Hate to speak out of turn (off topic) but isn’t it nice how the 6th Circuit has declared that the ACLU and defendents (all of us) have no “standing” in the NSA wiretapping case? YES it is unconstitutional but as citizens of the United States, you have no standing when that piece of paper is violated.

EVERY American citizen has “standing” whenever the Constitution is violated. By definition. ANY violation of the Constitution harms EVERYONE living now or coming in the future. EVERYONE, EVERY citizen ALWAYS has standing when the Constitution is spat on.

You cannot secretly, but harmlessly, violate the Constitution.

Praedor A. – This is where Congress comes in. They aren’t required to establish “standing” before objecting to unConstitutional behavior by the Executive Branch, which has now apparently been confirmed by the Sixth Circuit. Yet another new opening for a possible count in an impeachment proceeding. I agree with emptywheel’s approach in this post; to repeat a comment I made at the end of Digby’s recent, impeachment comment thread here:

In the end, doesn’t impeachment come down to the people of this nation, as (nominally) represented in our federal legislature, deciding what standards of conduct we expect our highest federal public servants to meet and uphold? And when they don’t, saying so, in no uncertain terms, whether or not we can predict the precise ramifications of what our standing up for, and on, such principles will be in future? This President and this Vice President have fallen far, far below any minimum standards of conduct this country deserves from the leadership of its Executive Branch, in my opinion. To me, that is both the beginning and the ending analysis for a vote to impeach in the House. If we are afraid, or unwilling, to set and enforce such standards of conduct, we’ll get the government we deserve (and I believe what we are witnessing today is a coming home to roost of just such chickens from earlier eras).

Impeachment is so much different, qualitatively, than proving guilt to a jury ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in a court of law, in accordance with a specific criminal statute, in order to deprive one individual of their liberty for a period of time. That rigid standard is the standard required of those public servants who uphold our laws for us, as Special Counsel Fitzgerald did for the few laws that applied to his grand jury investigation of the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson – one of our nation’s spy assets whose cover was blown by high officials in her own government.

Impeachment for that same damaging event, would instead consider the fact that it has (self-evidently) happened (regardless of whether we can prove in detail exactly how it did in fact come about), and whether there is enough evidence to indicate that those in positions of trust in high government office who should have prevented Wilson’s cover from being revealed, in fact chose not to, or recklessly let it happen, or even enabled it. Not to the level of “enough evidence” that is required in order to prosecute an individual in court under the IIPAct or the Espionage Act, or under the statutes for perjury or obstruction of justice, but simply in view of the plain fact that Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA career as a WMD spy in the defense of this nation was ended by her own government, and that we, the people don’t condone, don’t wish to condone, and will not condone in future such a grave and damaging betrayal of our nation’s trust and the (at minimum) catastrophic failure to safeguard a “crown jewel” state secret by high and powerful Executive Branch officials.

We don’t yet know the evidence in full. We probably don’t yet know the evidence in half, because we have an AWOL ‘free press.’ We do have a stellar and thorough (and mostly-still-secret) investigation upon which to build, thanks to Special Counsel Fitzgerald and his team. [Kathleen @ 202, looseheadprop spelled out the process for obtaining that grand jury evidence in an impeachment proceeding via Christy’s link @ 13, and I tried to encourage that approach as an opening salvo for impeachment hearings as a response to Bush’s action on Monday, in emptywheel’s recent ‘Off the Record Club’ thread at TNH.]

Congress ignores such evidence at its institutional peril. It has already effectively “dropped out” of the Constitutional scheme that was intended for it, especially under the years of Republican Party control, as Fred Barbash put it so well. “That Congress would refuse to fight seemed unimaginable” to our Founders, he also said, and “In a contest between two branches over separation of powers, silence speaks as powerfully as words” here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..v=hcmodule

Yet so far, Democratic Party control or at least ‘balance’ of our Congress, has failed to re-enroll the Congress as a separate, independent branch of our government, to the great peril of our Republic. John Conyers, Dave Obey, Nancy Pelosi, and their leadership team hold immense power in their hands today, when even Justice Scalia is agog at the ongoing “lassitude” of Congress in vital matters of war and peace and the defense of our nation (2004’s Hamdi v. Rumsfeld dissent). Why won’t they, when will they ever, exercise that power???

We are all flailing for an answer to the ongoing crisis simply because Congress is supposed to wield our power for us, but they are refusing to use most of it at all, and our ability to effectively pressure our “representatives” has been almost severed by corporate and foreign-lobby pseudo-ownership of their seats as a result of the exhorbitant cost of campaigning via full-corporate-rate television advertisements. Furthermore, as Bruce Fein has pointed out, their failure to act to even open impeachment investigations is probably at least in part due to the fact that the standards that we, the people, would wish our public servants to uphold in the Executive Branch do not now apply to, and are not now shared as a goal by, those now ensconced in our Legislative Branch, Republican and Democrat alike. A ‘What’s wrong with that?,’ ‘We do the same thing,’ ‘It’s just politics’ type of attitude from decades-long incumbents in Congress as they watch our President and Vice President lying to the nation. The rot is very deep.

All I know is that sitting and waiting for a “Democratic” (in more than name?) President will not lessen the rot, and will not make the effort to right the wrongs of the long silence and “surrender” of our Legislative Branch of government – in the face of brazenly unConstitutional Executive Branch assertions of power that have in fact been exercised – one wit easier when the day of reckoning at long last arrives.

P.S. For merciless @ 221 and Ghostman @ 163 and others: impeachment hearings cannot be blocked in the courts by objections from the Executive Branch the way normal oversight hearings can be (normal oversight must relate in some way to contemplated legislative action, not simply to wrong-doing that legislation alone cannot fix, when it comes to enforcing the process in court). Executive privilege claims vanish, for one, in an impeachment proceeding and the focus is solely on violations of the public trust and “high crimes and misdemeanors” by those in office. Congress knows this; we need to understand it too. And we do “have the votes” for half the process already, by virtue of a Democratic majority in the House, under Speaker Pelosi’s and Chairman Conyers’s leadership (if Pelosi can’t control the Blue Dogs on this, she should just publicly admit that there is no Democratic Party control of the House). The impeachment proceeding is where the sordid facts and the painful truths are unearthed for the American people and the Senate to see, and that process would take place in the House where Republicans cannot block us (although they can spy for the Executive Branch if care is not taken to prevent that).

P.P.S. I believe next week some critical decisions about whether or not we get out of Iraq within the next year will be made (as the Senate debates its FY 2008 Defense Authorization Bill). The same Constitutional powers Pelosi won’t use to impeach, she won’t use to cease funding the occupation of Iraq beyond an end-date certain (or to invoke Congressional war powers to unilaterally end the occupation) – so in a way the principle is the same. If we can get Pelosi and Conyers to begin to exercise their impeachment powers, the odds they’ll exercise other inherent powers of Congress may go up. But how is having the House Judiciary Committee becoming an Impeachment Committee preventing the rest of the House and the Senate from getting its work done? Especially if the HJC were to commit to holding hearings in August, when the rest of Congress will be out of town.

elef @ 292

I’ve joined this discussion late again, so this may already have been discussed. But someone please tell me this couldn’t happen:

Congress begins hearings on impeachment. The Bush administration counters by beginning to bomb Iran. The attention of the nation and of Congress is deflected, we’re at war with Iran anyway, Cheney and Bush get off the hook again.

I thought of that, too.

I believe the War Powers Act requires the president to confer with Congress prior to initiating any hostilities with another nation. I suppose if he blatantly disregarded the WPA, that could be used as yet another impeachment count against him

I’ve joined this discussion late again, so this may already have been discussed. But someone please tell me this couldn’t happen:

Congress begins hearings on impeachment. The Bush administration counters by beginning to bomb Iran. The attention of the nation and of Congress is deflected, we’re at war with Iran anyway, Cheney and Bush get off the hook again.

I thought of that, too.

phred @ 269

Again, I vehemently disagree. Perhaps someone can explain to me why we have a trial system at all if everything is settled in advance. This is an absurd and defeatist view point.

Impeachment is NOT a part of the criminal justice system. It is a POLITICAL act and at this time, it is not a political winner. In fact at this time, it would cause the Dems more political troubles than benefits.

More troubles than benefits?

Provide some real evidence please.

And it better be damn good evidence, because the burden of proof lies with those who would argue against a full investigation of the wrongdoing of this investigation.

Seriously, why are people cowering in fear of using a tool (impeachment) which the founding fathers intended to be used for just this situation?

I just don’t get it.

It’s time! ImpeachForPeace.org is traveling to Washington DC at the end of this month to deliver thousands of Do-It-Yourself Impeachment Memorials to
key representatives in the House!

Support for impeachment is building. As of this writing, 14 reps are supporting Dennis Kucinich’s resolution to impeach Dick Cheney (H. Res. 333).

Even if you’ve sent them to your congressperson before, Click here to send us your DIY Memorials before we go.

You may not realize that the only thing standing between where we are today and a nationally televised impeachment investigation is the House Judiciary passing this resolution, which is currently awaiting consideration in their
committee. Luckily, the head of this committee, John Conyers, has said recently that he supports of the national impeachment movement.

All we need to push it over the edge is public support, and that’s where we come in.

Video of our trip will be posted on our website shortly upon our return. We’ll let you know when it’s up!

Click here to be a part of this!

Here’s a funny video about this unique strategy

Praedor Atrebates @ 295

If you mean the votes aren’t there in the HOUSE yet to slap the impeachment papers down, then OK (the goddamn Bluedog Republicrats are a thorn in the side of the Constitution and regular Americans), but if you mean for conviction in the senate…GAH! You DON’T seek a vote of guilty from a jury BEFORE a trial. You get their votes AFTER all the evidence is displayed. The difference here is that the evidence is gathered as part of the process and there is no “executive privilege” dodge available either…and no court interference.

An impeachment from the House without a corresponding conviction and removal is decidely wasted effort. It means Bush wins and the Dems have lost. Nothing more nor less. There HAS to be enough votes for conviction in the Senate AND within the American public or it will destroy the possibilities for future Dem administrations in ‘08 and beyond. If there is no conviction and removal then it was just payback by the Dems for Clinton and it allows the repubs to be viable in ‘08.

I just fundamentally disagree with this thinking. You are willing to sustain permanent damage to our constitutional system in order to get your man (or woman) elected. Or this is what it sounds like. A classic case of party before country.