I know a number of you would like to have President Bush impeached for misleading the American public into Iraq, but in all reality whether, this is true or not is not an impeachable offense.
What is an impeachable offense is attempting to set aside parts, of legislation he does not like through signing statements. No one in this country not even the president has the right to ignore the laws. The only authority the President has is to either sign it or veto it, not to alter them.
Prohibition of such was made clear in the Case of Clinton v City of Ny.The Court ruled that the line item veto act of 1995 allowed the President to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of duly enacted statutes by using line-item cancellations; it violated the Presentment clause of the Constitution, which outlines a specific practice for enacting a statute. The Court construed the silence of the Constitution on the subject of such unilateral Presidential action as equivalent to "an express prohibition" of such action by the Executive branch, agreeing with historical material that supported the conclusion that statutes may only be enacted "in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure", and that a bill must be approved or rejected by the President in its entirety.
What Bush has been doing is using his signing statements as a quassi- line item veto process. Simply stating he will not enforce portions of bills; he does not wish to enforce and, which is in violation of this prohibition of such acts found in the 1998 Supreme Court ruling.
Signing statements have in the past been used by Presidents to clarify unclear laws but never as an attempt to avoid enforcing provisions of laws. Such examples of Bush using the Signing Statement as a quassi-line item veto are the Mc Cain torture ban in which Mr. Bush signed the law then choose to say he could use torture anyway, under his own discretion in the a signing statements; another more resent example of this is this is a signing statement more, or less choosing to ignore a law that said the executive branch can not open the US mail; lastly and probably most unconstitutional example was in the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act President Bush choose to write a signing he could choose what information was given to congress by the Fbi at his own discretion, indirect contradiction to the language of the Bill he had just signed,
These examples are clear violations of the separation of the powers set forth in the Constitution. It is made clear in the Constitution that congress writes legislation, President either approves or denies it, and the Judiciary determines its constitutionality. This was the intent of the framers of the Constitution and how the Us federal government is suppose to work are supposed to work.
I hear this constantly from Conservatives in reference to “Activist Judges” legislating from the bench, that this activity violates the strict construction of the Constitution. They fail to notice or mention, or realize that the same restriction, they are pointing out also apply to the Executive Branch; legislating from the White House is just as Prohibited by the Constitution, in fact probably even more so than on the Judiciary which is decider of what is and isn’t constitutional inside the bounds of the Constitution.
Therefore the action of the George W Bush of trying to make laws or reinterpret laws is very likely an impeachable offense. The constitution does not give the President the right or ability to alter legislation, at his or her own choosing such act has been seen by the courts as blantly unconstitutional and therefore is impeachable. (Bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category. In the face of instruction for the Supreme Court and from congress that this is the legislation that we have passed no president may alter such legislation.Therefore this is a severe and intentional abuse of power and an impeachable offense. By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." the violation of this is also an impeachable offense by ignoring the constitution President Bush is also committing an impeachable offense.)
The claim that he didn’t know or was not responsible for his actions is not an excuse for this as is set forth in the argument below. The President in the end is responsible for the actions of himself and anyone that he has brought into the administration. The below would also infer other Impeachable offense committed by both the President and VP in their name with or without their knowledge.
“An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able.
It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs.The president's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision.
He is not protected by "plausible deniability". He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.