March 12, 2006
Congress should censure President George W. Bush for ordering domestic eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant, a Democratic senator said on Sunday.Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin told ABC's "This Week" that he intends to push for a resolution that would censure the president for what he considers an unlawful wiretapping program authorized by the White House after the September 11 attacks.
Now there is no provision for the censure of the President in the Constitution, so I would hope that any attempt would be ruled out of order.
On what basis does Feingold want there to be a censure?
"The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable," Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press in an interview.* * *
The five-page resolution to be introduced on Monday contends that Bush violated the law when, on his own, he set up the eavesdropping program within the National Security Agency in the months following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Bush claims that his authority as commander in chief as well as a September 2001 congressional authorization to use force in the fight against terrorism gave him the power to authorize the surveillance.
The White House had no immediate response on Sunday.
The resolution says the president "repeatedly misled the public" before the disclosure of the NSA program last December when he indicated the administration was relying on court orders to wiretap terror suspects inside the U.S.
"Congress has to reassert our system of government, and the cleanest and the most efficient way to do that is to censure the president," Feingold said. "And, hopefully, he will acknowledge that he did something wrong."
The Wisconsin Democrat, considered a presidential contender for 2008, said he had not discussed censure with other senators but that, based on criticism leveled at Bush by both Democrats and Republicans, the resolution makes sense.
The president's action were "in the strike zone" in terms of being an impeachable offense, Feingold said. The senator questioned whether impeaching Bush and removing him from office would be good for the country.
Russ, if you really believe that there is something impeachable here, censure is unacceptable (it is cowardly, in addition to being extra-constitutional). Why don't you just sign on with the House Moonbat Caucus and led your prestige to this proposal.
30 US House Representatives have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors of H. Res 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s impeachment, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.“There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power,” US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.
* * *
Over 14% of US House Democrats now support the impeachment probe; almost 7% of all US House Representatives now support the probe. In December 2005, there were 231 Republicans in the US House, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 1 vacancy, a clerk for the US House of Representatives told Atlanta Progressive News.
The best represented states on H. Res 635 are California (7), New York (6), Massachusetts (3), Georgia (2), Minnesota (2), and Wisconsin (2).
The current 30 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).
Wouldn't you be in fine company, Russ -- and it would really help you to get the support of the far-left moonbat wing of the Democrat Party -- the KOSsaks and DUmmies and all the rest of the extreme Lleft who haven't met an enemy of the United States tehy haven't embraced.
So have the courage of your convictions Russ -- and stand by the Constitution, if you really believe the President has committed High Crimes and Misdemenaors.
Or is this all a publicity stunt, designed to make you look good but accomplish nothing?
MORE AT: Decision '08, Political Pitbull, Blogs for Bush (twice), Sister Toldjah, Those Bastards!
Posted by: Greg at
08:51 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 820 words, total size 6 kb.
Uh, dude, the Senate can pass any non-binding resolution it wants, per the Constitution. Note the Constitution says nothing about the rules of the Senate, except that the Senate can make up its rules of operation. Do you think the Senate rules are "out of order"?
So have the courage of your convictions Russ -- and stand by the Constitution, if you really believe the President has committed High Crimes and Misdemenaors.
Feingold is in the Senate, which does not have the power to file Articles of Impeachment. This is his only avenue to register his concerns over Bush's trampling the Constitution until the House sends over Articles.
Really, you might want to think about what the Constitution actually means before you go off half-cocked...
Posted by: NTodd at Sun Mar 12 09:40:33 2006 (1ZhoN)
And by the way -- I recognize that the Senate cannot introduce articles of impeachment -- but I'm suggesting that he come out and lend his support to the efforts of the House Moonbat Caucus. You know -- take a stand for the Constitutional process -- if he actually believes his own words.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Mar 12 10:07:09 2006 (o4D7C)
And you are wrong in that. Censure is merely a resolution expressing the Senate's opinion on the President's behavior. They can do that, per the Constitution. It isn't legislation any more than the Senate's Rules.
And Feingold should most assuredly NOT stick his nose in the House's business. The legislature is bicameral for a reason, and the chambers stay out of each other's way because of tradition and Constitutional delimiting of powers.
You're barking up the wrong tree.
Posted by: NTodd at Sun Mar 12 10:10:42 2006 (1ZhoN)
If such is the case (and I do not believe it to be the case), the appropriate response is for the House to impeach the President and the Senate to convict.
Oh, and by the way -- if Feingold lending support to a move for impeachment is "sticking his nose into the House's business" (something that he, as an American citizen, has every right to do), then how much more would a censure be a case of "sticking [the Senate's] nose into the House's business" by offering its opinion on presidential lawbreaking?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Mar 12 10:38:37 2006 (o4D7C)
How binary. Should all Americans remain silent on Impeachment until the House votes on Articles? Of course not. Same goes for the Senate--it has every right to express its sense of what is going on in the nation.
Censure is Constitutional. It's a resolution expressing the Senate's opinion on Bush's actions. It is not a call for Impeachment and is not outside the Senate's demesne.
Oh, and by the way -- if Feingold lending support to a move for impeachment is "sticking his nose into the House's business" (something that he, as an American citizen, has every right to do), then how much more would a censure be a case of "sticking [the Senate's] nose into the House's business" by offering its opinion on presidential lawbreaking?
The Senate is merely making a statement on its opinion of the lawbreaking. It is not necessarily weighing in on Impeachment.
Censure is a legitimate action by the Senate. It does not Impeach the President or remove him from power, nor does it have any weight of law. Your argument from a Constitutional perspective is poppycock.
Posted by: NTodd at Sun Mar 12 12:34:51 2006 (1ZhoN)
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Mar 12 13:07:55 2006 (ZGNOv)
21 queries taking 0.0163 seconds, 35 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.