|
Abstract
Can congress "fire" defense secretary Rumsfeld, or
other federal civil officers? Here's the guts of this
constitutional theory and its implications (in about 400 words, a
print friendly version is also available):
The claims
The president and cabinet secretaries can be
"fired by congress" -- impeached and removed from office with no issue
of criminal law -- whenever the national interest demands it.
When executive branch civil officers are
impeached for criminal grounds, both the senate and the judiciary
have independent powers to try the case -- a conviction in either
venue requires removal from office under article II.
The constitution provides additional legal
means for removal from office.
Consequences
The constitutional intent is for both a
higher standard of conduct for presidents and cabinet secretaries, and
for more accountability to congress and the American people than we have
realized.
Congress has much stronger oversight
powers, and a greater oversight duty than we have realized.
Present Application
Congress can "fire" secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, and/or others, for failing to prevent the torture and abuse of
Iraqi prisoners. The American people can hold individual members
of congress responsible for their vote to do this -- or not do this --
both before the coming election, and after the election.
Implication
Over time, this theory has the potential to
provide a broad basis of agreement about what we can and should expect
from our government and from our leaders. Had this theory been
known and accepted earlier
a) it could have potentially prevented
both what led to the Clinton impeachment and Abu Ghraib, because
b) it provides both stronger and more
effective corrective measures for both cases. Specifically:
Clinton's case could have been sent to a
judicial court (probably to the supreme court directly),
without disrupting the senate.
Civilian leaders can be held responsible for
preventing anything like Abu Ghraib both now and in the future.
The interpretation
This theory is based essentially on a "strict
constructionist" or "original meaning" approach to the constitution.
It is firmly rooted in the exact words, and the structure of arrangement
of the words, in the constitution itself.
A final comment
Fundamentally, this theory is rooted in an awareness of the dangers
of government power in the hands of fallible and corruptible people, and
the need to have as many safeguards as possible to prevent the misuse or
abuse of that power. The implications of this theory go much
further. We must realize that because this theory is so different
from the current theory of impeachment, that in the immediate future it
would certainly be wrong to apply it further than to removal from
office. |