Why the House Must invoke it's impeachment Powers

Impeachment is for stopping misuse of power

Impeachment as a tool of Oversight

There is a lot of talk of impeachment among those of us in the rank and file of our country. Much of it is emotional, hasty or based on exaggerated expectations of the powers of the House of Representatives. The impeachment power is assigned to the House. However, Trying impeachments is assigned to the Senate. Impeachment isn't solely to punish petty criminality. It is meant to punish "high crimes and misdemeanors." Early uses of the impeachment power included impeaching a Federal Sea Captain for wrecking his ship. Impeachment was:

“designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?”[Fed 65]

A Well Constituted Impeachment

It wasn't intended to be solely a last resort, nor a tool for disrupting the judiciary or executive, but a tool for oversight and regulation for use when dealing with naughty, corrupt, treasonous, or reckless officers – who abuse their power. Hamilton insisted that a well constituted impeachment involve the maximum number of jurors to minimize its use for trivial or purely partisan purposes. It was designed as difficult to do as it was intended to be a remedy against tyrants:

“The necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments, is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding. This can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security. There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law, and the party who is to receive or suffer it. The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.”[Fed 65]

Impeachment is about Fitness for Office and tyranny

Impeachment was limited, because impeachment is about the officers of the United States and their fitness for office and limited to:

“removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:” [COTUS Article 1, Section 3, last par]

The Judiciary has a duty to indict and bring to trial

Impeachment doesn't preclude an obligation of justice to bring lawbreakers to justice, no matter how high their office. Article 1, Sec 3 last paragraph makes it clear that no one should be above the law or the "ordinary courts." Impeachment is also not a substitute for the courts except in producing evidence.

“but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” [COTUS Article 1, Section 3, last par]

Impeachment is DESIGNED to limit the Pardon Power

The founders envisioned the impeachment power to limit the pardon power. Both impeachment and trial for crimes were explicitly envisioned to apply to the President, absurd guidelines to the contrary or not. Federalist 69 emphasized that the Pardon power applied:

“EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT;”[fed69]

A Check on the Executive

The Constitution gives the grounds of:

“treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

A quick look at the history of impeachment is that:

“The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.” [crf]

Malfeasance, Recklessness and Incompetence

Misdemeanors was intended to cover things like malfeasance in office, gross recklessness or incompetence as well as abuse of power.

The President Cannot Shelter Offenders!

The author, Alexander Hamilton, elaborated that the law was designed to limit the President's ability to “shelter” offenders!

“A President of the Union, on the other hand, though he may even pardon treason, when prosecuted in the ordinary course of law, could shelter no offender, in any degree, from the effects of impeachment and conviction.”[fed69]

Dangling Impeachment Should be Impossible

It is as if the founders anticipated what Trump would try to do by dangling impeachments. Hamilton, was even referring to the chance that a President might seek to use force of arms, and that people would be hesitant to back him on the fear that such a revolt might miscarry:

“Would not the prospect of a total indemnity for all the preliminary steps be a greater temptation to undertake and persevere in an enterprise against the public liberty, than the mere prospect of an exemption from death and confiscation, if the final execution of the design, upon an actual appeal to arms, should miscarry? Would this last expectation have any influence at all, when the probability was computed, that the person who was to afford that exemption might himself be involved in the consequences of the measure, and might be incapacitated by his agency in it from affording the desired impunity?”[fed69]

Presumption of a Limited Government

Of course Federalist 69 also presumed a Country where only a small portion of the militia was in the President's hands and that we had no standing army. So our situation now is much worse than it was in the time of George Washington. Still the power to impeach the President and his offices was intended as a check on the usurpation of Article 1 and 3 powers by a venal and corrupt President. And that is born out by even a cursory reading of Federalist 69.

Use it or lose it

Of course the other two checks on the President; a limited standing army and the fact that the legislature has to declare war are no longer enforced either. The British Monarch:

“possesse[d] that of DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by his own authority.”[fed69]

Now Congress has ceded the rights to wage war, given the President powerful military and police powers. Impeachment is all the people have left. We need to use it or lose it.

Related Posts:

Congress Must Impeach

Giving the President Immunity from Prosecution is unconstitutional

Iran Contra and Bill Barr's Pardons

The Southern Empire Strikes Back

Sources

Federalist 65

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

Federalist 69:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

Feinstein Video

Senator Feinstein was the subject of an active measure this past week.

Waleed Shaheed (_waleedshahid) who is the “Communications Director” of Justice Democrats, sent a group of young kids, accompanied by a Chaparone, under the banner of the Sunrise Movement, to Dianne Feinstein's office to attack her in the name of getting her to support their version of the Green New Deal, Or else, She resisted. Waleed then edited the video in a way that made it look like she was criticizing the kids when she was trying to dicuss things with the chaparone. This edited tape was then shared with the Media, O'Keefe Style. They were clever. They produced a short version of the interaction and one that was about 15 minutes which they claimed was the unedited version. But the actual interaction took some time.

Feinstein offered one of them a job. She also sent a letter to them that made clear what she felt.

I'm thoroughly disgusted with the so-called "justice democrats". Their terminology harkens back to the days of radical Bolshevik Marxism and it is clear that they think they can use the same strategies the hard right uses to ruthlessly drive division into the party. I see them as traitors. These are the strategies the Hard Right has adopted from playbooks written by Lenin and Mao. They are ruthless and self defeating.

Atlantic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/dianne-feinstein-video-climate-change-sunrise-movement/583501/

Democratic Underground:

https://www.democraticunderground.org/100211855238

Threaded on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/1099137889043140609?s=19

Democratic Principles under Assault

I started this post on September 17, 2018. Actually I thought I'd published it back then. It talks about democracy and how we used to practice it and how Trump is subverting it. With Trump's efforts to use decree powers to build his Southern Border wall, this assault is now in the critical stage. He's declaring a National Emergency, where there is none.

When I debate with some Radical Right folks, they will tell me,

“The United States is a Republic not a Democracy”

Well John Locke dealt with that question more than 300 years ago. In a Federated Republic, which is what we are, democratic features are either part of the equation or the country is tyranny!

The Fourteen Characteristics of Tyranny

The reality of this world is that most people try to do right and try to do good. Some people think that they are doing good when they do ruthless, manipulative things, but most people justifying the ends justify the means are simply not thinking about doing good. They may justify their efforts as helping some long term good, but it is clear that they are thinking of their own fame and fortune.

For some people life is a game, an often cruel game, where all that matters is who is on top and who is not. For some people, the world is an animal place. People who see things that way live in politics and business as if they were snakes, dogs, wolves and the rest of us were sheep. Such people fit psychological profiles that sometimes are labeled as mentally ill, but in truth, spiritual illness is not something that can be treated by psychologists and is reinforced by perverse religions. People can be motivated by anger, ambition, fear. They can be motivated by an unhealable pain. They can be motivated by joy. There are people who don't feel much pain themselves, but inflict it on others. There are many terms for them;

• Psychopaths,
• Sociopaths,
• Narcissists,

But when we give such people, power, they make others suffer.

 

The incredible Stupidity of GOP Taxes

Since the 90s we've had a cycle of the GOP running the same con over and over again. Initially some of the more sane Republicans would push back. It was George Herbert Walker Bush who called Reagan's economics a con, "Voodoo Economics" and who helped coin the term "trickle down economics." The more honest cons in the Reagan Administration soon knew that their con didn't work. David Stockman would admit it later. Summarized in the famous quote:

“None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers.” —David Stockman

The Atlantic Magazine describes his cognitive dissonance in an article titled "The Education of David Stockman." The entire Reagan Administration knew from 1981 on that lowering marginal taxation on the wealthy and making up for tax cuts with cost shifting to workers, doesn't help the economy.

Big Lie

Even so “trickle down” was very popular among the "donor class", so its shills held (and still hold) their noses and supported the con anyway. They rationalized that if they adopted the Hitlerian Big Lie principle and repeated a lie often enough it becomes an article of faith.

Investopedia, Voodoo Economics

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/305760/

Consequently, among republican business preachers and operatives, this con is an article of faith. kind of a 13th commandment.

Actual Capital versus non-Capital Wealth

What is Actual Capital versus not

Key to successful taxation and public policy is clear crisp language and definitions.

Actual Capital as defined by Adam Smith or Henry George, was a very different concept from what is called "capitalism" currently. Thomas Piketty in his book on capital defined capital as basically all wealth. But according to Henry George, that is not actual capital unless it is used as capital.

WEALTH is:

“All material things produced by labor for the satisfaction of human desires and having exchange value.”

This means that wealth must have all of these characteristics:

• Wealth is material. Human qualities such as skill and mental acumen are not material, hence cannot be classified as wealth.
• Wealth is produced by labor. Land possesses all the essentials of wealth but one — it is not a product of labor, therefore it is not wealth.
• Wealth is capable of satisfying human desire. Money is not wealth; it is a medium of exchange whereby wealth can be acquired. Nor are shares of stock, bonds or other securities classifiable as wealth. They are but the evidences of ownership. None of these satisfy desire directly; if they are destroyed, the sum total of wealth is not decreased.
• Wealth has exchange value.
Source: http://www.henrygeorge.org/def2.htm

Capital

Of course most financial mavens and economists don't use this narrow definition. Thus actual capital is:

Actual Capital is that portion of produced Wealth used in the process of production or in the course of exchange.

Capital is a factor in production as is:

• Labor
• Land
• Raw Materials, Georgists include "Raw Materials" under their definition of land, which causes more confusion than helpful but helps them narrow their focus on taxing "land" without modernizing it to account for all sources of economic rent.

Production of things and services are what drive the economy and keep all of us clothed, housed and well fed, when things are well run and regulated.

Actual capital deserves protection. Actual wage compensation the same. Wealth from land rents, inherited property rents, etc... should not be protected. Wages include things like savings, retirements and debt acquired to sustain life from a persons wages. But if a person deserves all the products of his own labor and inspiration. His Children do not. That is why I consider myself a heretical Georgist so I don't have to argue this point.

For More Detail:

Georgist Defintions of Labor, Capital Wealth

THE TYRANNY OF WORDS

Often the corruption of society starts with the corruption of language and George Orwell tried to explain in his writings, including "1984." The sophism of the "tyranny of words" is corrupting and leads to dysfunctional economic policy.

The retired VP of Dun and Bradstreet, Roy A. Foulke, in 1949 wrote an article in the New York Daily news called the "Tyranny of Words" about how modern business and economists. It explains the sophism of modern business language. My Friend Rick DiMar reproduced the whole of this on his facebook page.

Adam Smith On Production

“In WEALTH OF NATIONS, Adam Smith pointed out, over and over again,”

“that all production is divided into three streams:

1. one in the form of wages to employees,
2. one in the form of rent to landowners,
3. and one in the form of PROFITS to suppliers of capital.” [Tyranny of Words]

He explains:

“These terms, as used by Adam Smith, carry connotations that are somewhat different from their meaning in our present-day industrial life. ” [Tyranny of Words]

1. “In wages to employees is included payments to officers of corporations, to proprietors and to partners for their services, as well at to labor.” [Tyranny of Words]
2. “The payment of rent represents the return to the landowner on the value of the land in its natural state without improvements of any kind, and not the payment of a monthly or yearly sum, which today has generally come to include two payments, economic rent on the value of land, and a return on capital (i.e., the improvement)” [Tyranny of Words]
3. “Profit, according to Adam Smith, is the return to capital after the payment of all wages and the rent of the land in its natural state has been deducted from production.” [Tyranny of Words]

And then Smith carefully observed:

“‘When those three different sorts of revenue belong to three different persons, they are readily distinguished; but when they belong to the same they are sometimes confounded with one another, at least in common language.’” [Tyranny of Words]

Of course that meaning got confused, on purpose sometimes. So,

“Because of the confusion in the term ‘profit’ as used by Smith in 1776 as the return to capital, and by the general public as the excess of income over cost, Henry George in 1879 decided to substitute the word ‘interest’ in place of the word ‘profit’ as used by Smith to represent return on capital.” [Tyranny of Words]

Which of course, was in turn deliberately obfuscated as the rise of modern financial institutions pushed "interest" as a main goal:

“It is possible that substitution in terms—though carefully explained with great clarity—has been the source of steadily increasing confusion in the mind of the pragmatic businessman.” [Tyranny of Words]

So the author calls it:

The ACCOUNTING PROFIT of business, representing the excess of income over cost . . .” [Tyranny of Words]

Therefore

“has nothing to do with economics.” [Tyranny of Words]

By which he means that business profits are not the same thing as "the profit to investors" as a person. A corporation is an institution, not a person. At least til clever lawyers got involved:

“Few business corporations were in existence in 1879.” [Tyranny of Words]

He notes:

“Not until 1886 did the Supreme Court decide that a corporation was a person in the meaning of the ‘due process’ clause of the federal Constitution. That decision gave an element of unprecedented security to the existence of the large corporation, which was just becoming a dynamic power in our economic life.” [Tyranny of Words]

Sources and Citations

Citations (note you may need a facebook account to see it):

Doc #145: Accounting (unearned) profit vs. economic (earned) profit

https://www.facebook.com/notes/common-wealth-tax/doc-145-accounting-unearned-profit-vs-economic-earned-profit/1123980124381796/

http://www.henrygeorge.org/def2.htm

Further Reading

https://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/09/georgist-definitions-of-labor-capital.html

Disambiguating Capital from Simple Wealth

Piketty, Capital Versus Unearned wealth

The Trouble with Capitalism

Lincoln the Marxist

Confusing Capital with Rental Opportunities

I don't know what to do

I don't know what to do.

If I did what would it mean to you?

Last Night I dreamed of a university

Where Mozart slept and Tchaikovsky too

There was a garden across the street

With a low symbolic wall, studded with gates.

I dreamed that too.

I watched the doves fly over the wall.

 

I don't know what to do.

All I can see is a better world right next door.

Where Narcissists are treated.

And not allowed in office.

Pierce the veil,

and people are good too.

Pierce the veil another way,

And previously good people do evil

How do we get there?

I don't know what to do.

 

We can do better

Why don't we?