Impeachment

The men who crafted our Constitution understood that some office holders would act in a manner which would necessitate their removal from office. However, they also realized that occasionally politicians would abuse those procedures so they intentionally made the process fairly difficult.

There has been considerable talk among the angry left about impeaching President Bush for various imagined offenses. Orson Scott Card wrote a lengthy column responding to a Doonesbury cartoon pushing that idea.

The comic strip, by Garry Trudeau, shows a professor teaching a class, in which he compares two presidents -- Bush and Clinton. Of Bush he says, "The first president initiates a bloody, costly, unending war on false premises ... and approves covert policies of illegal detentions, kangaroo courts, extraordinary renditions, torture, and warrantless wiretapping of thousands of Americans."

Of Clinton, he says, "The second president lies about hooking up with an intern. Question: Which one should be impeached?"

The only reason Trudeau's little screed is worth answering is because there are a lot of bitter, angry Democrats who feel the same way.

Click here for the rest of the article. Card very effectively refutes Trudeau's nonsense.

While we are on the subject of impeachment, I believe we actually don't use the process often enough. The political tree most in need of periodic pruning is the federal judiciary. The legislative and executive branch is subject to review by the voters. However, federal judges are appointed for life. Currently the only times judges have been impeached is when they have been caught in specific criminal acts. I don't think that is sufficient. For example, what would you think if a Supreme Court Justice claimed the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful." The reason I ask is because Justice Breyer used exactly that language to defend the current practice of just making stuff up that isn't in the Constitution. What Breyer doesn't get is it is he and his fellow justices who are exceeding the power originally intended for their position. Actually, Justice Breyer, your job is not to promote rights of minorities or any other group. Your job is to rule based on applicable laws. During recent confirmation hearings a senator in an accusing manner asked whether the nominee would look out for the little guy. The nominee rightly responded he would look out for the little guy if the law dictated so, but if the correct ruling would favor the big guy then he would look out for the big guys rights. When it comes to judges, I believe an open declaration of intention to ignore the U.S. Constitution is the equivalent of a high crime.