Impeachment

Impeachment inspires several schools of thought. One school, primarily supporters of our current president, feel impeachment is the act of overturning the results of the previous election. For these people, impeachment is a penalty of last resort that should almost never be used against a president, because it obviates the will of the people as expressed in elections. The better approach, they say, is to wait for the next election to re-litigate the matter.

A second group, mostly composed of people who are opposed to the current president, feel impeachment is a rarely needed but necessary tool for correcting the excesses of rogue leaders. It is a check to keep the president within the law, and within civil norms. While elections express the desires of the people, impeachment is needed to make sure that the president does not use the blank check of public approval as an excuse to break the law.

And there is a third school, although, for all I know, I may be its only member. But if I had my druthers, I would wish impeachment to be not all that rare. It should not be the nuclear option, reserved only for the worst-of-the-worst excesses, a once-in-a-lifetime event. Nor should it be a check for the occasional constitutional crisis — no, I think impeachment should be much more common than it is.  If Congress decides once every decade or so to remove the President of the United States, piling up the list of impeached presidents almost has high as the list of those escaping such punishment, so much the better.

The presidency has become a kingship. Almost all foreign policy and most domestic politics is determined by the president. The president negotiates treaties. The president submits the budget. The president commands the military. It is probably easier to list the things the president does not do than all the things he has a hand in. It is often said that Congress has the power of the purse, meaning it has the final say in taxation and spending. This may be so, but the president plans out the budget, hires the Secretary of the Treasury, and appoints all the Governors in the Federal Reserve Bank. For someone who does not have final say in spending, the president certainly has massive influence — so much so that Congress’s role in the matter is at times very difficult to discern.

As time has gone by, Congress has, one at a time, abandoned its Constitutional responsibilities, turning them over to the executive. It has gotten so bad that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, with a straight face, has repeatedly told the press that he does not intend to allow a bill to be argued in the Senate if the president is not willing to sign it. This statement, which would have been considered absurd only forty years ago, means the leader of the Senate allows the president to decide what bills the Senate will consider for debate. Since traditionally most of the Majority Leader’s power resides in his ability to set the floor agenda, one wonders what powers Mitch McConnell thinks he has retained for himself beyond being the presidential lackey.

Since the presidency is now a kingship, it is important that Congress at least consider exercising the few remaining powers it has not given away. Impeachment is one of those. Congress can never give up the right to impeach without amending the Constitution, making it one of few permanent tools it has to use against the president. Timid Congress may not want to use it, but the people, who ought to be keenly interested in preserving the balance of government powers, should push for it to be used as often as necessary to keep the executive in his place.

When asked, most Americans will say they are concerned about the direction this country is headed. They will say we must have reform. Reform cannot happen if the largest accumulation of power in politics today is not challenged. The way to get the president to cooperate with reform isn’t simply to elect the right person president every four years; it is to make sure this person understands that, like any CEO of any corporation, if he does not perform to satisfaction, he can and will be fired.

There are very few Americans who are immune to being fired from their own jobs. The few who are immune own their own businesses. The president does not own America. Thus, since he is not a self-employed owner, he can and should be subject to being fired like anyone else.

The president is not a king. Nor is he, as the Secretary of Energy said in a recent interview, “the Chosen One of God.” (That a member of the Cabinet can get away with saying such a thing is proof enough that it must remain possible to fire the president.) The President was hired to do a job. If he can’t do it to the satisfaction of the majority of Americans, he should be sent packing. Too many impeached presidents is better than too few. Impeachment will bring humility back to our executive, responsibility back to our members of Congress, and a sense of power back to the citizenry.

Impeachment doesn’t mean overturning the results of an election. It is a way for the people to inform the president that he is not doing the things he was elected to do.

If Congress impeaches our current executive, the only loser would be our Chosen One. I think the Chosen One would have no problem finding gainful employment should he find his current engagement terminated.