URL: http://alternet.org/blogs/themix/33532/
From Impeachment to ... Censure?
Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri at 6:51 PM on March 14, 2006.
Feingold's motion to censure the president is a step in the right
direction; but it seems like radical times like these call for more
radical measures.
In the past month, the concept of impeachment has gained currency in
public dialogue, making appearances across the spectrum -- from
mainstream media to the town halls of Vermont and California.
But just as the public is warming to the idea, Democratic Senator Russ
Feingold has added another term into the mix: censure. Now it seems
that those who were previously in support of impeachment have jumped
to espouse censure -- as though the terms were synonymous. A popular
site for impeachment news, "Afterdowningstreet.org" can now be reached
through the url "Censurebush.org."
I think there is a danger in embracing this approach; reframing the
movement from impeachment to censure is akin to softening the blow
before we have even made a proper fist.
First, it's important to acknowledge the importance of Feingold's
message. His call for action on the president's illegal conduct -- and
the deafening silence from his fellow politicians -- is an important
piece of the machinery that could push Americans to ask the right
questions.
Furthermore, Feingold's public appearances on CNN and interviews with
mainstream media outlets are solidifying the knowledge that many
lawyers have already digested: President Bush's warrantless wiretap
program is illegal and falls easily into the impeachable category of
high crimes and misdemeanors.
When CNN's Soledad O'Brien questioned whether there was still doubt
about the legality of the program, Feingold retorted,
There is no serious debate about whether the president was within
the law. This is the game of intimidation and it's working.
Obviously, they've got you thinking that there's a legal basis for
this when there isn't. Even Republican Senators have said this
isn't within the law. What we do know, what the President has
admitted is that it was not within the FISA, so president broke the
law.
While acknowledging that the NSA program is "a lot more like an
impeachable offense than anything President Clinton ever did,"
Feingold fails to follow through, arguing that censure, rather than
impeachment, is "a way to restore constitutional order on a bipartisan
basis."
But the argument makes little sense. There is no escaping the fact
that publicly chastising this president is a partisan issue. It seems
unlikely that those who oppose impeachment will be inclined to support
Feingold's political call for censure.
Even outside of the appeal for bipartisan support, the notion that
censure would restore order is misleading. Feingold told the press,
"Congress has to reassert our system of government, and the cleanest
and the most efficient way to do that is to censure the president."
With all due respect to Feingold's boldness, this statement is simply
incorrect.
What censure is (and isn't)
Censure resolution was used only once before; back in 1834. President
Andrew Jackson rejected it as illegal and unconstitutional. Jackson
had a point -- the Constitution makes very clear that the only
resolution for presidential crimes is impeachment. Given President
Bush's consistent claims to expansive executive power, it would be out
of character for him to not argue the unconstitutional nature of a
censure just as Jackson did.
While Feingold indicated that his move for censure is a possible
precursor to impeachment, there is neither legal precedent nor
connection between the two.
The most recent talk of censure came during the Clinton impeachment
proceedings. But in that context, it was discussed as a carrot,
functioning as a corollary to the de facto stick -- impeachment. In
other words, it was thought of as a potential gesture of good will to
be extended to Clinton if he cooperated by being more forthcoming in
questioning.
Even within this framework, Republicans quickly trashed the idea. Rep.
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said, "This censure idea without an admission
on the president's part, is a political cop-out." Tom DeLay made clear
that he viewed censure as "unsatisfactory and unconstitutional." And
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) pointed out that, "Anyone who thought the
president should be impeached beforehand will still think so, and
anyone who thought that the president should not be impeached will
think that."
The contradiction in Feingold's message is evident: while
acknowledging that the president is guilty of an impeachable offense,
he avoids the clear call for the only constitutional legal remedy that
can stop the offense from occurring.
The move to censure has proved perplexing to those pursuing the legal
avenue of impeachment. As Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
lawyer Shayana Kadidal explained, "As an attorney, I don't see why
Congress should be hesitant to consider impeachment. The process,
unlike a censure, would include a real investigation and trial for
illegal conduct, not merely a declaration of Congress' disapproval."
Confronting the fear
Part of the blame may be the unpopularity of the word "impeachment."
Even members of the progressive community are recoiling from the
concept. But the arguments against impeachment seem to revolve largely
around a nebulous fear: That it's not possible and therefore not worth
the energy to try, or that it distracts from the goal of winning the
upcoming elections.
The most legitimate concern is that the impeachment of Bush will
provide too easy a scapegoat for our political woes. But impeachment
campaigns, such as the one led by CCR, have made clear that the call
for impeachment is not simply about this president. Rather, it's about
halting the rampant expansion of executive powers under this
administration's watch.
Impeachment skepticism
Cataloguing Bush's many distortions of the U.S. Constitution, Harold
Meyerson recently wrote in the Washington Post, "Does any or all of
this rise to the level of an impeachable offense, or is it merely the
kind of thing that lands a president on eternal sizzle in one of
Dante's lower loops?"
Could it really be that a majority of Americans believe the president
deserves to wallow in the depths of hell, but should not be
investigated and impeached?
I believe that, by running away from impeachment, the progressive
community passes up a golden opportunity for mobilizing change. Salon
writer Michelle Goldberg recently covered a recent public impeachment
panel held in New York City. While the panel was billed as "Is There A
Case for Impeachment," Goldberg points out there was little question
whether the president should be impeached based on the evidence;
rather, it was a question of whether Bush could be impeached.
To address this is to face our biggest fear. Goldberg accurately
labels what's ailing the progressive community: Fear of facing its
impotence. "It seems almost willfully naive to talk about mustering a
congressional majority for impeachment without grappling with the
deformation of our democracy that must be overcome first."
Impeachment and inquiry will not solve America's political problems.
As Meyerson and other pundits have pointed out, the administration is
so rotted to the core that simply attempting to oust Bush will hardly
remedy the larger problems. But a diligent impeachment inquiry could
signal the beginnings of a true examination of the broken political
system that created and nurtured George Bush and enabled his legal
trespasses.
A tool for change
Toward the end of the impeachment panel in New York, an audience
member asked, "Are you willing to discuss the alternative that the
American people have if they're faced with an illegal government
because impeachment doesn't work?" Panelist Lewis Lapham, who recently
wrote an article for Harper's on the impeachment movement replied, "I
do think that it could easily get to the revolutionary stage, because
I would expect the fight to be extremely ugly. It might come to that.
I don't think you're going to keep your democratic republic easily."
While talk of revolution may have long ago lost its cache, it's
important to identify the revolution that this administration has
started in its midst. Legal blogger Anonymous Liberal wrote yesterday,
What Republican strategists have learned is that when a party
speaks in unison, it has the power to define what is considered
reasonable in the eyes of the national media, and in turn, the
American public. When a Republican steps over the line... more
often than not his Republican colleagues act collectively to move
the line...Talking points that would have seemed totally absurd
days earlier suddenly become credible and reasonable, and for no
other reason than they are being repeated by a chorus of Republican
politicians, pundits, and bloggers. In this way, the definition of
"reasonable" can be changed dramatically overnight.
The groundswell for impeachment revealed a growing political awakening
among Americans. It seems to me that progressives would be foolish not
to harness this momentum. To push for censure rather than impeachment
is to walk away from a fight to regain reason.
Onnesha Roychoudhuri is AlterNet's assistant editor.