Elizabeth Holtzman: No Vice President Is Above the Law

[babylonsister]

No Vice President Is Above the Law
by Elizabeth Holtzman

For the first time since the Bush administration took office, three members of the House Judiciary Committee, Robert Wexler (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), are calling for hearings on the impeachment of Vice President Richard Cheney.

Their position, while courageous, is not surprising. What is surprising is that it took this long for members of Congress to invoke impeachment, and that even now, they do so against enormous political resistance and cynical indifference from the media.

No serious student of the Constitution would question that sufficient grounds exist to impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The Constitution provides that an Executive who puts himself above the law and abuses the powers of his office may be impeached, a point confirmed in the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon, for abuses such as illegal wiretapping.

There is little serious debate about whether Bush administration actions — wiretapping without court approval (violating the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act), authorizing and facilitating mistreatment of detainees (violating U.S. treaties and criminal laws), starting the Iraq war on a basis of lies, exaggerations and misstatements (an abuse of power) — meet the Constitutional standard.

So why hasn’t a majority of Congress supported it? Twenty members co-sponsored Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s resolution calling for the impeachment of Cheney, but bucked their leadership to do so. Democratic leaders took impeachment “off the table,” apparently fearing it could hurt their chances in 2008.

Does the leadership defend the administration, contend that its actions are unimpeachable, or argue they don’t rise to the level of abuse for which Nixon was impeached? Remarkably, no. They publicly say there is no time, and that impeachment proceedings would distract the Congress from other work and divide the country.

These arguments are laughable compared to the imperative to uphold the constitution. And even on their own terms, they are specious. Let’s take them one at a time:

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/19/5900/

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. kick n/t

[DavidDvorkin]

2. Cheney is

And so is Bush.

They shouldn't be, of course, but they are.

[Independent_Liberal]

4. That's what they want you to believe.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. I haven't seen anything to make me believe otherwise

No matter what the bastards do, no matter how great and obvious their crimes, they get away with it through a combination of stonewalling on their side and cowardice on the other side.

It's not going to change. They'll skate -- out of office and into retirement.

[Independent_Liberal]

6. Nothing will change unless...

Unless people get the courage to regain their strength and let their outrage motivate them into doing something about it. I tend to be more optimistic than some, but I do believe it takes will power. Once people are marching in the street with fire in their eyes, that's when you know the time has come.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Yup

[Richard Steele]

3. K&R

[Solly Mack]

8. Evidence suggest otherwise

Good article though

[DCKit]

9. None of the Republic candidates and only four of the Dems...

Have said anything about kicking the corporations out of the political process, the restoration of the fairness doctrine to media, holding the ruling junta accountable for their many illegal activities, the restoration of the Constitution, reversing the horrendous decisions the FCC has made and dismantling the new media empires. Why are none of the candidates who propose these most basic reforms and a return to Democracy among the Democratic anointed?

None of the four campaigning in our interest is much covered or considered a strong enough contender to warrant attention in the MSM or the polling high in any but the most minor, independent polls; yet here on DU and in OUR media they are, overwhelmingly, the stars.

Go figure.