December 24, 2005

Impeach these people!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has introduced articles of impeachment -- retroactively -- for Republican Abraham Lincoln, and (reluctantly) for Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

"We don't buy into the 'Constitution is not a suicide pact' argument," Pelosi said. "Since we didn't buy that argument when we impeached George W. Bush four months ago, we feel it our duty to set the historical record straight."



IMPEACHED
FOR CRIMES AGAINST
THE CONSTITUTION

House Majority Leader Jerrold Nadler added "It's about time we had a congress with courage. It was important that we impeached George Bush, who held the Constitution in contempt, and now we must do the same to other presidents, despite philosophical or partisan differences... and despite temporal differences."

The Congressional Black Caucus, completely united on the impeachment of George W. Bush, was quite divided, however, on the retroactive impeachment of Abe Lincoln. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee said

We, as African-Americans, have to recognize that without the actions of President Lincoln, there was a great chance that slavery would have continued for decades throughout the United States. We feel that when it comes to matters of race, it should not matter if political opponents are/were silenced. It's for the greater good. We feel the Constitution recognizes this.

Fellow CBC member Major Owens added

Not only was Lincoln right in silencing and jailing his political opponents that opposed his wartime policies, we feel he desired that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution guaranteed affirmative action through the 21st century, and that not only the southern states but the entire United States of America should continue to pay African-Americans reparations for as long as African-descended peoples have been in the Americas -- and beyond.

When it came to Franklin Roosevelt's impeachment, the Democrats as a whole were not as unified.

"Lincoln's impeachment was rather effortless. He was a Republican," said Wisconsin Rep. Dave Obey. "Roosevelt was a Democrat, and he did a lot of great things. The New Deal expanded the size and scope of the federal government to unheard of levels, and as Democrats we have to applaud that. Personally, I think this greatness overshadows the minor error of interning Japanese-Americans into camps."

Still, most felt that they had to act. Washington State Rep. Jim McDermott said that Americans "have to realize that even total war doesn't give the executive the right to do as he wishes without congressional oversight." Florida's Robert Wexler added

As awful as it sounds, if the Axis Powers had defeated us, at least we would go down following the Constitution to its rightful letter. I can accept that.

The Republicans, in the congressional minority for the first time in eleven years, opposed the retroactive impeachments just as they opposed the impeachment of George W. Bush. During the Bush impeachment, many pointed out that the presidents immediately before him had authorized warrantless surveillance, in particular Bill Clinton.

"I don't want to hear that," said Vermont's Bernie Sanders. "Clinton was already impeached. You had your chance. You wanted him out? You should have done it based on his spying. Not that we would have joined you, however. His motives weren't as devious as George Bush's."

UPDATE: John Rosenberg dissects a ridiculous Lincoln-Bush contrast/comparison.

OK, enough satire.

Are we (here at Colossus) for warrantless NSA surveillance, etc.? That's what some have asked based on my (Hube's) posts the last couple days. The answer is: Not necessarily. All I did was point out (quite easily, in fact) how ridiculous the screaming, yammering and hollering by the Left has been about the New York Times' "revelation" that the National Security Agency has sometimes conducted warrantless surveillance of communications.

A quite legitimate argument can be made that the president's actions were illegal. However, if one is to pursue that angle, one has to inquire as to precedent. Why did Bill Clinton do it? Why did (of all people) Jimmy Carter do it? George Bush has the ... "excuse" of 9/11. What did Bill Clinton have? The 1993 WTC attack? Fair enough. The Oklahoma City bombing? OK. What did Carter have? The Iran hostage crisis? Fine. If Bush's actions are to be dissected in this case, I want examinations into all the reasons behind previous president's actions.

What befuddles me up is the sudden fondness of Leftists who quote the Founders, notably Ben Franklin's "Those who give up essential liberty for a little safety deserve neither." The very same Leftists who have denigrated states' rights and limited government for over a century. Where were you when the left bloc on the Supreme Court blew away eminent domain, for example? Where were the so-called "guardians of the poor and less fortunate" now that their homes can be razed and/or taken away so some hotshot developer can make big bucks -- and the local tax base can improve?

And so on.

Posted by Hube at December 24, 2005 09:39 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

If prosecuting Carter and Clinton is what it would take for a prosecution and impeachment against Bush, then so be it. I agree with you on principle.

I just hate Bush soooo much that I'm willing to see just about anyone else go down with him. Simple as that.

And, Hube, I'll have you know that MANY leftist blogs came out swinging against the Kelo decision from earlier this year. I'd say 90% of all bloggers who commented on the issue took the same position.

Happy Holidays to you, kind sir! See you soon.

Posted by: Mike M. at December 24, 2005 03:09 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?