NYT Op/Ed: The Founders Had An Idea for Handling Alberto Gonzales

[Hissyspit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19sun4.html

Editorial Observer
The Founders Had an Idea for Handling Alberto Gonzales

By ADAM COHEN
Published: August 19, 2007
William Belknap, Ulysses S. Grant’s disgraced secretary of war, is experiencing a revival. Impeached in 1876 for taking bribes, he has become the inspiration for a movement to remove Attorney General Alberto Gonzales from office. Impeachment is usually thought of as limited to presidents, but the Constitution not only allows the impeachment of Cabinet members, in Belknap’s case, it was actually done.

Impeaching Mr. Gonzales has moved beyond the hypothetical, now that Jay Inslee, Democrat of Washington, and five other prosecutors-turned-representatives have introduced a resolution to conduct an impeachment inquiry. Congress is wary, and not only because of post-Clinton impeachment hangover. The grounds set out in the Constitution are vague, and the Democrats do not want to be seen as overreaching.

Members of Congress should keep in mind, however, that the founders gave them the impeachment power for a reason — and Mr. Gonzales’s malfeasance is just the sort they were worried about.

The Constitution provides for impeachment for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Not a clear formula, but it wasn’t meant to be. Impeachment, Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 65, cannot be “tied down” by “strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense” by the House, or “in the construction of it” by the Senate.

The founders did not want impeachment to be undertaken so casually that, in James Madison’s words, the president and other officers effectively served at the “pleasure of the Senate.” But they also did not want to limit it to a few specific offenses. The phrase “other high crimes and misdemeanors” was intended to give Congress leeway.

Impeachment was one of the important checks and balances the founders built into the Constitution. At state ratification conventions, it was promoted as a tool for Congress to rein in any officeholder who “dares to abuse the power vested in him by the people.”

MORE

[bonito]

1. K&R

[bleever]

2. "...Democrats do not want to be seen as overreaching."???

"Well, you were clearly going 30 miles over the limit, and the empty gin bottles on the passenger seat raise a little red flag, and you really should have stopped after you ran over that pedestrian. I'm going to give you a warning, and I'd better not see you doing this again. Move along."


:mad:

[Hissyspit]

3. You sound like you might like to read this too;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1616443

[bleever]

8. You're right!

Thanks.

[Harry Monroe]

4. Jesus H. Christ, what is it going to take??

"The founders did not want impeachment to be undertaken so casually that, in James Madison’s words, the president and other officers effectively served at the “pleasure of the Senate.” But they also did not want to limit it to a few specific offenses. The phrase “other high crimes and misdemeanors” was intended to give Congress leeway."

Got news for Congress, impeachment has already been undertaken very casually in the case of Clinton. If the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that Gonzales, Cheney and Bush have committed do not qualify for impeachable offenses then nothing does.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. K&R!

[creeksneakers2]

6. Kicked!

Gonzales has to go.

[ThomWV]

7. Its going to take a lot more than the impeachment of Gonzo for checks to result in balance

Impeach Bush for Christ's sake, that is the key, not Gonzo.

[WillyT]

9. Big K & R !!!

:kick::woohoo::kick:

[Mandate My Ass]

10. Dems overreaching? What utter crap!

This man has done the equivalent of mooning Congress every time he appears before them. He has been caught breaking numerous laws and lying about it under oath. But looking to put the brakes on serial criminal activity in the DoJ is overreaching? :grr: