Customer Reviews

The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

When you take forever to read a book just over two hundred pages, you know you are reading a great book. When you take the time to highlight endless paragraphs and read them over and over again just to savor them, you know you are reading a profound book. It is not fiction; it is reality, and it is the story of impeachment from its creation in English law through its application under the Constitution of the United States. That is "The Genius of Impeachment," and that is the genius of this book.

A confirmed liberal who writes for the "The Nation," author, John Nichols takes the gloves off with liberals and conservatives alike castigating Nancy Pelosi who declared that impeachment of George Bush was "off the table." He accuses Ms. Pelosi of misusing impeachment as a political strategy rather than constitutional check, as did the republicans who used it to get Bill Clinton in a way they couldn't get him at the ballot box. He is angry with republicans for attempting to impeach Bill Clinton for the wrong reasons!

He challenges the perception that amongst politicians and some Americans that impeachment is the "third rail" of American politics citing example after example of republicans who supported impeachment against Richard Nixon being returned to political office while those who stood by him were defeated. He shows that even though Americans may be apathetic at the ballot box, their civic participation increases exponentially during serious discussions of impeachment.

Most importantly, Nichols tells us that our obligation is to a nation and its constitution, not to a man, a political party, or a policy, that impeachment is the sole device we have to check the excesses of an executive, that even the threat of impeachment in the past has reigned in presidents who forgot or sought to stretch their constitutional limits. He refers to all nine presidents who were considered for impeachment charges. (That's right--nine!) He chastises democrats who espouse to the popular and inaccurate notion that criticizing the president about Iraq will make them appear weak on national security.

The biggest skeptics of wartime presidents and promoters of the impeachment threat were, according to the author, republicans for whom he heaps praise and accolades. Congressman Abraham Lincoln, challenged President Polk for sending troops into Mexico and occupying it. Theodore Roosevelt challenged Woodrow Wilson when he targeted the censorship, arrest, and deportation of his critics: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Dwight Eisenhower stated: "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted." The author also quotes a broad list of republican senators and congressmen of a bygone era.

What would today's republicans have said about such criticism?

With all this background and information, it is obvious what Nichols is leading up to--the impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney for which our grievances are legion. He illustrates a number of instances in town halls and state legislatures where people are already drawing up petitions and articles of impeachment against them.

The bonus to this book is a thorough appendix of how our impeachment process works in congress, and organizations and websites that are involved in impeachment activism and issues.

It has become cliché to read that "every American must read this book," but this author provides not only an understanding of the impeachment process, but also what our founding fathers wanted, and how they envisioned its use. It makes this an essential read to give us a better understanding of our constitution and our civic obligations.

As Theodore Roosevelt said, "Our loyalty is due entirely to the United States. It is due to the President only and exactly to the degree in which he efficiently serves the United States. It is our duty to support him when he serves the United States well. It is our duty to oppose him when he serves it badly."

So...

Where does your loyalty lie?



ECP
09 11 07 Lest we forget!

This is not just about impeaching Bush. This book outlines the history of impeachment from England though modern US. Discusses why our founding fathers gave us the power to prevent abuse of power. The founding fathers understood the need to maintain a balance of power which our Congress has failed to do over time (both Democrats and Republicans) and we now have a President that behaves like a king and locks up people, tortures and generaly disregards the law of the land when it gets in his way.

Informative and reasonably balanced discussion of impeachment that combines an historical review of impeachment in the American and British contexts with coverage of the movement to impeach G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney. While the author is upfront about advocating for immediate impeachment proceedings against Bush and other members of his administration, the author repeatedly stresses that the point of his argument (and the purpose of his book) is to restore impeachment to its proper status as a legitimate constitutional tool for placing checks on the executive branch of government. A good deal of effort is made to present a balanced view: "Old Right" Republicans are lauded as often (or more often, actually) than any liberal Democrats, and while the Bill Clinton impeachment is presented as having been largely motivated by all the wrong partisan reasons (thus explaining its failure), Nichols does point out that legitimate, non-partisan reasons for impeaching Clinton could have been found. In short, a fairly good introduction to the constitutional concept of impeachment and its uses throughout history, including some of the causes for current congressional leaders' apparent aversion to initiating impeachment proceedings. The two-page forward by Gore Vidal is remarkable for its concise power.

This is the best treatment of impeachment for the ordinary reader. Nichols places the case for impeaching Pres. George W. Bush in historical context, showing that impeachment is the political tool intended by the framers of the Constitution to reign in an out-of-control executive. Furthermore, Nichols shows by historical example that impeachment is effective even if it ultimately fails to remove an intended target from office. This is "must reading" for all citizens who are unhappy with Pres. Bush's mishandling of foreign affairs and his flouting of the laws that he swore to uphold.

Author Nichols carefully and fully lays out the history of Impeachment from the founding of the Constitution and why it applies more so than ever today.

For a book that explains the constitutions reasons why both Bush and Clinton should have been impeached on...this is amazing. The people and congress need to realize that the call for impeachment is in every party's benefit! Do the Republicans want Hillary Clinton to become president with all the new powers Bush has given the president? Nooo he wouldn't! And even as a democrat I don't want ANY president to have this much power!!! Impeachment is for us to keep tyrants in check... or just people who have abused their powers. The founders made sure we could take care of ourselves through history. No pay back...just protecting our country. It is MORE patriotic to support impeachment than it is NOT to! Read your constitution, bill of rights, and declaration of independence again. It is QUITE clear this kind of thinking is what the founders wanted! And you can't call the founding fathers unpatriotic. Though I have a feeling SOMEONE in this administration would find a way!

Such a educational and entertaining read! This book really gave my a clue about what the founding fathers were trying to do when they created this American experiment. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "An elected despotism is not the government we fought for". I don't want ANY president of ANY party to have the kind of despotic power Cheney/Bush have enjoyed. Nichols rocks.

A great read! One of the best books on impeachment I have ever read. If you are disheartened and disillusioned with the way this country is going, it is a MUST READ! John Nichols makes stunning arguments, and addresses needed information about why the founders chose to include this concept in the Constitution. I wish I could send a copy to every member of Congress!!

John Nichols did an extrodinary job on this book. It should be compulsory for everyone. Murray Stanley

Little stuff first: typos bother me. Make 'em a lot myself, but there's no excuse in a book w/ multiple editors. To wit:

Page 130, line 9: "...new realities of querilla war..." should be: Guerilla war. (small "g", though)

Page 134, ¶2, line 3: "...man from Detroit, John Coyers Jr...." should be "...CONYERS..."

OK. I feel so much better now that's out of the way.

This book's not a pot-boiler; it's a blood-boiler. It should, at the very least, make it clear to all the citizens of the United States that virtually every single legislature that has had to confront an absolutely rotten, runaway, lawless, pariah of a vice president and president has been almost frozen in place by their fear of "rocking the boat," disturbing the "status quo," not getting re-elected, however dangerous/ rotten/ disgusting/ criminal/ illegal/prevaricating/ mendacious/ Machiavellian... (words fail me) those officials may be.

In other words, the men and women we have elected to serve US, "WE, THE PEOPLE," the men and women who TOOK AN OATH OF OFFICE TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION, not only have broken their oaths of office when they refuse to initiate impeachment proceedings, but they have demonstrated, by their inaction, just how profoundly cowardly they really are. And how, in fact, they DO NOT CARE ONE SINGLE IOTA ABOUT THE REPUBLIC THEY PROMISED TO SERVE.

I don't mean to be too strident about this, but the The Genius of Impeachment brings blood to the boil brilliantly. Don't read it if you're not on beta-blockers.

And who's this Nancy Pelosi lady? The one who says "impeachment is off the table" or "is not on the table"? She's the supposed leader of all 435 Representatives, isn't she? So what does she do? SHE COPIES KING GEORGE! SHE SIGNS TWO (2) COPIES OF HER OATH OF OFFICE, AND THEN ISSUES A SIGNING STATEMENT: I've just sworn to support and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, both foreign and Cheney. But I refuse to be bound by any of the impeachment crap that's in there--it might upset my party's chances for the next election. And as everyone knows, loyalty to party, campaign contributions and contributors trump the Constitution every time -- at least in this political climate.

Pelosi should impeach herself first, pack up and get outta town. (When her pals told her should be on the stage, she thought they all meant the House stage. But they meant "the first stage outta town." And Nancy, there's a modern-day stage leaving for California 'bout every few hours, these days.

Don't mean to sound sexist, but with a woman leader like Pelosi, who needs another one in an even higher office?! That wouldn't be breaking any "glass" ceiling; it would be breaking the real ceiling and bringing the whole government crashing down upon us all.


But I digress again. Back to the book on the Genius of Impeachment.

Like, gimme a break, Jake--the impeachment process is what SOLVES the constitutional crisis. Which is the best reason I can think of to have children, legislators, civic folks, ALL, every day, recite the Preamble to the US Constitution. And carry around a little card with the Preamble printed on it, like so:

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to:
1) form a more perfect Union,
2) establish Justice,
3) insure domestic Tranquility,
4) provide for the common defence [sic],
5) promote the general Welfare, and
6) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

Now, why would I put numbers in front of each clause? So jerks who think that "Keeping you and your children safe is the FIRST JOB of government" (such as Shrub, Cheney et all in this Cheney/Bush administration) will notice that "provide for the common defense" is FOURTH on the list. FIRST, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO DEFEND. Like a tranquil, just and (more) perfect union. Without those three in place, what's the point?

Do we have a more perfect union these days? Not if we continue to let the Constitution be shredded, deny due process to our prisoners of war.

Do we have a just nation these days? Not if we continue to eavesdrop on the citizens without just cause (that'd be a court order). Not if we let the Executive Branch break-and-enter the homes of our citizens (who're supposed to have the power--that's in the Preamble, you might notice) without notice -- the apologists and euphemists and propagandists call this "sneak and peek." Sounds like a little kiddies' game, doesn't it. Well, folks, that's just why they use that term. It's not a kiddies' game; it's a despot's game. Like Shrub said to a Press Conference: "This would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship. ...And I was the dictator."

Do you think he was joking? As one author noted (Breaking the Code), pay attention to when Shrub goes all "shucks, I'm just a doofus" and when he's sharp as a tack (he is, sometimes--don't kid yourselves that he doesn't know how to lie with a straight face, with the very, very best of them, doesn't know how to manipulate.

He speaks most clearly when he's talking about sports, drivin' 'round his "ranch" in his 350-HP 4WD "pony," (he's too afeared a' those real big animal horsies that he wouldn't even get on one of the Mexican el Presidente's horses, would he? 'Member?), when he's talkin' about cuttin' "brush" (or shrubs) with his real clean chain-saw and completely unstained "work gloves." (Dunno why our pusillanimous 4th Estate doesn't roust him on these charades he's been pulling for the past seven-plus years.)

AND Bush is PARTICULARLY CLEAR when he's talking about killing people he doesn't like, rulers he doesn't like, sending troops to be killed, how terrible, rotten, deadly, hateful, cheating the rest of humanity is and how dangerous, threatening, hazardous--and deadly--the economy, the world and the entire human race (except for Republican donors) happens to be. Ol' George W. Bush is REAL clear about that stuff. That's probably why nothing he ever learned in the Good Book has ever stuck. His belief is that, as with Tommy Malthus, life is solitary, nasty, British and short. (Ooops, sorry Brits--I meant to type "brutish" and short.)

Furthermore, whenever you hear these boys in Washington talking "ownership," if you believe 'em for one millisecond, you've been "owned" yourself, or pwned, it think the kids call it. The only thing Americans own is their bodies, and, as above, we don't own a hell of a lot of our own bodies, either. The Unitary Liar-In-Chief can, with or without Congress' collusion, send any soldier to his or her death. The Unitary Liar-In-Chief can, WITH the collusion of Congress, take away all of your money by:
1) Giving control of the nation's wealth, the treasury, to a private group of bankers.
2) Letting those bankers LOAN that money back to the US government AND CHARGE US INTEREST ON IT! (We taxpayers even PRINT the money for the bankers, so they don't have any "overhead." The interest, by the way, is what's on the government IOUs called Treasury Bonds, etc. Every dollar we have in our pockets, bank accounts, 401Ks, market funds, stock market--unless it's in some other medium of exchange, from cowrie shells to precious metals--is owned by the Federal Reserve System. Which is not "federal," (it's private), which has no "reserve" (these "Fed" banks just let the US Treasury borrow more money from it -- and when Treasury gives them the IOUs, then the fed puts the money in circulation); it's all SYSTEM. As in, a systematic way to extract wealth from the US citizens.*

Bottom line: This Constitution stuff has to be taught from Kindergarten on up; every year, every classroom, every civic gathering, every morning the Senate and House of Representatives convene. Frankly, I think the Preamble recitation should replace the upstart, Johnny-come-lately "Pledge."

The Pledge has nothing to do with our Constitution. Nothing whatsoever. It was cooked up by a so-called "radical" Boston cleric who had to come up with some cockamamie deal to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus Day in 1892. The Preamble is from 1787 at least -- so it antedates this rogue "pledge" by 105 years or so, right? When I got drafted, did I "pledge allegiance to the flag?" Nosiree Bob. Like everyone else, I swore to support and defend the US Constitution, not the flag. The flag is just a symbol. A beautiful symbol, a heart-swelling symbol, sometimes -- but just a symbol.

The Constitution, well, that's another thing. The Constitution is what our one-, two-, three- and four-fathers died for. The flag kept changing all the while. And, much as I hate to say this, most any day you can show me someone wearing a flag lapel pin, a flag shoulder patch and such, I can point to the same person and show you someone who hasn't seriously read the US Constitution. Or maybe even just read through it once. If you want to play Patriot, then show us your DD-214 -- that would be your military service record -- the one that, if not altered to hide when you were getting drunk every night and puking on the sheet-less mattresses of the Montgomery, Alabama house you rented while you worked on Poppy's pal Red Blount's election campaign, shows whether you:

1) were ever in the military, and

2) ever served in combat, also known as a theater of war, or by euphemistic scoundrels, as "in harm's way."

That's one of my favorite blood-boilers, by the way. "In harm's way," hell. There's "combat" (with live ammunition, live explosives, mines, roadside bombs, shape-charges, mortar rounds, grenades), and then there's "getting out of bed in the morning and walking down the stairs." And since WHEN has "harm" been the same as "FATAL"??! Jake, gimme another break.

But why do rat finks use the phrase "In harm's way"? Just because they're venal doesn't mean they're stupid. So, why DO they use euphemisms like this?

Well, I'll tell you; it's for the same reason they:

a). Refuse the cowardly press permission to enter Dover AFB to photograph all the flag-draped coffins coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan,

b). Refuse the cowardly press permission to enter Andrews AFB to photograph all the maimed and wounded US soldiers,

c). Refuse to attend any funerals of our servicemen that they've sent to their deaths, and

d). Refuse to keep any record of, or take any responsibility for, "collateral damage" caused by such things as our "precision-guided weapons." (If anyone reading this actually HAS a DD-214, tell me if you think ANYTHING the military has ever done in wartime is "precision." In my army, it was "If it doesn't fit, use a bigger hammer." All the proper tools got lost.)

SOOO, what's the reason the administration blocks access to Dover and Andrews, doesn't go to funerals, uses revolting euphemisms like "in harm's way"? BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT QUIESCENT, LEMMING-LIKE AMERICAN CITIZENS AND JOURNALISTS TO HEAR THE WORD "DEATH"! TO SEE THE TRAPPINGS OF DEATH. Or hear words like "dying," or "amputations," or "killed," or "lethal, deadly, insane, crippled, maimed." Or see returning servicemen and women who personify words like: comatose, amputated, blinded, paralyzed, scarred, suicidal, enraged, eviscerated, castrated, broken, shell-shocked (PTSD -- itself a euphemism that fails to convey the breadth and depth of the psychological damage done by needless, heedless, useless but very, very very deadly wars).

Nope. Not them. They want us to think we're just all having a "Zipless War". It's right from Fort Devins, Dix, Drum, Hood, Sill, wherever, right straight into the grave. Never even have to zipper up a body-bag.

And while I'm on a tear here, why are we enshrining the "Pledge" or ANYTHING having to do with Christopher Columbus, anyway?

Columbus didn't discover the US. He didn't even "Fiiiiind Ray Charles," as Flip Wilson reprised Queen Isabell(a) a while back. Columbus found the Caribbean. With a thriving civilization. Columbus's "discovery" was the equivalent today of driving east from San Diego and, many days later, claiming that you discovered New York.

Then Columbus tortured and slaughtered the natives on all the Caribbean islands he invaded and occupied. Were he alive today doing now what he did back then, he'd be charged, tried and found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, just like the world is waiting to happen with Cheney and Bush, etc. All in all, Columbus was a rather ruthless, disgusting, murderous, rapacious racist. Thank God he was a Christian, or it would have gone much worse for the Arawaks, I'm sure. (Then again, how many times is it we humans can die? I forget.)

And, oooh yeah, Columbus kept kidnapping, detaining, shackling and shipping the natives back to Spain to be sold into slavery and tortured, if they survived the trip. That wasn't a sure shot, because they were kept shackled in stress positions throughout their extraordinary rendition, err, trip to the slave traders of Spain.

Well, good gosh-a-mighty, don't it just sound like what Georgie Porgie's been doin' to his "enemies, both foreign and domestic"?!! Why, don't that just beat all?

Guess some things never do change with terrorists, do they?

(Like I said, the genius of "The Genius of Impeachment" is that it'll make your blood boil -- and your tears well -- for want of any brave Member of Congress like Representative Henry B. González or Senator Sam Ervin -- men who had the courage of their Constitution and their oaths to defend it. And by this I don't mean to diminish the efforts of leaders like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich and a very, very few others. But they have all been holding back -- probably foremost among them, the current version of John Conyers.)

Columbus Peoples Hx Zinn

** http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/09/02/allison/index.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Columbus_PeoplesHx.html