With the sole exception of invoking the Article II Constitutional provision that would arguably remove the President's pardon power in cases of impeachment, I see no point in the forced-vote-on-impeachment that Congressman Dennis Kucinich is now bringing forth.
The good news is that impeachment doesn't have to leave the lower House unless it wins a majority, and it won't, so Obama needn't be embarrassed with this. But other Congress members will doubtless have to deal with this.
It's not the substance: the President has committed enough impeachable offenses so that just reading the articles took five hours (and that doesn't begin to come close!) It's the politix of it: Bush's term is, by and large, almost over, and he will be replaced in less than eight months. While I agree that limiting the ability to pardon minions is desirable, that doesn't seem to be the point of this exercise. Nor, for example, is it to restore Congress's Constitutional authority where, for example, a politicized Justice Department won't enforce Congressional subpoenas to investigate Justice Department politicization!
I'm just not sure what the point is; most agree that impeachment will go to committee and die.
Given the success of his Presidential runs, there is simply no reason to assume Dennis knows what he's doing. I just don't see the point of this, particularly in June of the President's last term. And when something that I actually agree with in substance just strikes me as so insanely counterproductive as to be dangerous... I begin to worry...
I think the point is to not allow congress to just collectively shrug their shoulders and say "oh shucks... he will be gone soon anyway".
Posted by candace gorman at June 11, 2008 12:24 PM
Is there no symbolic point? I think the process would be healthy for the country if only to innumerate the list of sins in a manner that would have to get at least some press attention.
Posted by fringy at June 17, 2008 8:22 PM