Censure Seems Inappropriate

A Rebuke Rarely Exercised
As a Weapon, a Censure Motion Lacks Muscle

Congress is actually having a hearing on Senator Russ Feingold's resolution for censure. Watching some of the proceedings on C-SPAN we find that almost unanimously the senators are split down the partisan lines. While a few Republican senators will admit "something is amiss," none will concede the idea that any part of the Constitution, FISA, or any other federal law was breached. Senators Hatch and Cornyn seem to ignore the Constitution and its principles completely.

In my view, censure is an inadequate tool. Impeachment is the answer... not because I hate Mr. Bush, but I despise any breach of our constitutional rights, breach of office to defend the Constitution, and the arrogance that it takes to do either.

When the nation was still young and the Constitution only 11 years old, Congress tried for the first time to censure a president.

The British Royal Navy was alleging that a seaman in custody in South Carolina was a fugitive. Without an investigation, President John Adams instructed a judge to turn the man, who said he was an American, over to the British.

This infuriated some in the House. Adams's opponents there sought in the spring of 1800 to adopt a resolution declaring his action "a dangerous interference of the Executive with Judicial Decisions."

But Adams had powerful defenders, including Rep. John Marshall, who later set many of the nation's founding constitutional principles as chief justice of the United States. Rep. William Craik argued that the House had neither "the power to censure or to approbate the conduct of the Executive," according to the Annals of Congress, but only to impeach him. The debate lasted two weeks, and in the end a vote to censure failed by nearly 2 to 1.

Even the historical precedent for using censure is filled with partisan politics and backstabbing. While I applaud Feingold for having the backbone to call for some form of justice, I still urge the House to call for impeachment. The crimes this president has committed have cost us dearly:

• Our troops have been placed in harm's way unnecessarily... Bush either lied or was completely incompetent.


• Our troops have not been supplied properly and have died (or been injured) as a result of deliberate neglect.


• Bush has touted the issues of national security, yet in almost 5 years time our security remains at high risk.


• Bush has authorized warrantless searches and seizures (wiretaps) of American citizens in direct violation of the Constitution, FISA and about 12 other federal laws.


• There is some evidence that the events of 9-11 may have been a setup created by the Bush administration (do a Google search on 911 Loose Change) in order to promote and push forward an agenda that would allow increased security force.


• Bush has consistently placed special interests--especially Republican, Christian Right, and Big Business interests--above the interests of the nation, the states and the people.


• Bush advocated for a foreign nation to be in charge of daily operations of over 22 US ports, 6 of them major ports of access.


• Bush is advocating for our border with Mexico to be more open on our side than it is on their side, allowing for a national security imbalance in favor of Mexico.

The question of censure is once again before Congress. This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee meets to discuss a resolution introduced by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) that would rebuke President Bush for his secret surveillance program. Old newspaper clippings and historical writings show that censure has a mixed record as an effective means for Congress to express disapproval of presidents.

It is not enough to express "disapproval." Under international law Bush (et al) has committed acts against the Geneva Conventions, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaraion of Human Rights, and several other treaties... all of which are incorporated into our Constitution.

One reason censure has not had much legitimacy as a tool for rebuke is that it is expressed by a congressional resolution without the force of law, and "you can express a resolution that apple pie and motherhood are good for American life," says professor William W. Van Alstyne of the College of William & Mary law school. Yet it has kept on coming up.

Which is why we should use the House of Representatives to force the issue of impeachment... Impeachment does carry the force of law and can remove Bush and others from office.

Censure has been proposed in more recent history by the president's supporters as an alternative to impeachment. During the Watergate scandal, House Minority Leader John J. Rhodes (R-Ariz.) signed on to a petition to consider censuring President Nixon, and a resolution was introduced, but the debate moved to impeachment.

Nixon should have been impeached as well. If he did not know about Watergate (which we all suspect he did), he should have known because it involved his White House staff at the highest levels, as well as members of his committee for re-election. Any elected official or commander that does not know what his staff, officers, workers and/or troops are doing is incompetent, out-of-control and dangerous.

During the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal eight years ago, censure as an alternative to impeachment was floated seriously in Congress. President Bill Clinton's supporters hoped that a compromise would avert removal from office and pay off politically because polls showed most Americans preferred censure.

Clinton was impeached because he lied about his personal sexual enounters under oath. It seems strange to me that we hold someone more accountable for engaging in oral sex and lying about it than we do someone who lied to us and engaged us in a war.

A phrase coined during the debate, "censure-plus," would have involved a rebuke and a financial penalty. But ultimately House Republicans approved two articles of impeachment.

It was a partisan political act then as it is now. The Republicans dominated congress during the Clinton years and voted for impeachment. Now those same Republicans are dragging their feet on impeachment because Bush is one of their own. Somewhere there is some distinct irony in that these Republicans are the ones touting family values, ethics, Christian values and government that does not interfere with the choices of individuals... and yet they do just the opposite.

In the Senate in late 1998 and early 1999, censure seemed to have more support from Republicans, but Democrats were beginning to sense that the Senate would not vote to impeach. "We are now navigating in previously uncharted waters," Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said at the time. Ultimately, the Senate voted not to convict Clinton -- and that was it.

The Democrats took advantage of partisan politics and allowed the impeachment as the lesser of two evils. In my view, this type of partisan politics is a disgrace for all of congress. I still advocate voting out everyone in congress and starting with all freshmen... maybe we will get some fair representation as a result.

For George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, the Clinton episode, as well as the pending Feingold proposal, are characteristic of what censure is -- and is not.

"The Constitution places an obligation upon Congress to impeach a president who has committed a high crime or misdemeanor," he said. "We're often left with these ambiguous actions. Even if a censure vote passed, the president would simply blame it on politics."

We want Bush held accountable for his actions and decisions. Impeach the bastard now!