Political Frenzy

In his most recent WorldNetDaily column, David Limbaugh (brother of the infamous Rush) made some interesting points about the constitutionality of impeaching President George W. Bush as prompted by Senator Chuck Hagel’s recent remarks supporting congressional action against Bush. I don’t fully agree with Limbaugh’s assesments, but they are rational without being jingoistic - something unexpected from the brother of the world’s most hypocritical smeghead.

You would think that a person who has made it to the United States Senate would have at least a rudimentary understanding of our constitutional government. You would assume he would have grasped that impeachment is a remedy to remove a president (or other officer) for the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors.

While “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a term of art, it most certainly does not encompass presidential action, which, though legal and constitutional, is not popular with the American people or a majority of Congress.

So isn’t it enormously ironic that Hagel is hinting that Congress might impeach the president essentially for abusing his constitutional authority when by taking that action Congress would be grossly abusing its constitutional authority?

Now, this presents a bit of a moral dilemma. George W. Bush has not officially committed a crime - or if he has (he has), he’s laundered his involvement so well that it cannot be successful in court. But his abuse of power in sending so many Americans to their deaths, ordering wire-taps through the NSA, and being an all-around butthead, the people feel a need to commit some action against their leader.

But someone would definitely need to make a solid case against Bush in folders and files with points and graphs and bring it to court BEFORE impeachment. To cry for impeachment in the congress is truly only an act of pandering to the left wing - it will never happen without serious legal investigation and case building, which would take years. And by that point Bush wouldn’t be President anymore.

What really caught my eye about Limbaugh’s article, however, was this quote:

If a plebiscitary democracy is what the framers of our Constitution intended, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble and paper, not to mention the extensive studies they undertook leading them to the conclusion that a constitutional republic – not a pure democracy – offered the best chance for securing the blessings of liberty and prosperity for America.

A little background on the word “plebiscitary”. The Plebians were the lower class in ancient Rome, with fewer rights and less freedom than the upper-class Patrician royalty. Only Patricians could be senators, and only senators could be national leaders. What Limbaugh is implying is that the Republic the founding fathers intended for our nation to be run by an upper class of Patricians, and that populism (or plebianism as Limbaugh might call it) is a bad thing.

Screw you, Limbaugh. For all your rhetoric about constitutional rights, you divert from the true essence of this nation - representation of the people. I would sooner see the constitution thrown out the window than see our people ill-served. So step away from the scroll you seem so eager to idolize and worship, and pull your head out of the temple you constructed. This is a nation of people, not a nation of words, and the will of the people should drive every decision made by our leaders. Republica is Latin, and it doesn’t mean “On behalf of the people”, or “To the people”, it means “From the people”. That is where the decisions of our nation should originate.

David Limbaugh, Chuck Hagel, Butthead, Plebian, Patrician, The Man is keepin’ us down