Vermont Impeachment Campaign Blossoms
James Marc Leas

The grass roots movement for impeaching Bush and Cheney blossomed in Vermont when nearly 400 Vermonters from 102 towns descended on the State House on April 25 to encourage Representatives to pass a resolution initiating the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

A mobilization of 130 Vermonters from 56 towns the previous week had inspired Vermont Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin to bring the same resolution to a vote in the Senate on April 20 where it passed 16-9. (see here)

Three times as many Vermonters came to the State House four days later with hope for a comparable miracle in the Vermont House. Invited by House Speaker Gaye Symington to fill the seats in the ornate House chamber for a town meeting with her two hours before the official House session began, the citizens spoke passionately as Symington presided. Speaking with conviction and eloquence, the Vermonters rose to call on Symington to become a national heroine defending our constitution from the high crimes of Bush and Cheney by supporting passage of the impeachment resolution.

The day before, Symington had reversed course about whether to allow the resolution to come up for debate and a vote. For months she had firmly opposed spending any time on the matter. But the outpouring of citizens the week before and the huge volume of calls and emails persuaded her that other business could not be conducted while the growing citizen movement was everywhere in the news and dominating discussion.

In a last ditch effort to head off the debate and vote, a Rep in close contact with Symington contacted the author of this article saying that a careful vote count showed only 30 yes votes of the 76 needed to pass, and that Symington might let the resolution come up only so it could be voted down to put a stop to the growing citizen campaign. He said such a failure would dilute the positive Vermont Senate vote the week before, and he strongly advocated for us to ask that the resolution be withdrawn.

Citizens saw Symington's decision to allow debate and a vote as a huge victory for the old idea that government is of, by, and for the people. They came out in even larger numbers to advocate for passage of the resolution.

Surprisingly, the issue for Symington was not whether Bush and Cheney had committed serious offenses. In a written statement issued the day before the vote, Symington condemned Bush and Cheney for misleading us into war, spying without a warrant, advocacy of torture and politicization of the Justice Department. http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/042007/SymingtonStatement.shtml

To her credit, Gaye Symington had previously supported a resolution that passed in both the Vermont House and Senate on February 13 calling for immediately beginning withdrawal from Iraq. Vermont was the first state to have its legislature issue such a call.

But in her written statement, and throughout the town meeting, Symington clung to her view that through its hearings "Congress is now doing the work necessary to hold the Bush/Cheney administration accountable for their disastrous policies and actions."  Noting that since the new Congress convened it has "held hundreds of hearings focused on the misinformation that led our country into this war," she expressed concern that "an impeachment agenda would distract from information provided by the hearings, quickly polarize our country and turn Americans' attention away from the real lessons we are learning from these events."

Disappointing hundreds of Vermonters, Symington did not respond to any of these points:

o         Without a consequence for any wrongdoing that a Congressional hearing might find, perpetrators can walk back to their offices and commit more crimes.

o         If Congress takes evidence of continuing wrongdoing but does nothing to stop the perpetrators, Congress becomes complicit with that wrongdoing.

o         To avoid complicity, Congress thus limits the scope of its investigation. For example, testimony was taken from Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez about the firing of Republican prosecutors but not about his role authorizing torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, which is ongoing.

o         By contrast, if the consequence--impeachment and removal from office--is on the table, all issues can be addressed, including torture, detention without trial, spying on Americans without a warrant, and lying to start an illegal war of aggression and to maintain an illegal occupation.

o         Without a consequence hanging over him, Alberto Gonzalez was free to taunt Congress 70 times saying he could not remember. With a consequence he might have better remembered.

o         The one and only consequence provided in the Constitution is impeachment: "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." (see here)

o         The founding fathers thought impeachment so important that they mentioned it 6 times in 5 different sections of the Constitution.

o         They thought impeachment so important that they provided seven different ways for impeachment to be initiated, including "by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory."

o         George Mason, a primary author of the Constitution, said that impeachment was the single most important part of the entire document. "Shall any man be above Justice? Above all shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?" (see here) 

o         If Congress dishonors its enumerated power of impeachment, how can Congress demand that Bush honor other constitutional provisions?

o         Representatives swear an oath to support the constitution. No part of this oath includes a waiver saying, "only if it does not take time," or "only if it is not distracting," or "only if it is not disruptive or divisive" or "only if it does risk alienating Republican allies."

o         If Congress funds the war and keeps impeachment off the table, Bush and Cheney remain free to continue and further escalate the war. Vermonters want to initiate impeachment now before Bush and Cheney commit further crimes.

o         We elect our legislators to have courage, and above all we expect them to use that courage to defend our constitution.

The hour long session ended with Gaye Symington's continued opposition, and the resolution was voted down in the House 87-60. Interestingly, 11 of the 14 committee chairs and the House majority leader and majority whip all voted for the resolution. The grass roots political force left the State House energized by the victory in the Senate and by the respectable vote in the House.

That grass roots force now turns its attention to Congressman Peter Welch, who agreed to meet organizers on Friday, May 4. We will ask Welch to announce support for initiating impeachment of Bush and Cheney and to support the resolution to impeach Cheney submitted by Congress Dennis Kucinich on April 24. 

We will also call on Welch to help organize a Town Meeting this month at which hundreds of Vermonters can dialogue with him about impeachment. We expect this town meeting to provide an opportunity for further building the grass roots movement for impeaching Bush and Cheney. It is on the growing movement of the people that hope for our constitution and our democracy depends.

In an interview with the Vermont Guardian, Welch said, "My hat is off to the citizen activists in Vermont for bringing their case to the Legislature; they are representative of the proud tradition we have in Vermont to speaking out. People are expressing broad outrage about this president's handling of the war, his treatment of civil liberties, and the use of bogus intelligence, and there is a lot of common ground here on holding the president and vice president accountable. The major question is the best way to make that happen."

With so much evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors already before the public, and with Bush and Cheney threatening escalation of the war, the major question is:

Will the people be persuaded that Congressional hearings without consequence have been effective?

Or

Will the people come out in sufficient numbers to persuade Congress to include the constitutional consequence: Impeachment.

Recommend this article...

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:

Comments (1)

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4