The reasons for inertia
1. It's not Popular
2. There are no republicans ready to join the effort (its partisan)
3. It's a distraction from higher priorities
4. It's let's the dem's off the hook
5. Because new laws have been enacted (Military Commissions Act, USA Patriot Act, )
the UN-Constitutionality of some of the acts has been called into question.
These may have made some of these acts legal?
1. It's not popular, there is no consensus.
This is a new principle of law of which I am unaware. Liberty is not a popular value. Freedom of speech is not
answerable to a popular vote. The freedom demanded by the colonies, was not unanimously demanded.
Women's rights, and the equality of African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans is still not universally
respected even in this "enlightened" land, Should Women, or African Americans sit down and shut up, unless their
community has a plubicite and determines that these are popular values. That it is the law, is enough.
We turned from vigilante justice sometime in the nineteen-fifties and even in the early nineteen sixties, African American rights
were still not popular among those in the existing power structure. POPULARITY, and General Acceptance, is not
a reason to enforce the law. The law, is the law. Should there be laws, enforced only by it's temporary popularity?
The Simpson's case offers the perfect example. In some neighborhoods, Mr. Simpsons' guilt
or innocence was a forgone conclusion, before the jury sat. Even after the case ran it's course
through the California Courts, some communities believed it was a great miscarriage of justice.
Yet in other communities, his vindication was proof, that "justice" had prevailed.
Is justice, and it's pursuit to depend on popular whim? And powerful media advocacy?
Is is the law, in this case the Constitution the law for all whether it's enforcement is popular or not?
Were the signers of the Declaration constrained by the opinion of the haberdashers of London?
Would you hesitate to protect your house for fear, that the burglar, might not find you entirely hospitable?
Were the abolitionists. shamed by the opinion of the slave market's cashier?
2. There are no republicans ready to join the impeachment effort, therefore it will be deemed a partisan issue.
The enforcement of the law, especially the Constitution is not the province of any party. Whether legislators
will or won't join the effort, who might be comfortable later on, in this early stage of the process, has yet to be seen.
This is merely the beginning of the impeachment process.
Once the matter is before the House, and the evidence is presented, then we will know whether the sustained attacks
on the constitution by this administration are as significant a danger to the republic as Testimonies on Oral Sex,
in the White House. "What is torture?" has replaced "What is, is?"
Regardless whether republicans or democrats regard disingenuous and misleading statements about ORAL SEX,
as a larger threat to the Constitution, than torture, broken international treaties the politicization of the Justice Department
and lying to start a war, it will be interesting. How many republicans, how many democrats, are concerned
enough to protect the Constitution, only time will tell.
What if some distrust the motives, should this halt the investigation? What if Impeachment is portrayed as "tit for tat"
by the purchased press of FAUX Noose. It is not partisan to support Constitutional Constraints on executive power.
If there are those who still are looking for a foolish reason to dismiss ACLU then let this be it. Fear of fools is not
a sustainable guide to the Constitution's balance of powers..
3. It's a distraction from priorities
The ACLU's resources and it's supporters energy are finite. It is equally true that when the "cause is met"
new enthusiasm, new energy and new resources will surface. Think of the millions activated by the Freedom Rides?
By the Million Man March, the millions who will be self identified as the battle is joined. There may well be resources
yet to be awakened. Who would have guess that Dr. King or Ghandi would find an audience for their unpopular,
yet heart-felt voice for JUSTICE?
4. It lets DEMS off the hook, because they were enablers.
Part of the discussion must be that retroactive enabling of these huge unconstitutional changes passed by a recumbent
Congress cannot continue to threaten Americans. The Court and Congress are the appropriate forum for these discussions,
but they are not the only forum for public opinion. When Thomas Jefferson, spoke forcefully about the necessity for
continued revolution, what would he make of Pelosi's widely reported "IMPEACHMENT it's off the table?"
What would Patrick Henry (He of - "If I have but one, life to give for my country") make of these
type of statements. Would he say, well, I'd like to take a principled stand, but it might hurt, my plan of a career in Congress?
5. Some new legislation, may have made some of these acts legal. And thus Impeachment is a NON-Starter
There are no Constitutional Laws applicable, that could make the vast array of Impeachable Acts legal.
Let's focus on just a few of them. Lying and lying by omission to Congress and the people.
There is no "new" UnConstitutional Legislation, that can allow, the Executive to break treaties,
whether it be illegal invasions, or the Geneva Conventions. The savagery of the Spanish Inquisition cannot be legal.
No one can make legal, kidnapping "extraordinary rendition" and prisoners held beyond the law.
There is no legislation that will allow the manufacturing of FAKE Evidence to trick Americans
into illegal wars. Turning the Independent Judiciary into a party organ of enforcement and attack, is indefensible.
What has been done to GUT the Justice Department alone, is worthy of articles of impeachment.
Nothing can be written into law, to shield the partisan activity that even Ms. Gooding with her degree from a religious
college recognized that this was "PROBABLY" Over the CONSTITUTIONAL LINE.
This is the thrust of some of the arguments I would employ to argue for Supporting Articles of Impeachment,