maddogs hideaway

Among politicians and pundits who identify with the GOP, there are many who  pay lip-service to the U.S. Constitution. Yet when push comes to shove they seem  disposed by all means to avoid implementing its provisions.  But left unused,  the constitutional provisions intended to exercise the just powers of the body  politic waste away.  In this respect they are like the muscles of the human  body, but even more so.  They must be flexed to keep their fitness. If, in  practice, their vitality and purpose are not conveyed to each new generation,  they will soon be lost to memory and so, quite literally, cease to matter.

In this respect, Barack Obama’s rise to, and abuse of, political power has  proven to be a litmus test. It has exposed the GOP’s protestations of allegiance  to the Constitution for what they are: a hollow ploy, used to get votes from  gullible conservatives loyal to the Constitution and its principles.  Meanwhile,  by action or inaction, many of the people they vote into office end up helping  the would-be tyrants of the Obama faction cultivate the seeds of its  destruction.

So when Rush Limbaugh says that “efforts to try to have Obama impeached or  held personally responsible for these scandals is a bunch of wasted effort,” he  is saying that, on account of the politics of our times, this fundamental aspect  of the U.S. Constitution no longer matters.  With all due respect to Rush  Limbaugh (and my respect for him is sizable and sincere), I beg to differ.  The  judgment about “wasted effort” depends on what we’re trying to achieve.  If  politics is just a partisan game, with no goal but to score points for one side  or the other, it may be reasonable to conclude that impeachment is a wasted  effort.  After all, the Democrats who control the U.S. Senate will never allow  Obama to be removed from office.  Doesn’t this make impeachment impossible? 

Mr. Limbaugh is right to assume that impeachment is inherently political. In  this respect his view accords with that of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote (in  Federalist No. 65) that “… the subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses  which proceed … from the abuse or violation of some public trust.  They are of a  nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they  relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

This  year’s summer blockbuster  — a guide for Congress to draw up articles of  impeachment — Aaron Klein’s “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack  Obama from Office”

Insofar as they wish to preserve their constitutional self-government, can  the American people have a greater common interest than to react against abuses  of power that may threaten it? Before they can do so, however, mustn’t the facts  be examined in order to be sure that the abuses in question are so  extraordinarily malicious that they warrant the removal from office of the  person or persons responsible? As Hamilton says of the impeachment process, “Is  it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public  men?”

The difference between Limbaugh and Hamilton, however, is that when Mr.  Limbaugh speaks of politics he is referring to the competition of partisan  factions.  But for Hamilton politics means the business of citizens, i.e.,  individuals characterized by their concern for the common good of their society  as a whole, not just their own personal, factional, partisan interests.  From  Hamilton’s perspective, the way elected representatives handle such offenses is  therefore a test of their concern for the common good.  If they act, or refuse  to act, based solely on whether by doing so they advance their personal or  factional agenda, they show their contempt for the well-being of the nation as a  whole. They thereby prove themselves unfit for the offices (duties) they hold,  whether or not they are ever called to account for their dereliction.

But the challenge of holding them accountable has political implications that  we have to think through before we rush to agree with Mr. Limbaugh’s conclusion  that, in our present circumstances, impeachment is a waste of effort. The  Constitution divides the authority for impeachment from the authority to convict  and remove for good reason.  It makes the majority needed to approve a bill of  impeachment in the House no greater than that required for ordinary legislation.  It thus provides an ordinary way of calling civil officers to account  for what appears to be extraordinary misbehavior.

If those officers, at the behest of the president, cooperate with the  NATIONAL INQUEST, and let the facts speak for themselves, they at least do  nothing to confirm their contempt for constitutional constraints.  If, with the  open support of the president, they defy the constitutional authority of the  U.S. House, both they and the president confess by this defiance their  disposition to do what they are suspected of doing, defy and disregard the  provisions of the Constitution.  By itself this confession warrants a bill of  impeachment.  If, despite such open and palpable proof of their contempt for the  Constitution, a factional partisan majority in the U.S. Senate protects them  from the consequences, their action, too, is a palpable dereliction. For this it  is up to the people to convict and punish them, at the next election.

In Federalist No. 65 Hamilton reports that the impeachment process in the  U.S. Constitution is, in important respect, modeled after the procedures of the  British government.  This appears to be true of its political implications as  well.  Properly used, it provides an opportunity for the people, through their  representatives in the House, to approve and publicly register a vote of no  confidence in the president and all those willing to uphold his abuses in the  U.S. Senate.  Given the periodic elections provided for in the Constitution, an  opportunity is never far off for the people to change the composition of either  or both chambers of the national legislature.  By what they do, they can signify  their agreement or disagreement with the results of the no-confidence vote (or  votes). Seen in this light, the purpose of impeachment is to inform and mobilize  the citizens for their duty as the arbiters of constitutional integrity.  They  are the ones ultimately responsible for defending constitutional  self-government, or letting it perish.

But the leadership of both wings (Democrat and Republican) of the elitist  faction are working to overturn constitutional self-government in the United  States.  As I discuss in the most recent post on my blog, they have no use for  the constitutional provisions that engage people in the exercise of their  constitutional responsibility, thereby strengthening the responsible sovereignty  of the people in every generation.  Neither of these parties cares to practice  government of, by and for the people.  That’s why Americans who believe in it  need urgently to construct a political vehicle that will.