[lbo-talk] Alterblog: When censure is not enough

Shane Mage shmage at pipeline.com
Wed Mar 15 23:08:32 PST 2006


The blogger claims that censure would be "unconstitutional." But Congress repeatedly passes resolutions of censure or condemnation against all sorts of (foreign) people and governments without anyone ever claiming unconstitutionality. Censure is "only" an expression of congressional opinion without legal force--though with enormous political impact on a censured president--and so cannot possibly be an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power. And as for that racist bloodsucker Andrew "John Marshall has made his ruling, let him enforce it" Jackson as a source of constitutional jurisprudence...

But what would be entirely unconstitutional is for Senator Feingold to propose impeachment, which is the constitutional prerogative of the House of Representatives. For him to propose that the Senate, or Congress jointly, pass a resolution of censure against this subcriminal president is quite proper, is politically effective (which is why the Dumbocrats run in terror from the very idea), and moreover doesn't risk adding legal sanction to Cheney's usurped presidential powers.

Shane Mage

"Thunderbolt steers all things...It consents and does not consent to be called Zeus."

Herakleitos of Ephesos



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list