Constitutional Thoughts

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall
be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery,
or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This is Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, the Impeachment Clause, and I have been thinking about this lately. The "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" phrase is more of a "catch-all" to include any offense the House and Senate deem worthy of impeachment. However, the Founding Fathers were clear that two deeds not to be tolerated by officers of the United States were treason and bribery. One of the things I find interesting about how bribery is included is that it does not specify the direction, or in other words, it may apply to both the person offering a bribe or the person accepting a bribe.

Obviously, we are still at the beginning of the scandal involving Mr. Blagojevich, but it does raise some interesting issues. Did someone representing "The Office of the President-Elect" offer Mr. Blagojevich any sort of bribe? Since there really is no such office for the President-Elect and the Impeachment Clause is generally considered not to apply to members of Congress, did Senator Obama get lucky in that all this happened before he actually took the office of President of the United States? Does it matter that Article IV, Section 14 of the Illinois Constitution does not specifically condemn bribery?

Mostly, I am just curious about the fact that the U.S. Constitution is so clear that bribery is not to be tolerated. This is not about a President lying under oath or having sexual relations outside of marriage, which would be actions that would have to fit under the "high Crimes or Misdemeanors" category (thereby allowing Senators do debate whether such actions were really high crimes or misdemeanors). This about the President-Elect allegedly being connected to or condoning bribery, an action clearly not to be tolerated by officers of the United States under the Constitution.

Constitutional Thoughts

The people will be represented; they ought therefore to choose the
representatives. The requisites in actual representation are that the
representatives should sympathize with their constituents; should think as they
think; and feel as they feel; and that for these purposes should even be
residents among them.
-George Mason

This comment from George Mason, Constitutional Convention delegate from Virginia, was supposed to describe the right of the people based on Article 1, Paragraph 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. The people had the right to be represented by someone like them, who lived in the similar circumstances with them. I cannot help but feel that this right is all but gone. I will say that I think there are numerous representatives that can claim to follow this idea, but the majority do not seem to understand it in the least. The idea of politics as a profession would probably have struck the Founders as odd. Yet that is all we seem to have at this point. Professional politicians do not seem capable of understanding the circumstances and intentions of the people they represent because they appear too focused on their own goals and ambitions.

The Beginning of Real Peace

Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post pens a great article about the new security agreement between Iraq and the US. (HT: Hugh Hewitt) I think the largest point to take from this is that Iraq is turning into one of our biggest allies in the Middle East, and they are a democracy. This may very well be the biggest front in the war on terror because the Iraqis will be defending their freedom every day and providing an example to the rest of the Middle East that terrorism can be repelled and defeated, and freedom is available.

On a separate but related note, I think Pres. Bush's legacy will look fantastic in about 20 years, if not sooner.

Time Will Tell

This article by Paul Weyrich is very interesting. Apparently, there was proof that Saddam Huessin was planning to produce weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, but Pres. Bush and the people who knew about it kept quiet until the material could be safely removed from within the terrorists' striking distance. How will history judge Pres. George W. Bush? I dare say time will be much kinder than his current critics. Of course, that would not take much.

Calling for Restraint

Bret Stephens pens a great article supporting the idea that the media should exercise restraint, because someone may actually believe what is written or broadcast. I agree with Mr. Stephens that the media should do a better job of reporting the facts, instead of making everything a crisis of epic proportions. I also agree that it is amazing how the medial will basically accept anything claimed by dubious sources as long as it can be used to criticize the US, but will evaluate and scrutinize, and even twist, every statement from the government. The bottom line is I am tired. I am tired of always having the sky falling down on me.