The Heart and Soul of Our Constitution, Impeachment, Is Now Only for Democrats and Only for Sex

[seafan]

The Heart and Soul of Our Constitution, Impeachment, Is Now Only for Democrats and Only for Sex

Submitted by davidswanson
March 12, 2008

Pressure mounted Tuesday on Gov. Eliot Spitzer to resign because of a prostitution scandal, GOP to Push for NY Gov Impeachment

By MICHAEL GORMLEY, AP

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Pressure mounted Tuesday on Gov. Eliot Spitzer to resign because of a prostitution scandal, with a top state Republican threatening to push for impeachment proceedings if the governor doesn't step down in 48 hours.

State residents "cannot have this hanging over their heads," said Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco.

The scandal erupted Monday, when allegations surfaced that Spitzer, who built his political reputation on rooting out corruption, spent thousands of dollars for a night with a call girl named Kristen at a glitzy Washington hotel.

Spitzer, a first-term Democrat, remained hidden from public view Tuesday, and his plans regarding his political future weren't known. Three New York newspapers called for his resignation, and the New York Post called him "NY's naked emperor."

.....

To get articles of impeachment to the floor, Tedisco would need support from the Democratic majority in the Assembly. If the measure passed there, it would still need at least two-thirds approval of the combined vote of the Republican-controlled Senate and the nine-member Court of Appeals to proceed to trial.

.....

Our nation is in collective psychosis.

[MNDemNY]

1. With Spitzer, it's not the sex, it's the crimes.

[lightningandsnow]

2. But what if it's something that shouldn't be illegal?

I know I've said it a million and one times over the last few days, but I think prostitution should be decriminalized.

Is it morally wrong to violate a law you think is morally wrong?

[MNDemNY]

3. I agree that prostitution should be legal...

But Elliot knew better, his actions violated not only the Mann act, but banking laws as well. Of all people, he gets the least slack in this.

[pat_k]

7. It's the constrast with the failure of the Dems; not the Republican calls impeachment. . .

. . .that's the problem. It's the contrast of the Republican eagerness to impeach a chief executive for committing a crime that has little to do with his public duties with the insane refusal of the Dems to impeach Bush and Cheney for openly violating their constitutional obligations and abusing the massive power of the American presidency to commit war crimes.

Whether or not Spitzer should be impeached it's the question. The point is that Republicans have no qualms about accusing and demanding punishment, while Dems seem to think accusing and demanding punishment of wrong-doers is somehow "beneath them." Instead of going after perpetrators, the so-called "leadership" tells us they will "fix" the system to "make sure" it doesn't happen again.

But our government isn't some abstract system to be "fixed" by putting words on paper. It is ultimately nothing more than the people who are charged with carrying out the functions we assign them. No law can "make sure" that corruption "doesn't happen again." We can only control corruption through ENFORCEMENT. And enforcement means going after the people who corrupt or violate the law.

Just as the police power to incarcerate those who threaten the civil order is required to preserve the civil order, impeaching officials in the executive and judiciary who threaten the integrity of our government is required if we are to preserve our government.

We charged Congress with the duty to oversee (i.e., to police; to supervise) officials in the executive and judiciary. The Congressional enforcement duties, and the ultimate enforcement power, impeachment, are far more critical to the preservation of our government that the legislative function. Without enforcement, legislation is meaningless.

Why bother appointing an "overseer" to simply "watch" as corrupt officials destroy the fabric of our government? It is lunacy to stand by and watch the destroyers destroy while you plan how to "rebuild" the ever-expanding devastation.

Tragically, the so-called Democratic "leadership" seems to think that's what "oversight" means. They view themselves as "lawmaking" creatures. They apparently don't think they have a duty to seek to stop corruption; rather they apparently believe we sent them there to watch the corruption unfold and plan how to "fix it" when, and if, corrupt officials willingly give up their corrupt enterprise.

The reponse to Spitzer puts the contrast in sharp relief. While Republicans tend to be overzealous when it comes to accusing and going after officials they label "wrong-doers," Democrats are pathologically reluctant to label at all, much less "go after" any official.

And that reluctance is what has brought us to the point. Criminals don't destroy the civil order. Only the failure of the enforcers can do that. And corrupt officials don't destroy a government. Only the failure of those we charge with stopping them can do that.

Liberals have a knee jerk aversion to "black and white" thinking, but sometimes things really are black and white. Sometimes it really is "with us or against" (You're with the torturers or against them. You believe in American Principle or Fascist Principle. You are willing to tolerate the intolerable or you unequivocally reject it by demanding impeachment and removal.)

[pat_k]

4. It is not the nation that is in collective psychosis. . .

It is not the public that is diseased. It is the impeachophobes on the Hill. It is the collective insanity of beltway group-think. When Americans voted Democrats into power in '04 their message was loud and clear" "Get us the hell out of Bush world."

Contrary to the "conventional wisdom" on the Hill (almost always the opposite of reality), the election was not "all about stopping the war." People didn't vote for Democrats to "get things done." The election was about one thing, and http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/19">that thing was a person: Bush.

Sure, many voters believed that Bush and Cheney's devastating agenda could be stopped with something short of impeachment -- they believed the BS parroted by the Washington media. But even in October 2006 http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">a majority told Newsweek they wanted impeachment to be a priority for the new Congress. And in January 2007, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2753090">58% told Newsweek they "personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over."

Despite the beltway's relentless campaign against impeachment the public's support for it remains amazingly strong. Almost universally even those who reject impeachment as "bad strategy" (once again, the opposite of reality) tell us they "would personally love" to see Bush and Cheney impeached.

When the House moves to impeach, there will be no "backlash" from a deluded public. Even the "strategerists" will feel a boost in self-esteem as they finally take the course they know is right. When Congress seeks to give the public what they want more than anything else -- an end to the insanity of Bush world -- there will be no "backlash." The Republican noise machine will make noise, but they are already making as much noise as they can. And it wouldn't be surprising to see some of the noisemakers go silent, secretly relieved see Democrats seeking to free them of the men they believe are destroying their Party.

[seafan]

5. We've got a heapin' helpin' here in Fler'da, lol. Psychotic since December 12, 2000.

[kevinbgoode]

6. The GOP is always allowed to play the "God" card

so they can assert there are special rights for con-artist, con-servative "Christians." This is how David Vitter justified his own transgressions. If Spitzer wasn't Jewish, had called a press conference and declared he had a talk with "God" and everything was all-good now, he could have pulled a Republican claim to staying in power.