Billy C

[Henry C.K. Liu]

It seems to me that there is another dimension about the impeachment debate
that needs to be mentioned.  Over the history of the U.S., the presdiency
has been growng in power, to the point that the notion of the imperial
persidency is now a reality.  To the extend that the balance of power and
the separation of powers between the three branches of government is tilted
in favor of the presidency, the prostect of American policy remaining truth
to the ideals of the Amercian Idea is eclipsed.  For examle, Congress'
exclusive power to declare war is now a joke. Those who subscribe to the
garrison state mentality in foreign policy view a powerful presdiency as a
positive development.   A case can be made, however, that Amerian
imperialism is directly related to the imperial presidency.
All over the world, governments fall without bring the world to an end.
When impeachment becomes a regular vehicle in the America political process,
it may well make the government more resposnsive in general.
The pretext of impeachment is not crucial.
Typical of historic events, momentous dialectics of powerful socio-political
forces would seize upon some seemingly-trivial incident as rallying cry and
twist it into a fateful turning point in history.
Protestantism would win England in 1533 with the anti-ecclesiastical
arguments of lawyer Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540), which would exploit the
dispute between Henry VIII (1509-1547) and Pope Clement VII (1523-1534) over
Henry's divorce of Catherine of Aragon.  Henry had marry Catherine, the
virgin widow of Arthur, deceased brother of the English king, on a
controversial dispensation on his late brother's unconsummated political
marriage granted earlier, in 1503, by the worldly Pope Julius II
(1503-1513).  England's long dispute with the Bishop of Rome over drainage
of money from England to Rome would manifest itself as a quarrel over royal
privileges via the personal conducts of her whimsical sovereign.  It would
ultimately deprive the Roman Catholic Church of its established hold on the
diocese of England while Pope Clement VII, born Giulio de' Medici, would be
preoccupied with building the Michelangelo-designed sepulchral Medici chapel
in Florence for his legendary father, Lorenzo, and brother, Giuliano.  The
rise of an English monarchy ecclesiatically independent of Rome, a matter of
mere political policy under Cardinal Wolsey, would become an issue of
schismatic doctrine under Cromwell, with the English king claiming, in
addition to political independence, to be the supreme head of a
reconstituted Protestant Church of England.
A later English monarch, George III (1760-1820), would ultimately forfeit
his moral leadership and be deprived of his political authority in the
American colonies, through a series of unwise decisions leading to an
ill-fated pacification war sparked by a trivial incident in which a small
group of overzealous youths, incited by the radical colonial Samuel Adams
(1722-1803), masquerading as Indians, would dump small quantities of tea,
imported from China by British-owned East India Company, into Boston Harbor
in 1773, in protest over the unpopular Stamp Act.  Having induced permanent
loss of the colonies in America for the House of Hanover over the right to
tax Chinese tea it imported to these colonies, the British East India
Company, over its insistence to illegally import opium to China, would
redeem itself, albeit at a moral cost, by winning Hong Kong in 1841 for
Queen Victoria (1837-1901).
As for the French Revolution, it would be the mysterious disappearance of a
ruinously-expensive diamond necklace that would galvanize opposition of
French aristocrats against Marie Antoinette, frivolous foreigner queen.
Cardinal de Rohan (1734-1803), of ancient aristocratic stock, would insist
he had been doped into purchasing the necklace under secret instruction from
an agent of Marie-Antoinette, later discovered to be the self-serving and
fraudulent Jeanne de la Motte posing as an intimate of the Queen.   The
incident would lead eventually to an open trial that would devastate the
prestige of the monarchy under Bourbon kings, weakening it for subsequent
revolution.
For Tang dynasty China, resistance to creation of the new post of chenfei
(imperial spouse) in imperial hougong (rear palace) for Wu Zhao, an imperial
favorite of sheren (commoner) root, would lead to impeachment of Empress
Wang and eventually to the emergence of Wu Zhao as the first and only female
huangdi (emperor) in Chinese history.
Now, why shouldn't the technical definition of sex be the pretext to reform
American polity?

Henry C.K. Liu

Carl Remick wrote:


> Re MBS's:  "The greatest crime is the ability of
> a simple Congressional majority, in
> collusion with a Reaganite judiciary,
> to railroad a popularly elected
> president from office.  It smacks
> of fascism.  Clinton's deeds against
> Iraq, whatever you think of them, are
> business as usual.  The time to criticize
> business as usual is all the time.
> The time to criticize the act of
> impeachment is right now.  The
> ratification of Delay's coup makes
> future Iraq-type actions much
> more likely, not less."
>
> I'm much inclined to say the hell with Clinton also, but this is very
> well put, Max.  See also today's NY Times, viz.:
>
> "Having disagreed with the president on issues like welfare reform,
> crime policy, the North American Free Trade Agreement and military
> actions in the Persian Gulf, many on the left of the [Democratic] party
> are now finding themselves in the uncomfortable position of defending
> him.
>
> "'The right looks at Clinton and they see us,' said Robert Borosage, a
> fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies and an adviser to [Jesse]
> Jackson during his 1988 presidential campaign. 'They see anti-war, gay
> rights, pro-choice, civil rights. But when we look at him, we don't see
> us at all.
>
> "'But," Borosage added, 'we can't let the right wing win. He ain't much.
> But he's all we got.'"
>
> Carl Remick