In this issue:

1. The Remedy returns from hiatus
2. Drive for impeachment returns to local, state activism
3. Dealing with common objections to local resolutions
4. Giving local and state resolutions impact by leveraging Congressional rules
5. What mission? A guest column by Richard Mathews of RescueOurDemocracy.org
6. Impeachment WAS everywhere
7. Send us your news / Subscribe to The Remedy

Back from hiatus

In the post-election, mid-holiday crush, The Remedy went on temporary hiatus, but plans to resume its original bi-weekly schedule. Our apologies for the inconvenience.

Drive for impeachment returns to local, state activism

During the past year, as the case for impeachment has grown ever clearer, the reluctance to give serious consideration to the issue in its primary venue, the U.S. Congress, has grown ever stronger. And while no one truly expected the Republican majority in the 109th Congress to live up to its obligations, it's become just as obvious that the incoming Democratic majority of the 110th is no more eager to do so than their Republican predecessors.

That leaves the task of building political will, once again, to other public assemblies such as state and local government, political party organizations, unions, trade associations, civic groups, etc. The past year has seen dozens of resolutions, party platform planks, and ballot questions adopted calling for investigations and impeachment, all of which were aimed at demonstrating the existence of a popular will for this kind of accountability. In each instance, voices of opposition – including those of many who considered themselves sympathetic to impeachment – expressed doubt about the propriety of the use of local forums for the consideration of a federal issue, or lamented that such resolutions were "merely symbolic," because only the Congress has the power to impeach.

Dealing with common objections to local resolutions

The epic battle to bring an impeachment resolution before a Town Meeting in Washington, CT featured these objections and more, including the somewhat peculiar notion that such a resolution, if adopted at a Town Meeting, would unfairly "speak for the whole town," when there were many residents who disagreed. This objection, of course, is one that might be raised with any issue, local or not. But on no other issue is it considered relevant. Town Meetings, like any exercise of democracy, resolves issues in the name of the electorate, whether they agree with the outcome or not.

More deserving of attention are the objections that local, state, or regional assemblies are improper forums for addressing federal issues, and that such resolutions are therefore "merely symbolic." What critics consider "symbolic," of course, is as easily considered by proponents to be "advisory." With almost no other issue would local assemblies consider themselves prohibited from instructing their elected representatives as to their preferences. Local and state governments routinely issue declarations of varying levels of formality endorsing positions on federal issues, from grant programs, to transportation issues, to federal law. Quite recently, dozens of municipalities and states have adopted resolutions disapproving of specific portions of the USA PATRIOT Act, for instance, and almost always without any objection that the forum was somehow "improper," or that the sentiments expressed were "merely symbolic," though they were by themselves no more capable of redressing the grievances addressed than an impeachment resolution would be.

But it is possible for the resolutions of state and local actors to have a value beyond the advisory. An impeachment resolution adopted by a state legislature, for instance, would be an incredibly powerful manifestation of the popular will. Not only that, but precedent actually exists for impeachment proceedings in the House being initiated at the request of a state legislature. Jefferson's Manual, a collection of procedural guidelines and precedent used by the House, contains in its notes at section 603 a list of the various mechanisms by which the initiation of impeachment proceedings may be contemplated. And though existing precedent for impeachment at the request of a state legislature is for its use against a federal judge, the Manual notes contain no prohibition against making such a plea regarding any other federal officer.

Giving local and state resolutions impact by leveraging Congressional rules

It must be noted, of course, that this procedure does not bypass the requirement that a Member of the House must be the one to introduce a proposition to impeach. But the receipt of such a resolution from the legislature of a Member's home state changes the political equation. No longer does that Member risk standing alone in calling for impeachment. Rather, he may act at the instruction of his home state's governing body, and with the backing of a statewide network of a majority of its elected officials.

Both Jefferson's Manual and House Rules tell us that a direct proposition to impeach is a question of the highest privilege, against which no other business may intervene. Such a question would, of course, be subject to a motion to table, but there is no process by which a Member, determined to deliver the message from his state's legislature, may be thwarted from so doing. And once the "I-word" is spoken on the House floor, the political atmosphere itself changes.

This method, as proposed for use during the 109th Congress, would have put the Republican majority in the uncomfortable position of having to vote to bury the call of an entire state to impeach. In the 110th, that discomfort would belong to Democrats. For some (but by no means all) impeachment advocates, that diminishes the procedure's value. But its power to force recognition in the halls of Congress for a popular demand for impeachment is undeniable.

Local resolutions, too, are set to renew the groundswell, as Town Meeting season opens this spring in New England. In Vermont, Newfane Selectman Dan DeWalt, whose successful impeachment resolution in his town kicked off a wave of such activism across the region, has been organizing a similar effort this year, with the goal of putting resolutions on the agendas of 100 town meetings in his home state.

An organized, public outcry in this form, especially coinciding with the revelations anticipated from more aggressive Congressional oversight, is perhaps the best leverage we have in putting impeachment back "on the table."

What Mission? by Richard Mathews of RescueOurDemocracy.org

President Bush told world leaders at the NATO Summit in Riga, Latvia, "I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete."

What mission? This has been a war consumed by mission creep.

You remember mission creep. That was the term Republicans used to attack Bill Clinton when they wanted him to cut and run from the mission in Somalia that was started by George H.W. Bush. They did not like that what they started as a humanitarian mission had ended up with us in the middle of a civil war involving warlords that we now know were backed by al Qaeda.

What is our mission now? After 9/11, we swore to track down those responsible. We found them in Afghanistan. We surrounded bin Laden (but let him escape). We ousted the Taliban (but no Republican leaders talk of letting them take power again). We installed a new government (but it has never really had power outside the capital).

So we turned our attention to Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. First the president told us in his 2003 State of the Union speech, "let three be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him." So this was a war over the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.

It turns out that we won that war about 15 years ago. The weapons inspectors gave Hussein a passing grade shortly before we invaded. Since the invasion, we have confirmed that it had been more than a decade since Hussein had any usable WMDs.

Then it became about forcing regime change. The president answered a question on March 6, 2003, by announcing, "if we go to war, there will be a regime change." While previously regime change was a policy in which we hoped the Iraqis themselves would rise against Saddam Hussein, now it became a goal of our war.

That has been completed. Hussein has been captured, tried, and convicted. Our president told us under a "Mission Accomplished" banner that, "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

Then it became about installing democracy and training Iraqi troops. Elections have been held, and the troops we disbanded and reassembled have been trained for three years.

Then we had to fight the foreigners who came to push us out. Yet, if we just left, there would be nothing for the foreigners to rally around.

Now we are fighting in a civil war, though it is not clear on which side. We sit in the crossfire, settling for self-preservation. Just what is this mission we are dying and killing for? When will it end? What do we expect to gain?

It is time to stop the mission creep. Declare the mission complete, and get out.

Richard M. Mathews, RescueOurDemocracy.org.

Impeachment was everywhere

During our hiatus, national peace and impeachment activists joined forces to sponsor dozens of rallies and demonstrations all across the country.

And in case you blinked, outgoing Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) introduced articles of impeachment against the president on the last day of the 109th Congress.

Look for our regular impeachment is everywhere feature to return shortly, as activity levels rise in anticipation of the oversight and accountability promised by Members of the 110th Congress.

Send us your news. Subscribe to The Remedy

If you have news of recent impeachment and accountability activism to report and share with the activist community, let The Remedy be your vehicle. We currently plan to publish bi-weekly. To guarantee consideration of your news for an upcoming issue, contact us by the Thursday preceding publication at: editor@impeachbush.tv.

Subscription to The Remedy is free. While readers are encouraged to share copies of The Remedy with others, we remind you that everyone can have their own copy delivered right to their e-mail at no charge. And the more people who are receiving it directly, the more there are who can share the information on a timely basis with potential new subscribers, helping expand the network of "in the loop" activists and opinion-makers.

Please encourage all interested parties to subscribe to The Remedy at:
Subscribe to The Remedy