DeFazio explains his 'No Impeach' Position
author: Barbara G. Ellis
|
Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio (4th Dist) justifies his opposition to impeachment/ouster of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
|
Just as Rep. Earl Blumenauer explained to several constituents earlier this week why he opposes impeachment/ouster of Bush and Cheney (SEE link below), Rep. Peter DeFazio today added his agreement to that position: That no matter what those two and their supporters do to tear up the Constitution and overthrow our system of government in the next 25 months, impeachment is just too extreme a step to take—EVER. DeFazio told Thom Hartmann on Air America months ago that he opposed impeachment because Congress was controlled by the Republicans and so it was not possible. Now that the Democrats control Congress, however, his arguments boil down to his view of not being able to get votes and impeachment proceedings would halt all Congressional business. Note also that he says "Most people who advocate for impeachment do so because of the war in Iraq." Only a minority advocate it because of Constitutional violations leading us to a dictatorship by a "decider" both domestically and globally. That those urging impeachment just take the Constitution entirely too seriously and actually expect people elected to Congress to obey their oath to preserve, defend, and protect what's really "just a ...piece of paper," as Bush regards it. The inescapable tenor to voters from both Blumenauer and DeFazio's statements is largely "Father knows best."
To them, party discipline/priorities selected by the Democratic Leadership Council are far more important than the Constitution and those who've trampled it. They don't seem to recognize that the Executive branch has nullified Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court—and laid precedent for future presidents to rule Congress and the courts—like a Saddam or any third-world dictator. They fail to realize that their terror of wielding the Founder's tool of impeachment against tyrants has given B&C and future presidents what amounts to the Divine Right of Kings—and made Congress all but powerless. Its members have permitted (and will continue to permit the executive branch) to do anything it wishes—tax cuts for the rich, eventual death of Social Security, public education, attack/invasion of Iran, Syria, etc. etc. After all, Bush has the power of the secret signing statement and the executive order. He doesn't need the veto to discard any 100-hour legislation of a Democratic-controlled Congress. And who gave him that power??
Drop Peter an email about what he says below either for his edification about impeachment/ouster or to ask under what circumstances should impeachment/ouster ever be exercised if not with this regime's high crimes.
______________________
Message from the Hon. Peter DeFazio
Thanks for your message in support of impeaching the president and vice president. I appreciate hearing from you.
I know we share many of the same concerns about President Bush and others in his administration. I have repeatedly used my voice and my vote to oppose the administration's misguided policies, and will continue to do so. I voted against the PATRIOT Act. I voted against the war in Iraq. I voted against legislation to establish military commissions to try suspected terrorists because of my concerns about the stripping of habeas corpus, the immunization of administration officials who authorized torture, and the authorization of the president to indefinitely detain even American citizens as "enemy combatants." And, I voted against legislation authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless wiretaps of American citizens.
Most people who advocate for impeachment do so because of the war in Iraq. However, it is important to keep in mind that a majority of the House and an overwhelming majority in the Senate voted to authorize the war with Iraq. I voted against the war, but it is hard to make the case that a president can be impeached for something Congress authorized him to do. If so, an argument can be made that the 296 members of the House and the 77 members of the Senate who voted in favor of the war should also be removed from office.
While I understand your frustration with the Bush administration, even with the Democratic takeover of both the House and the Senate, there is still no chance that President Bush will be impeached, convicted and removed from office. Conviction and removal requires the vote of 2/3rds of the Senate. Even if all of the Democrats in the Senate voted to convict and remove the president and vice president (an unlikely scenario), that would only be 51 votes, far short of the 67 votes that would be required. Therefore, if the goal of impeachment is to change U.S. policies by removing the current administration from power, that goal will not be achieved with an impeachment strategy.
Rather than an impeachment strategy, we need a strategy to turn the country around, to instill some backbone in Congress so that it exerts itself as a co-equal branch of government, and to investigate the failings and abuses of power of the current administration whether it's Iraq, warrantless spying on Americans, giving contracts to friends and contributors, or the sanctioning of torture. Given the Democratic takeover, it is certain that Congress will conduct meaningful oversight, hold hearings, and attempt to pass legislation to overturn or revise the Bush administration's many flawed and failed policies. After all, in the House of Representatives, a majority of Democrats voted against the Iraq war, against the military commissions legislation, and against the NSA warrantless wiretapping program, among other Bush initiatives. If the goal is too actually change policies and the direction of our country, an oversight and legislative strategy can succeed. An impeachment strategy will fail.
Democrats could put our legislative agenda on hold and pursue an all consuming effort to impeach the president as the Republicans did in the late 1990s. But, I don't think that makes sense since impeachment and conviction will not succeed and the trade-off would be abandoning a real chance to make a difference in the lives of average working families via a legislative agenda to raise the minimum wage, reduce the price of pharmaceuticals, expand access to health care, reduce the cost of higher education, overhaul failed trade policies and other initiatives.
Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.
Rep.Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON
-------------------
****Please do not reply directly to this email******
Please submit further correspondence from  http://www.house.gov/writerep/
|
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article
|
