New Hampshire will have national press coverage, during the primary election. Admittedly, it is difficult to hold outdoor protests, during the New Hampshire winter, but banners and signs could be placed on or in buildings. Voters nationwide would be very impressed to see dedicated protesters, standing in the cold, with their breath visible, to the cameras.

Fortunately, Alberto Gonzales has resigned, along with Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Meirs and Rove. Their resignations are a good beginning, but inadequate to repair the damage done to our nation, constitution, Bill of Rights and democracy. The Nixon White House collapsed quickly, when Congress began issueing subpoenas and holding hearings. Congress should not fear a backlash from impeachment. Democrats gained the Presidency when they impeached Nixon - Republicans gained the White House when they impeached Clinton.

Impeachment of Cheney and Bush is vital to restoration of the republic. The Bush administration apparently is operating an illegal politically motivated domestic spying program, in violation of the fourth admendment, and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. President Bush has written over 700 unconstitutional “signing statements.”

The Iraq civil war continues, with no end in sight and Bush continues to veto every bill Congress passes to limit spending for this disastrous military misadventure. Dick Cheney knew invading Iraq would be a mistake, in the 1990’s and went on record, explaining why, in this televised interview.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2879&id=10983-4283714-qFj.aJ&t=2

Congress has been unable to accomplish anything significant, since Bush vetoes any meaningful laws passed by Congress, if Republican Senators do not block passage first. The minimum wage increase passed but was so minimal and obviously inadequate that it is insignificant. Nancy Pelosi is wrong - Cheny and Bush must be impeached, if Congress is to accomplish anything significant.

Here is one of many specific high crimes, which was commited by Vice President Cheney:

George Bush and Dick Cheney passed false information to Congress about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities, to wit, their possession of chemical weapons, biological weapons, and delivery systems. Furthermore, George Bush and Dick Cheney passed false information to Congress by falsely stating that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States and that military action was therefore necessary. The false statements are detailed, on Dennis Kucinich’s website and many other websites.

Law violated:
18 USC 1001.
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Nineteen Representatives have now cosponsored H Res 333, Articles of Impeachment for Richard Cheney. Even a poll paid for by Republicans found a majority favored Impeachment of Cheney. Adequate evidence of high crimes and misdeameanors already exists and more will emerge, with investigations.

I do not believe 34 Republican Senators would be willing to risk their seats, by opposing a Cheney conviction in the Senate. Twenty two Republican Senators are up for relection, in 2008. Five have announced they are not running for reelection. Republican Congressmen persuaded Gonzales to resign, before he was impeached. Republicans will force Cheney to resign, to avoid repeated coverage of Congressional investigations of Cheney’s crimes and probable political advertisements, emphasizing Cheney’s crimes.

If Cheney is not removed before the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, next August, both parties will be targeted with daily Impeachment demonstrations. Republicans will want to avoid this and prevent losing even more Senators. Loss of 22 Senators, supporting Dick Cheney would be disastrous to the Republicans, in 2008, with a Democratic president, Democratic House of Representatives and Democratic Senate.

It is time to circulate Resolutions for Impeachment petitions locally, at the city, county and state level, to help our cowardly Congress find courage to perform their constitutional duty.

The founding fathers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor, with a firm reliance on divine providence, to establish this republic.

When will the House of Representatives take an effective stand against the culture of corruption, in the Republican administration, by passing Articles of Impeachment?

Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine
American Bar Association

Release: Embargoed for AM Editions, Monday, July 24, 2006
Media contact: Nancy Cowger Slonim
Phone: 312/988-6132
Email: slonimn@staff.abanet.org
Online: www.abanews.org

BLUE-RIBBON TASK FORCE FINDS PRESIDENT BUSH'S SIGNING STATEMENTS
UNDERMINE SEPARATION OF POWERS
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 24, 2006 – Presidential signing statements that assert President Bush’s authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, according to a report released today by a blue-ribbon American Bar Association task force.

more below the fold
-------------------
To address these concerns, the task force urges Congress to adopt legislation enabling its members to seek court review of signing statements that assert the President’s right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress, and urges the President to veto bills he feels are not constitutional.

The Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine was created by ABA President Michael S. Greco with the approval of the ABA Board of Governors in June, to examine the changing role of presidential signing statements after the Boston Globe on April 30 revealed an exclusive reliance on presidential signing statements, in lieu of vetoes, by the Bush Administration.

In appointing the special task force Greco said, “The use of presidential signing statements raises serious issues relating to the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. I have appointed the Task Force to take a balanced, scholarly look at the use and implications of signing statements, and to propose appropriate ABA policy consistent with our Association’s commitment to safeguarding the rule of law and the separation of powers in our system of government.”

The task force report and recommendations will be presented to the ABA’s policy-making House of Delegates for adoption at its upcoming Annual Meeting Aug. 7-8. Until the ABA House has taken formal action, the report and recommendations represent only the views of the task force.

The bipartisan task force, composed of constitutional scholars, former presidential advisers, and legal and judicial experts, noted that President George W. Bush is not the first president to use signing statements, but said, “It was the number and nature of the current President’s signing statements which … compelled our recommendations.”

The task force said its report and recommendations “are intended to underscore the importance of the doctrine of separation of powers. They therefore represent a call to this President and to all his successors to fully respect the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances.”

The task force determined that signing statements that signal the president’s intent to disregard laws adopted by Congress undermine the separation of powers by depriving Congress of the opportunity to override a veto, and by shutting off policy debate between the two branches of government. According to the task force, they operate as a “line item veto,” which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional.

Noting that the Constitution is silent about presidential signing statements, the task force found that, while several recent presidents have used them, the frequency of signing statements that challenge laws has escalated substantially, and their purpose has changed dramatically, during the Bush Administration.

The task force report states, “From the inception of the Republic until 2000, Presidents produced fewer than 600 signing statements taking issue with the bills they signed. According to the most recent update, in his one-and-a-half terms so far, President George Walker Bush ... has produced more than 800.”

The report found that President Bush’s signing statements are “ritualistic, mechanical and generally carry no citation of authority or detailed explanation.” Even when “(a) frustrated Congress finally enacted a law requiring the Attorney General to submit to Congress a report of any instance in which that official or any officer of the Department of Justice established or pursued a policy of refraining from enforcing any provision of any federal statute, … this too was subjected to a ritual signing statement insisting on the President’s authority to withhold information whenever he deemed it necessary.”

“This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy,” said Greco. “If left unchecked, the president’s practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances, that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries. Immediate action is required to address this threat to the Constitution and to the rule of law in our country.”

Greco said that the task force’s report “constructively offers procedures that consider the prerogatives both of the president and of the Congress, while protecting the public’s right to know what legislation is adopted by Congress and if and how the president intends to enforce it. This transparency is essential if the American people are to have confidence that the rule of law is being respected by both citizens and government leaders.”

The bipartisan and independent task force is chaired by Miami lawyer Neal Sonnett, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chief of the Criminal Division for the Southern District of Florida. He is past chair of the ABA Criminal Justice Section, chair of the ABA Task Force on Domestic Surveillance and the ABA Task Force on Treatment of Enemy Combatants; and president-elect of the American Judicature Society.

"Abuse of presidential signing statements poses a threat to the rule of law," said Sonnett. "Whenever actions threaten to weaken our system of checks and balances and the separation of powers, the American Bar Association has a profound responsibility to speak out forcefully to protect those lynchpins of democracy."

The other task force members, whose brief background information follows, are William S. Sessions, Patricia M. Wald, Mickey Edwards, Bruce Fein, Harold Hongju Kho, Charles Ogletree, Stephen A. Saltzburg, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Mark Agrast, Tom Susman, and adviser Alan Rothstein.

The task force recommendations urge Congress to adopt legislation to permit the president, Congress or other entities to seek court review any time the president claims he has the authority, or states his intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or when he interprets the law in a manner inconsistent with the intent of Congress. Currently, Congress lacks legal authority to seek judicial review in those circumstances.

The task force also urges the president to use his veto power, as all prior presidents have done, instead of a signing statement when he believes all or part of a bill is unconstitutional, in keeping with the Constitution’s requirement that the president either approve or disapprove in their entirety laws presented to him by Congress.

If the president believes a bill pending before Congress would be unconstitutional if enacted, he should communicate his concerns to Congress before the bill is passed, according to the task force.

Additionally, the task force urges Congress to enact legislation requiring the president promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of every signing statement he issues. Any time the president claims authority or states his intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, the legislation should require him to submit a report to Congress, available in a public database, setting forth in full the reasons and legal basis for his position, said the task force.

Presidential signing statements are not new, according to the task force, which notes that “Presidents have issued statements elaborating on their views of the laws they sign since the time of President James Monroe.” But under President Ronald Reagan, “For the first time, signing statements were viewed as a strategic weapon in a campaign to influence the way legislation was interpreted by the courts and Executive agencies as well as their more traditional use to preserve Presidential prerogatives.” The report also notes that President Clinton, like his predecessors, used signing statements, but to a significantly lesser degree, and different purpose.

Among President Bush’s signing statements, the task force noted refusals to carry out laws involving "Congressional requirements to report back to Congress on the use of Patriot Act authority to secretly search homes and seize private papers, (and) the McCain amendment forbidding any U.S. officials to use torture or cruel and inhumane treatment on prisoners.”

Where legislation has mandated reports to Congress on special matters, such as the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002, the signing statement treated the requirement as only advisory, said the task force. The task force said President Bush’s signing statements are “particularly adamant about preventing any of his subordinates from reporting directly to Congress.”

With more than 410,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law in a democratic society.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information regarding the 10 task force members in addition to Chair Sonnett follows:

William S. Sessions, now in private practice in Washington, D.C., is a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, chief U.S. District Court judge for the Western District of Texas, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, and chief of the Government Operations Section of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Patricia M. Wald, most recently a member of the President's Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, is a former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and trial and appellate judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. She was an assistant attorney general for legislative affairs in the Carter Administration.
Former Rep. Mickey Edwards, a lecturer at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and director of the Aspen Institute-Rodel Fellowships in Public Leadership, served in the House Republican Leadership as a member of Congress from 1977-1992, was a founding trustee of the Heritage Foundation, former national chair of the American Conservative Union, and director of policy advisory task forces for the Reagan presidential campaign.
Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and international consultant with The Lichfield Group, was associate deputy attorney general and assistant director of the Office of Legal Policy of the Department of Justice under President Reagan. He also served as general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, and a resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation.
Dean and professor Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School is one of the country's leading experts on international human rights and national security law. A former assistant secretary of state, Koh advised former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright on U.S. policy on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, and also served as an attorney in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice.
Charles Ogletree, the Harvard Law School Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, and Founding and Executive Director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, is a prominent legal theorist who has made an international reputation by taking a hard look at complex issues of law and by working to secure the rights guaranteed by the Constitution for everyone equally under the law. The Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice (http://www.charleshamiltonhouston.org), named in honor of the visionary lawyer who spearheaded the litigation in Brown v. Board of Education, opened in September 2005, and focuses on a variety of issues relating to race and justice, and will sponsor research, hold conferences, and provide policy analysis.
Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg of George Washington University Law School was associate independent counsel in the Iran-Contra investigation and deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division of the U. S. Department of Justice. He is the incoming chair-elect of the ABA Criminal Justice Section and serves in the association’s House of Delegates.
Professor Kathleen M. Sullivan of Stanford Law School, was dean of the school for five years. She heads Stanford's Constitutional Law Center, has taught at Harvard and University of Southern California law schools, and is a visiting scholar at the National Constitution Center. A nationally known constitutional law expert, she is co-author of a leading casebook in constitutional law.
Mark Agrast, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., is formerly counsel and legislative director to Rep. William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.) and aide to Rep. Gerry E. Studds (D-Mass.). He is a member of the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association, chairs the ABA Commission on the Renaissance of Idealism in the Legal Profession, and is a past chair of the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities.
Tom Susman, a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm, has served as general counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and several of its subcommittees, and in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice. He is a member of the ABA House of Delegates, past chair of the ABA Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, and has served on the ABA Board of Governors.
Alan Rothstein is an advisor to the task force. He is general counsel to the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and coordinates the extensive law reform and public policy work of that 22,000-member association. He also serves in the New York State Bar Association House of Delegates.



Rick Maynard

It seems clear that the President and his cohorts are willfully ignorant of the rule of law by which all agents of government are to be limited and controlled. They seem to think that just as Democracy is merely an alternate selection process for picking the ruler, the rule of law means that, instead of a verbal instruction issued at the whim of the ruler, the law is to be written down.
What seems to be missing entirely is an understanding that in a Democracy the people rule and the agents of government are supposed to carry out what the people, through their representatives, demand.

It's my guess that if more Republicans understood that their official responsibilities involve doing what the great unwashed public demands, they'd have much less interest in taking on those positions.