I was really going to avoid this topic, but the final straw came to my email box this morning, and I had to chip in my $0.02.
As most of you are probably aware, I don’t see any difference between Republicans and Democrats. They’re two holes on the same syphilitic whore as far as I’m concerned. Consequently, since I don’t buy into the partisan political dichotomy that’s currently being blamed for Wild Willie’s troubles, I have a kind of different take.
First, I’m delighted that Clinton has been impeached. I’m not thrilled that the Al Capone, "We’ve got to nail him for something" approach was taken. He should have been impeached April 20, 1993, after federal troops (call them "agents" if you like) incinerated more than 80 women and children over an alleged $200 tax violation near Waco, Texas.
He should have been impeached for pinning a medal on Lon Horiuchi, et al., after the executions of Vicki and Randy Weaver.
He should have been impeached for repeatedly and drastically raping the Constitution in the areas of free speech, gun rights, search and seizure, due process of law and cruel and unusual punishment.
The Constitution means what it says and says what it means. The restrictions on governmental powers enumerated there are absolute and not open to interpretation. It’s for this repeated butt-fucking of 270 million Americans that Clinton should have been impeached.
Instead, we’ve got him for lying under oath about a few hummers from a pudgy intern. It ain’t justice, but I’ll take it.
The thing that started this rant was an email a friend sent me from the other side of the issue, from an organization called Moveon.org. These bloody cum bubbles are calling for the ouster of the House members who voted for impeachment and trying to get people to urge the Senate to vote for censure, ignore the due process outlined in the Constitution and "move on."
Here’s the gist of their message:
They've done it. They've ignored the pleas of the American people. They've subverted and misused the Constitution. They've damaged and degraded our institutions and our democracy. They've thrown away two centuries of government stability and separation of powers. They've impeached the President.
We will remember. Their day is over.
We've been asked by thousands of petitioners, "Now what can we do?" To correct this abuse of our Constitutional system, there must be real consequences. Moveon.org is making the following pledge: "In the 2000 election, we will work to defeat Members of Congress who voted for impeachment or removal." To give substance to this pledge, we are also pledging, today, our maximum possible dollar contribution to opposing candidates in the year 2000.
We will tally these pledges and announce our substantial and real opposition to this act.
The President must now face a trial in the Senate, throwing our nation into crisis and uncertainty. We will not fall victim to cynicism and disgust, and withdraw. That's what they want. We will continue to fight this irresponsible and reckless act through every means possible.
If they throw this alleged money at third party candidates, it might do some good. However, I’m dead set against almost everything they say here. Let’s look this over bit by bit, shall we?
In the first point, the moveoners say that Congress has ignored the pleas of the American people. My response: Constitutional law is not subject to the whims of majoritarianism. A popular tyrant is still a tyrant, and these are the kinds of things the Constitution was created to prevent happening.
Two, they claim the House has subverted and misused the Constitution. I don’t see how. The House followed the Constitutionally intended procedure of due process in their impeachment. Maybe they’re referring to the idea that Clinton’s alleged crimes are not a big enough deal to warrant impeachment.
We need to talk a little rhetoric here, boys and girls. The Constitution refers to impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Some of the doublespeak going on in DC, in the media (SAME THING!) and around the country is that perjury and obstruction of justice aren’t "high" enough crimes to warrant impeachment.
Here’s where the linguistics lesson comes into play. Much like the "militia" the Founding Fathers described was not, as some people think, the National Guard, but rather all males over 16 capable of bearing arms, "high crimes" has a meaning that has been overtaken by another term: Felony. Guess what, perjury and obstruction are felonies and, therefore, impeachable. I mean, for gods’ sakes, even misdemeanors are covered. There should be no debate going on at all about this, much less a debate as charged as it is.
The moveoners next claim is that two centuries of separation of powers has just been toppled by the impeachment. Huh? How’s that again? This entire proceeding has been the very definition of separation of powers. It’s one of the best examples we’ve ever seen of the built-in checks and balances of our system.
After making their threats against the members of the House who voted "yes", the moveoners then say that Bill has to go to trial in the Senate and that this throws our nation into "crisis and uncertainty." Again I say, How’s that?
The Constitution provides the way this is to be handled, including lines of succession and division of responsibility. As to the uncertainty, the only uncertainty is whether a tyrannical socialist fascist baby burning wannabe king gets replaced by a tyrannical socialist fascist tree hugging wannabe king. Big whoop.
Next we come to the issue of censure. I’m aware that there have been cases in which the Congress has censured or reprimanded the President. However, even though there is precedent, there is no Constitutional provision for it. For the Senate to ignore the articles of impeachment and vote for censure would be one of the most significant blows to the validity of the Constitution since Roosevelt decided the federal government really should run people’s private lives, regulate businesses into the ground and spend money like it had some.
It would be like a grand jury returning an indictment, supported by extensive evidence, against a popular citizen, merely to have the judge say, "You fucked up. Say you’re sorry and don’t do it again," without any trial or other process. It deprives the citizenry of justice and the accused the rights of due process, refutation of evidence and confrontation of accusers.
If we don’t guarantee these rights regarding the president, how can we expect to have them for ourselves?
M_