for conviction, a successful impeachment

by the House will constrain this president's unconstitutional attempts

to assume dictatorial powers.

 

VI. IF NOT US, WHO WILL HOLD BUSH-CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE RULE OF LAW?

 

It's certainly possible that we have a frightened Congress whose

members will simply abdicate in this constitutional crisis, allowing

the president to assume dictatorial " emergency " powers that are likely

to be surrendered only in the distant future, when his undeclared " war

on terror " has passed - or perhaps never wholly given up.

 

However, we can't blame Congress alone. The public has been

inexcusably tolerant of the Bush administration's law-breaking. We

don't need patience. It's time to call for impeachment. We should be

disgusted by Bush and Cheney's deliberate lies, through which they got

us to invade Iraq, allowed Osama Bin Laden to escape, keep our troops

quagmired in a bloody guerrilla war, promulgate torture in our

overseas prisons, strip the federal coffers of taxpayer monies for

domestic programs, feed billions in cronyist payola to Cheney's

Halliburton, illegally suspend the writ of habeus corpus for thousands

of people, trash our civil liberties with the Orwellian " Patriot Act, "

and defiantly authorize warrantless domestic spying on ordinary

American citizens.

 

When an imperial president intransigently asserts the

legally-meritless claim that he can violate any clause in the

Constitution because he holds dictatorial powers under the

commander-in-chief clause, impeachment is the proper remedy. Just as

Richard Milhous Nixon was forced to resign under the looming threat of

impeachment for his Watergate felonies, so too is impeachment the most

effective remedy for George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney's

highly-consequential crimes in office.

 

Resorts to the finality of impeachment might seem harsh to some, but

impeachment becomes necessary in circumstances like these, when the

Constitution must be defended from a presidential usurper. We, the

people, can either check this unrestrained imperial president now or

continue our headlong tumble into fascist dictatorship. We're rapidly

approaching the point of no return, but the choice is still ours to

make, so we must promptly demand that Congress impeach, convict, and

remove Messrs. Bush and Cheney. [90] ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE THE

CONSTITUTION A CHANCE.

______________

 

ENDNOTES

 

[1] The Framers - Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike - warned that

a militarist president would try to use war, and the " emergency "

excuse it provides, to expand his symbolic commander-in-chief power,

thus transforming the republic into a monarchy.

 

The Framers' prescient admonitions are amply illustrated by Alexander

Hamilton's comments in " The Federalist " No. 8: " Even the ardent lover

of liberty will, after a time, give way to [war's] dictates. The

violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the

continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger,

will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort, for repose

and security, to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their

civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length are

willing to run the risk of being less free. "

 

" The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and ... They

would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the EXECUTIVE

arm of government, in doing which, their constitution would acquire a

progressive direction towards monarchy. It is the nature of war to

increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.

.... Thus we should, in a little time, see established in every part of

this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge

of the Old World. "

 

[2] Retired British Army General Michael Rose's 1-10-06 CD/Guardian

essay, " Enough Of His Excuses: Blair Must Be Impeached Over Iraq "

[ " The only way Parliament can regain the trust of disaffected voters

is to admit that it was wrong to support the war " by impeaching Blair.

The same impeachment logic applies to

Congress and Bush.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0110-35.htm

 

[3] Jim Ferlo's 1-10-06 ADS open letter, " State Senator Supports

Bush's Impeachment " [Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo supports US

Rep. John Conyers' (D-NY) impeachment resolution.]:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6626/print

 

[4] Brian Foley's 1-10-06 CP essay, " Congress And Executive Power:

Playing With Fire " [Congress passed the unconscionable Graham-Levin

Amendment, which should be unconstitutional because it gives the

executive branch unchecked power to hold and torture prisoners, thus

repudiating Rasul v. Bush and rendering the McCain Amendment dead

letter.]:

http://www.counterpunch.org/foley01102006.html

 

[5] Ivan Eland's 1-10-06 CD essay, " An Imperial Presidency Based On

Constituti onal Quicksand " [Explains why it's unconstitutional for

Bush to claim that he has unchecked presidential authority during

" wartime " under an expansive interpretation of the commander-in-chief

clause.]:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0110-40.htm

 

[6] Theodore Fuller's 1-9-06 Roanoke Times essay, " Bush Believes He Is

Above The Law " [The author, a sociology professor sociology at

Virginia Tech, concludes: " I urge both houses of Congress to

immediately censure President Bush for abuse of power and further urge

that the House of Representatives begin impeachment proceedings

against President Bush. " ]:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6604/print

 

[7] Dave Lindorff's 1-9-06 ADS essay, " What We Don't Know Can Hurt Us "

[ " There is a bill in Congress to investigate Bush for impeachable

crimes. Did you

know that? " ]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6603/print

 

[8] Matthew Cardinale's 1-9-06 Atlanta Progressive News article,

" Senators Kennedy, Feingold Keep Bush Impeachment On Table " [They

won't rule out impeachment.]:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6574/print

 

[9] Martin Garbus' 1-9-06 CD/HP essay, " Angry And Furious At The

Collaborationist Democrats " [Why? Because " collaborators " Nancy

Pelosi, Jane Harman, and Jay Rockefeller knew about, but failed to

check, Bush's warrantless domestic

spying program.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0109-23.htm

 

[10] Dave Swanson's 1-9-06 WISCTV News (Wisconsin) article, " Madison

Group Wants To Impeach Bush: Urging Citizens To Rise Up And Take

Action " [ " The group said if their move for impeachment fails, they

plan to focus on helping to vote in more Democratic congressmen to

take another go at it next year. " ]:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6579/print

 

[11] Shay Totten and Kathryn Casa's 1-8-06 Vermont Guardian article,

" Feingold Won't Rule Out Bush Impeachment " [sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)

says impeachment's a possibility to hold Mr. Bush accountable for his

warrantless domestic

spying program.]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6538/print

 

[12] Lawrence Velvel's 1-7-06 LR essay, " Congress And The Constitutional

Coup D'Etat " [This is a must-read essay. Velvel is Dean of the U.

Massachusetts

School of Law.]: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/velvel2.html

 

[13] Eric Lichtblau and Scott Shane's 1-7-06 CD/NYT article " Legal

Basis For

Spying In U.S. Is Doubted " [The Congressional Research Service, a

nonpartisan

arm of the Library of Congress, issued an official report criticizing Mr.

Bush's authorization of the NSA to spy on Americans without a court

warrant

because his rationale rests on shaky legal grounds.]:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0107-02.htm

 

[14] Lawrence Velvel's 1-7-06 ADS essay, " The NYT's Unconscionable

Decision

To Sit On The NSA Story For A Year " [ " No wonder Bush was so desperate

that The

New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency

eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers

outside the

administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign

Intelligence Surv

eillance Act. Bush...knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. " ]:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6508/print

 

[15] Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith's 1-6-06 TN essay, " The Limits Of

Power: Questions For Alito " [Excellent questions expose Bush's impeachable

offenses. Naively concludes that the Senate can resolve this

constitutional crisis

during Judge Alito's confirmation hearings, where the nominee will

dodge the

Senators' questions.]:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060123 & s=questio

ns_for_alito

 

[16] Kimberly Wear's 1-6-06 Eureka Times Standard article, " Arcata

Calls For

Impeachment " [The Arcata (California) City Council's impeachment

resolution

charges Bush and Cheney with four violations of international and

constitutional

law, then requests that their US Representative introduce articles of

impeachment in the House of Representatives.]:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6486/print

 

[17] Chris Elliott's 1-6-06 CD/OS essay, " Public Inexcusably Tolerant Of

Bush's Law-Breaking " [ " If only for his flouting of the Constitution,

regardless of

any other facts in the case, the president's impeachment should be

considered. " ]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0106-27.htm

 

[18] Stirling Newberry's 1-6-06 Daily Kos essay, " Got Impeachment? " :

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6466

 

[19] Nick Turse's 1-6-06 CD/TomDispatch essay, " What Year Is This, Anyway:

Rollback To 1214 AD? " [The strking historical analogy between the

Magna Carta's

history and current events reveals that the Bushites are, at bottom,

monarchists who undermine the democratic rule of law so they can

replace it with the

despotic rule of men. The last paragraph's clear implication is that

we should

be demanding the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.]:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0106-20.htm

 

[20] Kagro X's 1-6-06 Daily Kos essay, " A Message To Impeachment

Non-Believers " [Why the seemingly far-fetched national impeachment

movement really does

make sense.]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6467

 

[21] Charlie Savage's 1-5-06 CD/BG article, " 3 GOP Senators Blast Bush

Bid To

Bypass Torture Ban: Reject Assertion He Has Right To Waive Rules To

Protect

US Security " [Republican Sens. Warner, McCain and Graham issued statements

rejecting Mr. Bush's assertion that he can override Congress' new law

banning

torture simply by exercising his " wartime powers, " which Bush says are

based in

the Constitution's commander-in-chief clause. Congress could impeach

Bush for

unconstitutionally violating the separation of powers, but Mr. Savage

deems that

remedy " politically unlikely. " ]:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0105-01.htm

 

[22] Tim Wheeler's1-5-06 PWW article, " NSA Spy Plot Fuels Call To Censure

Bush And Cheney " [The article's facts are accurate, even if the left-wing

extremist publisher is questionable.]:

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/8329/1/302

 

[23] Bruce Fein's 1-4-06 Washington Times essay, " If Men Were Angels " [The

analysis is good, even if the right-wing extremist publisher is

questionable.]:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm

 

[24] Don Simpson's 1-4-06 Toledo Blade essay, " Bush's Bugs Are An Abuse Of

Executive Power " [Notes that impeachment cannot happen so long as the

Republicans control Congress. However, " Mr. Bush cites war as his

basis for breaking the

law. The question is, war on whom? Could it not equally be argued that the

most credible threat to Americans' liberties comes from its leaders

who break

its laws? " ]:

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060104/O

PINION04/601040383/-1/OPINION

 

[25] Tom Englehart's 1-4-06 TD essay, " A Cult Of Presidential Power: The

Unrestrained President " [His closing remarks recommend impeachment by

implication

but not overtly.]: http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x & pid=46791

 

[26] Russell Berman's 1-4-06 New York Sun article, " Activist Group

Calls For

Bush, Cheney Impeachment " [Reports on ImpeachPAC.org's efforts to create a

national impeachment movement.]:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6333

 

[27] Bob Fertik's 1-4-06 ImpeachPAC.org open letter, " Hey Ken Mehlman, Why

Not Debate Impeachment? " : http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6328

 

[28] Charlie Savage's 1-4-06 TO/BG article, " Bush Could Bypass New Torture

Ban: Waiver Right Is Reserved " {Bush reserves the right, under his

expansive

interpretation of the commander-in-chief clause, to bypass the

recently-passed

McCain Amendment's clear-cut ban on torture.]:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010406A.shtml

 

[29] Tom Regan's 1-3-06 CSM article, " Debate Over Eavesdropping Grows:

Bush

Defends Program Again, But Critics In Senate Still Vow To Hold

Hearings " [Mr.

Bush contends that his warrantless domestic surveillance program is

legal, but

when the Senate holds hearing on this issue, it will discover that the top

legal scholars disagree.]:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0103/dailyUpdate.html

 

[30] David Wallechinsky's 1-3-06 Huffington Post essay, " What Is The Bush

Administration Trying To Hide? " [Raises serious questions about Mr. Bush's

ulterior motives for conducting warrantless domestic spying in

defiance of the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ( " FISA " ) and the Foreign

Intelligence

Surveillance Courts ( " FISC " ), which had been reviewing these

activities for

the past 24 years.]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6303

 

[31] James McWilliams' 1-3-06 Register Guard (Oregon) essay, " Making

The Case

For A Bush Impeachment " [Rightly contends that the supreme war crime, for

which Bush should be impeached, is misleading Congress and the public

into an

illegal aggressive war under the false pretense that the USA had to

defend itself

from an imminent WMD attack - " in the form of a mushroom cloud " - by Iraq.

It's Bush's most consequential crime. Nevertheless, our complicit

Congress won't

impeach him solely on that war crime. Just as Al Capone, the murderous

mafia

boss, was convicted for the less consequential but more provable crime of

income-tax evasion, so too will Bush, the bloodthirsty

commander-in-chief, be

impeached for the less consequential but more provable crime of

warrantless

domestic spying.]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6306

 

[32] Greg Mitchell's 1-3-06 Editor & Publisher article, " Newspapers Urge

President To Quit " [it's not taboo for an American newspaper to call

for Mr.

Bush's resignation before Congress moves to impeaches him. Afer all,

there are

precedents: when Bill Clinton was the subject, newspapers across the

USA weren't

shy in calling for his resignation.]:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6309

 

[33] Doug Thompson's 1-2-06 CHB column, " Time To Impeach A President "

[ " I've

always felt impeachment is the nuclear option of politics; a drastic

action we

call in after all else fails. That's why I've been reluctant to call

for the

impeachment of President George W. Bush. No longer. The reckless, arrogant

actions of the man leave me with no choice but to consider that final

solution.

Time to impeach the son of a bitch. " ]:

 

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7935.s

html

 

[34] Paul Craig Roberts' 1-2-06 CP essay, " A Gestapo Adminstration: Bush's

Witch Hunt Against Truth-Tellers " [ " Why is the Justice Department

investigating

the leak of Bush's illegal activity instead of the illegal activity

committed

by Bush? " ]: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01022006.html

 

[35] Geoffrey Stone's 1-2-06 HuffingtonPost.com essay, " Bush's Spy Program

And The Fourth Amendment " [The author, who is a U. Chicago law

professor, states

that Bush's warrantless domestic spying program is " blatantly unlawful and

unconstitutional. " ]:

http://news./s/huffpost/20060102/cm_huffpost/013167

 

[36] ImpeachPAC.org's 1-2-06 IP article, " ImpeachPAC Forms Citizens

Impeachment Commission " [A commission of scholars, lawyers,

journalists, former

government officials, and activists have dedicated themselves to the

impeachment,

conviction and removal of Messrs. Bush and Cheney.]:

http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=node/192

 

[37] Matthew Cardinale's 1-1-06 Atlanta Progressive News article, " Bush

Impeachment Inquiry Has 8 House Co-Sponsors " : http://www.a

fterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6223

 

[38] Hazel Trice Edney's 12-31-05 Wilmington Journal article, " Domestic

Spying Prompts Talk Of Impeachment " :

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6208

 

[39] John Dean's must-read 12-30-05 CD/FL essay, " George W. Bush As

The New

Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally And Impeachably " [bush has

underlined that his presidency cannot be checked because it is utterly

beyond the law.

Hence, there are disturbing parallels between the Bush and Nixon

administrations: both claimed that a president may violate Congress'

laws to protect

national security; however, both were impeachably wrong.]:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1230-39.htm

 

[40] Madison Capital Times' 12-30-05 CD/MCT editorial, " Talking About

Impeachment " [Calls for Congress to hold Mr. Bush accountable for his

executive-branch wrongdoing.]:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1230-34.htm

 

[41] Rosa Brook's 12-30-05 CD/LAT essay, " Is Clinton's History In Bush's

Future? " [What's wrong with this picture: Mr. Clinton was impeached

for perjurious

deposition testimony about a collateral sex scandal; contrastingly,

Mr. Bush

has not been impeached despite having committed multiple grave criminal

offenses against the US Constitution, federal law, and international

law?]:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1230-30.htm

 

[42] Molly Ivin's 12-29-05 CD/WFC essay, " Big Brother Bush "

[Especially see

her last paragraph.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1229-20.htm

 

[43] ACLU's 12-29-05 New York Times ad, " The President Lied to The

American

People and Broke the Law " [Explains the strong historical analogy

between the

crimes committed by Richard M. Nixon and George W. Bush under the

pretext of

" national security, " then recommends that Congress appoint a special

counsel to

investigate the latter's warrantless domestic spying program.]:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23271res20051229.html

 

[44] Brattleboro Reformer's 12-28-05 CD/BR editorial, " Beginning Of

The End "

[Mr. Bush's fall is imminent because he's overstepped constitutional

bounds

into executive-branch lawlessness.]:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1228-31.htm

 

[45] Geov Parrish's 12-28-05 WFC essay, " The Constitutional Crisis Of

2006 "

[Another must-read analysis.]:

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20120

 

[46] Martin Garbus' 12-28-05 HP essay, " Impeachment Is Now Real " [New York

trial lawyer explains why there are solid legal grounds for the

impeachment of

Mr. Bush.]:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-garbus/impeachment-is-n

ow-real_b_12972.ht

ml

 

[47] Doug Giebel's 12-28-05 Scoop essay, " Impeaching President Bush: A

Game

Of Ambiguity " : http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00274.htm

 

[48] Katrina vanden Heuvel's 12-27-05 CD/TN essay, " The 'I' Word " [As 2005

closes, everybody's writing about the nation's duty to impeach George

W. Bush.]:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1227-28.htm

 

[49] Ruth Conniff's 12-27-05 TP essay, " Impeachment Buzz " [Reports on

impeachment efforts by various politicians and groups.]:

http://progressive.org/mag_rc

b122705

 

[50] John Nichol's 12-27-05 CD/CT essay, " Censuring Bush Requires

Citizens'

Help " [Rep. John Conyers (D-NY) is sponsoring two bills - HR 636 and

HR 637 -

in the House Judiciary Committee that will censure Bush and Cheney for

illegal

conduct, and which could lead to their impeachment.]:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1227-29.htm

 

[51] Thomas Donlan's 12-26-05 Barrons Online article, " Unwarranted

Executive

Power: The Pursuit Of Terrorism Does Not Authorize The President To

Make Up

New Laws " [Contends that Mr. Bush's four-year-long warrantless

domestic spying

activities are not only illegal but also a potentially impeachable

offense.]:

http://online.barrons.com/article_email/SB113538491760731012

-lMyQjAxMDE1MzI1NDMy

ODQ0Wj.html

 

[52] Marty Luster's 12-26-05 CD/IJ essay, " On Bush: It's Time To Say

'Enough' " [A call for Messrs. Bush and Cheney's impeachment and

removal from office.]:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1226-21.htm

 

[53] Elsy Fors' 12-26-05 Prensa Latina essay, " First Step To Impeachment " :

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B9BABC363-A14C-4F1

B-9CBC-1903DBE6A88

7%7D & language=EN

 

[54] Dave Lindorff's 12-25-05 ThisCantBeHappening.net essay, " Time To Dump

Keller And Bush " [Calls for the removal of NYT Editor Bill Keller and

President

Bush from their respective offices.]:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5993

 

[55] Ron Jacob's 12-25-05 CP essay, " When Impeachment Was Taken Seriously:

Here's To The Land You've Torn The Heart Out Of " :

http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs12242005.html

 

[56] James Carroll's 12-25-05 Louisville Courier-Journal essay, " A Few

Democrats Say It's Now Time To Impeach Bush " :

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5991

 

[57] Ralph Nader's 12-24-05 CD essay, " Bush/Cheney Have Disgraced Their

Office: They Should Resign " [An excellent overview of the case against

Bush and

Cheney.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1224-23.htm

 

[58] Andy Ostroy's 12-24-05 OpEdNews.com essay, " It's Time To Impeach Bush

For These Blatant Violations Of The Law " [Lists nine grounds for

impeachment.]:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5973/print

 

[59] The Rev. William McGinnis' 12-23-05 LoveAllPeople.org essay, " Bush

Impeachment Process Will Begin Early January, 2006: Conservative

Republicans Will

Join Democrats To Remove The Dangerous, Out-Of-Control President-King

Before He

Does More Harm " : http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5949

 

[60] Stephen Crockett's 12-23-05 OpEdNews.com essay, " Impeach The

Liar-In-Chief " :

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5948

 

[61] Nicholas Benton's 12-23-05 FCNP.com essay, " Impeachment As

Imperative " :

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5937

 

[62] James Ridgeway's 12-22-05 CD/VV essay, " Bush Impeachment Not Out

Of The

Question: From Spying To Plame, Congress Riled Over Abuse Of Power " :

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1222-29.htm

 

[63] 's 12-22-05 CD/TN essay, " The Hidden State Steps

Forward "

[The " above-the-law " Bush administration is a dictatorship in

embryonic form.

Congress' only possible answer is to inform Mr. Bush forthwith that if he

continues to defiantly ignore the Constitution and laws passed by

Congress, he

will be impeached.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1222-36.htm

 

[64] The Editor & Publisher Staff's 12-22-05 E & P article, " 'Impeachment'

Talk, Pro And Con, Appears In Media At Last " :

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display

..jsp?vnu_content_id=1001736558

 

[65] Joe Conason's 12-22-05 New York Observer essay, " Bush's Abuse Of

Power

Deserves Impeachment " : http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5872

 

[66] William Rivers Pitt's 12-22-05 TruthOut.com essay. " The Breaking

Strain "

[Advocates impeachment.]:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5855/print

 

[67] Helen Thomas' 12-22-05 Salt Lake Tribune essay, " Bush Goes Too

Far When

He Bypasses Wiretap Court " : http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3333762

 

[68] John Nichols' 12-21-05 CD/TN essay, " Raising The Issue Of

Impeachment " :

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1221-24.htm

 

[69] The Olympian's 12-21-05 CD/TO editorial, " Bush Must Be Held

Accountable:

George Bush Cannot Protect Democracy By Destroying It " :

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1220-35.htm

 

[70] Santiago Times' 12-21-05 ST editorial, " Impeach Bush: No President Is

Above The Law; Not In Chile, Not In The U.S. " [ " Bush's slippery slope

leads to a

police state, plain and simple. " ]:

http://www.tcgnews.com/santiagotimes/index.php?nav=story & sto

ry_id=10503 & topic_id=1

 

[71] Mark Leno's 12-21-05 San Francisco Bay Guardian essay, " Horror, Lies,

Deceit, Death And Destruction " [A California state legislator calls

for Bush's

impeachment and removal from office.]:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.com/?q=node/5897

 

[72] Jerry Mazza's 12-21-05 Online Journal essay, " Patience, Mr. Bush? How

About Impeachment, Now? " :

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_353.shtml

 

[73] Bev Conover's 12-21-05 OnlineJournal.com essay, " Here We Go Again

With

The Censure Nonsense " [Forget censure! It's the wrong remedy. Explains why

impeachment is the correct constitutional remedy for the many serious

felonies

committed by President George W. Bush.]:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_354.shtml

 

[74] Howard Fineman's 12-21-05 MSNBC.com essay, " Spying, The Constitution,

And The 'I Word': 2006 Will Offer Up Nixon-Era Nastiness And A Chorus

Of Calls

To Impeach Bush " : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561966/

 

[75] Amy Goodman's 12-21-05 Democracy Now article plus transcript, " First

Steps Toward Impeachment: Conyers Introduces Bill To Censure Bush And

Cheney " :

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/21/1447240

 

[76] Bob Fertik's 12-21-05 blog article, " CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Jack

McCafferty Discuss Impeachment " : http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=node/101

 

[77] Jonathan Alter's 12-20-05 CD/Newsweek essay, " Bush's Snoopgate "

[ " If the

Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of

impeachment introduced. " ]: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1220-20.htm

 

[78] David Swanson's 12-20-05 CensureBush.org essay, " Censure And

Impeachment " [Explains that censure and impeachment aren't mutually

exclusive remedies,

and why both are worth pursuing. But see Bev Conover's dissenting essay at

endnote 62 above.]: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5782

 

[79] ThinkProgress.org's 12-20-05 essay, " Conservative Scholars Argue That

Bush's Wiretapping Is An Impeachable Offense " [Conservative constitutional

scholar Bruce Fein and AEI scholar Norman Ornstein argued, on the

Diane Rehm Show,

that Congress should impeach Mr. Bush if he defiantly continues the NSA's

warrantless domestic spying program.]:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/conservative-scholars-ar

gue-bush’s-wiretapping-is-an-impeachable-offense ...

 

[80] Marie Cocco's 12-20-05 Newsday.com essay, " Bush Shows He Believes

He's

Above The Law " [ " This is a president who believes no law applies to

him. The

president simply disregards the Constitution, save for the one clause

he uses to

justify his violation of so many others. He is, he says,

commander-in-chief.

This power trumps all. " ]:

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-opcoc204558361dec2

0,0,3978167.column?coll=ny-news-columnists ...

 

[81] US Rep. John Conyers' 12-20-05 The Nation essay, " A Motion For

Censure " :

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/motion_for_censure

 

[82] Doug Ireland's 12-19-05 CD/DI essay, " A Time To Impeach " [ " And when a

president commits a crime in violation of his oath of office swearing

to uphold

the Constitution, it's time to impeach. " ]:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-34.htm

 

[83] Senator Barbara Boxer's 12-19-05 press release, " Boxer Asks

Presidential

Scholars About Former White House Counsel's Statement That Bush

Admitted To

An 'Impeachable Offense' " : http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5739

 

[84] Associated Press' 12-19-05 AP Atlanta article, " Congressman Calls For

Bush's Impeachment " [uS Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) has called for Mr. Bush's

impeachment.]:

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=691

23

 

[85] Ron Hutcheson's 12-19-05 Knight-Ridder article, " Bush Says Spying

Will

Continue: Democrats Reject Rationale For Domestic Surveillance, Say

President

Has Abused His Power " [see GWU Law Professor Jonathan Turley's expert

opinion

in the fourth paragraph.]:

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=5624

 

[86] David Savage's 12-17-05 LAT article, " '78 Law Sought To Close Spy

Loophole: Congress Acted To Prohibit The Kind Of Domestic Surveillance

That Is Now

At Issue " :

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-lega

l17dec17,1,6257251.story?coll=la-news-a_section ...

 

[87] Hilzoy's 12-16-05 Washington Monthly guest column, " Above The Law 2 " :

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12

/007789.php

 

[88] Doug Thompson's 12-9-05 CHB essay, " Bush On The Constitution:

'It's Just

A God-Damned Piece Of Paper' " [bush to GOP Congressmen lobbying him in the

Oval Office: " Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a

goddamned

piece of paper! " ]:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7779.s

html

 

[89] Ralph Nader & Kevin Zeese's 8-31-05 Boston Globe essay, " The 'I'

Word "

[Ample grounds existed for Mr. Bush's impeachment well before the NY Times

broke the story on 12-16-05 - which it had suppressed for one year -

about his

authorization of the NSA's warrantless domestic spying program.]:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/arti

cles/2005/05/31/th

e_i_word?mode=PF

 

[90] At least 14 websites advocate the prompt impeachment, conviction and

removal from office of President George Walker Bush and Vice President

Richard

Bruce Cheney:

[a] http://impeachbushcoalition.blogspot.com

http://www.impeachpac.org

[c] http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=taxonomy/term/17

[d] http://www.votetoimpeach.org

[e] http://www.impeachbush.org

[f] http://www.impeach-bush-now.org

[g] http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/

[h] http://www.thefourreasons.org/

http://impeachbush.meetup.com/

[j] http://www.topplebush.com/

[k] http://elandslide.org/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=impea

ch & refer=home

[l] http://impeachthesonofabitch.com/

[m] http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/

[n] http://impeachcentral.com

_____________

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., is the Executive Director of the

American

Center for International Law ( " ACIL " ). His essays have been published

worldwide by more than 30 websites. Editors, please feel free to

publish this essay

without activating its 90 URLs.

Readers, please feel free to forward this essay to relatives, friends and

colleagues.

© 2005 EAP III

_____________