...Let's just suppose that somehow the Democrats manage to win the 15 additional seats that they need in order to take over the House in November. Let's say they do even better than expected, and pick up a health majority of 25-30 seats. Now, supposedly, they would be able to pursue that liberal (are we allowed to say that?) agenda. So they would pass bills maybe banning oil exploration on the Alaskan north slope, make Medicare drugs cheaper, legalize stem cell research and maybe slap mileage mandates on cars.And the president would issue signing orders setting those acts aside or gutting their main provisions, as he has done with torture bans, the establishment of an independent inspector to examine corruption, and numerous other congressionally passed measures.
Does Lindorff offer any solutions? Yes.
First of all, he offers his "winning argument" to show that this is a huge problem for conservatives as well. Conservatives who are allergic to ethical discussions about the war in Iraq, falsified WMD claims, and NSA wiretapping fall out of their seats when they hear about the undermining of over 750 constitutional laws. He explains:
But I find one argument to be very compelling for conservatives of almost all stripes, and that's Bush's overturning or revoking or ignoring of over 750 acts passed by Congress during his two terms of office. When I point out to these people that if Bush is allowed to invalidate acts of Congress with the stroke of a pen with a bogus claim that he has special powers in his self-defined role as Commander in Chief, then the next president, who could well be a Democrat--indeed who could be (gasp!) Al Gore, John Kerry or, god forbid, that arch-demon of the conservative firmament, Hillary Clinton, they suddenly sit up and pay attention.Here is an unimpeachable impeachment argument to try on your rabid right Uncle Fred at the next family picnic. Trust me, it works wonderfully.
Suddenly the notion of impeachment becomes a non-partisan issue. Lindorff feels strongly (and I make no bones about it either--I fully agree with him) that the current president must be removed from office. I will add that Richard Cheney must also be removed from office. Lindorff concludes:
In other words, as long as this president, holds his delusional view of executive power, it won't matter if the Democrats take the House or even both houses of Congress. He must be removed from office.
I have heard from friends that there are other ways to stop Bush and Cheney from undermining the Constitution: taking Bush's money away, shutting down the congress, Democrats winning big in 2006, etc..
But those signing statements are the purloined letter, in my opinion. I'm all for a big Democratic win in 2006--especially by progressive, eco-friendly Dems. What are we to do about those signing orders? Thoughts?
Whether the Dems urge impeachment now or whether they urge impeachment after a potential big win in 2006, the fact remains: impeachment and removal from office is the sure-fire way to stop George W. Bush and Richard Cheney from further undermining the Constitution. Both Bush and Cheney will continue to issue signing orders that will further undermine laws passed by congress, whether the congress is controlled by Republicans or Democrats.
Impeach now or impeach later. It may be our only choice.
Cheers to David Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky for zeroing in on the issue.
Please thank both of them and send them any constructive advice and/or concerns.
Please share your concerns with your elected representatives who still will not touch the impeachment issue. What is to be done about the signing orders?
Peace