Will the new Congress try to impeach President Bush? Could a state?

Submitted by Conor Kenny on

After decisive Democratic victories in the recent congressional elections, some speculated that the party may seek to impeach President Bush from office, as the Republican Congress did to Bill Clinton in 1998. After all, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a resolution late in 2005 (which now has 38 co-sponsors) authorizing a special House committee to investigate the administration on a number of matters and possibly make a recommendation for impeachment. Following the elections, however, Conyers echoed the sentiments of Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), insisting that impeachment is now “off the table” in the 110th Congress. Conyers' office has separately confirmed to Congresspedia that he has no intention to reintroduce his bill in the new session of Congress.

Specifically, Conyers' resolution would have investigated the administration's:

  • Actions related to UN and Iraq Survey Group inspections of Iraq.
  • Knowledge of Iraq’s ability and intentions regarding capability to develop nuclear weapons.
  • Knowledge regarding Iraq’s possession of (or attempted possession of) chemical or biological weapons.
  • Knowledge of Iraq’s possession of aluminum tubes (or lack there of) for rocket programs or nuclear weapons development.
  • Knowledge regarding Iraq’s intent toward acquiring uranium from Africa.
  • Knowledge of any involvement by Iraq in the 9/11 attacks.
  • Knowledge of any connections or ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.
  • Knowledge of any meeting, or lack of any meeting, between Iraqi intelligence officials and Mohammed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker.
  • Preparations for detention, interrogation and treatment of detainees made before the Iraq War.
  • Knowledge of abuses and mistreatment of detainees during the Iraq conflict.
  • Investigation of abuses and mistreatment, or lack thereof, the results of these investigations, any sanctions or punishment of offenders, and any efforts to keep these reports either from supervisors, officials or the public.
  • Secret prisons or “black sites” for detaining individuals outside the United States.
  • Ignoring or condoning the abuses and mistreatment that occurred at Abu Ghraib, Iraq.
  • Knowledge of the covert identity of Valerie Plame and any communication with members of the media about such identity.

Despite the apparent unwillingness of Democratic leaders in Congress to pursue impeachment, numerous states and towns around the country have seized on a obscure Manual of Parliamentary Practice written by Thomas Jefferson in 1801 to try and initiate proceedings on their own. The manual, which the House continues to use as a supplement to its standing rules, states that an impeachment can be set in motion “by charges transmitted from the legislature of a state or territory.” Towns in nearly a dozen states have passed resolutions calling for Bush’s impeachment and several similar measures have been introduced in state legislatures around the country.

However, these local efforts are largely symbolic. Stressing that the manual itself has no constitutional authority, the House Parliamentarian has stated that any impeachment resolution passed by a state would be sent to the House Committee on the Judiciary as a communication, but would not in and of themselves trigger formal proceedings.

At Congresspedia, we have created a comprehensive page on the movement to impeach President Bush, including legislation in Congress and a rundown of the efforts within states. Check it out to see which local and state governments have introduced or passed the measures and make sure to edit it if we've missed something!

U.S. Congress
Democracy
U.S. Government

MORE LIKE THIS:

Comments

rtpricetag replied on

It is true that the incoming leaders of the DEM party say that justice "will be tabled" concerning the Bush (Administration), however until America returns to justice, the Constitution, and laws of this nation, we are still in danger of whatever is possible under the dictitorial Executive Branch as today established. Neither the fake Conservative party of the past, nor an apologists DEM leadership soon to take over, without justice gives the American citizen any respite or assurance that the dictitorial and unconstitutional powers of the past administration will not be continued and used in the future. Must the Bush (Administration) be charged with acts that by our Constitution call for beginning impeachment investigation for possible implimentation. Does a bank robber need stand trial on charges of bank robbery, need a murderer need stand trial on charges of murder. What kind of a fool would suggest not? Would impeachment proceedings against the Bush (Administration) destroy America, I strongly believe 'unless' impeachment begins as immediately as possible, we will all rue the day we followed advice of negative advising fools.

readpedia replied on

Elliott: It is surprising to see the House Parliamentarian described as "[s]tressing that the manual itself has no constitutional authority." First, the final standing rule of the House (rule XXVIII) provides (in part) that "the rules of parliamentary practice comprised by Jefferson’s Manual shall govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the Rules and orders of the House." Second, the standing rules of the House are explicitly enabled by the Constitution. Although I would be pleased to review any source material, I can't believe any exists to validate the "stressing" comment. Thanks for your consideration.