If you haven’t listened to the discussion of this issue on “Bill Moyers Journal” between Moyers, Bruce Fein and John Nichols, you really need to devote the time and listen. Fein is a constitutional scholar who drafted the first article of impeachment against President Clinton. He is no Democrat! Nichols is a political blogger, a journalist with “The Nation” and author of “The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism.”

We all know that impeachment is the method by which a sitting public official is removed from office as a result of some form of misconduct. We all lived through the impeachment of Bill Clinton and as a result we have this disdain for those who start talking about impeachment when they don’t like something. I dare say that any suggestion that Bush should be impeached for what he has done to America, would be ignored as purely partisan hyperbole because people like Cindy Sheehan are pushing the issue.

I think I can safely say that the founding fathers considered the power to impeach as a necessary check on the power of the president to make sure he did not act like a king. You can read Federalist Paper 69 if you don’t believe me.

Fein and Nichols argue that the power of impeachment was intended to provide a course of action by which a constitutional crisis could be effectively dealt with. While an overt criminal act is certainly impeachable, it does not necessarily translate into a constitutional crisis. But what about an abuse of power by a president? What if the president ignores Congress, ignores the courts, claims to be above the law, acts to undermine American principles of justice and freedom? You see, those are the kinds of things kings do. Kings don’t break the law because they are the law. Fein and Nichols make the case that arrogance and abuse of power are “high crimes and misdemeanors,” just as much as perjury or breaking and entering, if not more so.

The Constitution in Article II, Section 4 - Disqualification states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” We know treason and bribery when we see them, but what about high crimes and misdemeanors?

If you read the Articles of Impeachment issued by the House of Representatives against Clinton, you see language specifically intended to impress upon the reader the gravity of his conduct. You might think Clinton was truly corrupt without ever realizing that he was lying about sex. Regardless of what you think about the Clinton impeachment, the real issue is why isn’t Bush’s conduct subject to the same scrutiny?

You should read the Articles of Impeachment proposed against President Bush. There are several drafts floating around.

Compare the accusations against Bush with those agaist Clinton and it is hard to argue that Bush should not be impeached on a variety of issues: (1) lying and deceiving Congress about the reason we were invading Iraq, (2) acting unilaterally, primarily through executive order, to establish policies which are contrary to our principles of government; (3) negligence and incompetence in his performance as commander in chief, (4) violating the rights of Americans in illegal wiretaps, and so on.

The thing about impeachment is that it is not a conviction, but rather an indictment resulting in a trial in the Senate. If you think the accusations against Bush are partisan, you may be right, but what if they are true?

I have my partisan beliefs on that issue, but if I had the evidence by which to know that they are or are not true, I would certainly be in a better position to make a decision, one way or the other. That is the essence of impeachment: it results in a trial and the presentation of evidence. Clinton was acquited at his trial, but he was still impeached.

Why isn’t there an effort by Democratic leaders to impeach Bush? I think the main reason is the Democrats don’t have someone as mean and powerful as Tom Delay who led the crusade to impeach Clinton. The Democrats’ hold on power in the House is less substantial (or at least that is how I think it is perceived) than that of the Republicans when Delay was is control.

The Democrats also fear being aggressive. If they even thought hard about impeaching Bush, the talking heads would have a field day. The merits of the issue would probably be lost in the 24 hour jibber-jabber.

Last, but not least, the Democrats don’t know what the people really want. Incredibly, Congress has a less than 30% approval rating and I don’t think they know why. Personally, I think it is because the Democrats haven’t shown a united determination to end the war in Iraq, one way or the other, no ifs, ands or buts! If the Democrats would cram the Iraq War down Bush’s throat until he gets us out of there, I wonder what their approval rating would be?