|
Commentary
|
|
Go back to the
previous section of this article... |
|
Commentary
|
|
|
7.1 |
The
Senate might reasonably conclude that with the present fact situation,
one day is sufficient to consider an article, examine the organization
chart, weigh the facts, consider the national interest, and vote to
decide the issue of removal. The Senate can take more than a day if they
think it is necessary. A prolonged Senate debate may be healthy in and
of itself.
We
need to keep in mind that we do not know what new information and
background may emerge. We don't know what possible corrective actions
may be best, or exactly who knew what when. Congress has the power to
ask the questions we need to ask, and to compel answers on penalty of
perjury. A House impeachment proceeding against secretary Rumsfeld may
result in evidence gathering that leads the House to not impeach him,
but to impeach one or more others. However, it is inconceivable to
conclude that no one should be removed. If we can't find out precisely
who should be removed, we are better advised to err on the safe side and
remove multiple people, than to remove no one. |
|
|
|
|
7.2 |
We
should reflect on the fact that a person removed from office by a Senate
impeachment trial is free to do whatever they want on the day of their
conviction -- and the next day -- with just one restriction: they can
not wield powers of the United States government. Our situation is
horrible and tragic, but it is not complicated. The action of
Congress can and should be clear, simple and soon.
It
finally all boils down to this. Congress has the power to say to any
civilian office holder: “you're fired.” President Bush has the same
power to fire that person. Both have the duty to use good judgment in
exercising this power, and all power. This system is imperfect – it was
designed by people, and it's run by people. However, when
governmental power is used incompetently, or dangerously, at least
this system gives us two chances, not just one, that some
person or group will see the problem and put a stop to it. This is the
essence of the system of checks and balances. Today this seems to be the
best we can do. Maybe we can do better in the future. |
|
|
|
|
7.3 |
Looking back and
looking forward
This
constitutional theory is both new and significantly different from the
current understanding. Because of this, it seems that it would be unjust
to immediately attempt to apply it other than in the case of
removing civil officers by decriminalized Senate impeachment trial.
Beyond the removal from office of one or a group of civil officers who
have woefully failed our country, the full consequences and implications
of this new reading of the constitution must be studied and explored
deliberately, carefully and thoughtfully.
One of
the best ways to study this theory further may be to reflect on how some
of the problems our nation has encountered could have been avoided if
this theory had been known and accepted earlier. We cannot change
history, but we can benefit from thinking about how it might have
happened differently. Let's consider two brief situations, first,
president Clinton's, and second, secretary Rumsfeld's. |
|
|
|
|
7.4 |
If
this theory had emerged during the Watergate investigation that led to
president Nixon's resignation, the Clintons would have gone through
their adult lives with a very different understanding of what standard
was required for serving as president. Would president Clinton have
avoided the wrongful behavior that led first to the “whitewater”
investigation, and finally to his impeachment? We can only note that a
better course of events, and a better outcome, were certainly possible,
if he had known of the powerful ways in which Congress could hold him
accountable for his actions.
What
if this theory had been widely known as the Bush administration took
office? Would secretary Rumsfeld, president Bush, and others, have
operated differently if they had known, and the American people had
known, that Congress could impeach them, require them to testify, and
anything they said, or didn't say, could be held against them in a
decriminalized impeachment trial? Again, we can only note that a better
course of events, and a better outcome were certainly possible. |
|
|
|
|
7.5 |
The
point is this: wouldn't both president Clinton and secretary Rumsfeld
have acted differently if our constitutional safeguards had been better
understood, and better used? On the one hand, we can only reasonably
hold a person responsible for what is known and believed at the time a
person acts. This is why it seems so important at this time to restrict
any immediate implementation of the powers and provisions we have
examined. We should go no further than decriminalized removal from
office. On the other hand, the importance of considering the context in
which people act simply gives more weight to the need to remove from
office a person or persons responsible by actions or policies for the
context in which the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners occurred. |
|
|
|
First section |
|
End |
|
|
|
Previous |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|