the case for impeachment

Conservative leaders are fond of criticizing what they call "activist judges" for interpreting laws in a culturally relative way. We are admonished by these leaders, in Congress, in the press, and in the Supreme Court that an appropriate view of the law, especially the Constitution, is the "strict constructionist" view where the framers' original intent is rigorously and narrowly implemented. Liberals, on the other hand, will tell us that the authors of the Constitution, living as they did in the 18th century, could not have foreseen many of the complex obstacles to legal interpretation that pertain in our modern world. Well, one thingthe framers clearly understood was the war on terrorism.

Under British colonial rule, the American colonies were subject to raids, arrests, and all manner of indignities perpetrated by the government in pursuit of threats to their established order. Sometimes it was hostile natives. Sometimes it was French provocateurs. Sometimes, more frequently as the Revolution approached, it was home-grown American revolutionaries fomenting disobedience to the Crown. But always it was the British government's claim that their own actions were in defense of order against "those who would do us harm" (terrorists). So, over the centuries, while much has changed, this, at least, has not. Then, as now, governments felt challenged by demons, real and imagined, and answered that challenge with war.

With this history in mind, the framers of the Constitution and its first 10 ammendments (the Bill of Rights) set about to establish a government regulated by laws. In particular, then Congressman James Madison had Britain's war on terrorism in mind when he delineated the separation of powers in the Constitution and the rights of individuals against unwarranted searches in the Bill of Rights (ammendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."). The war on terrorism, or any war, is no excuse for violating these laws.

President Bush has stated openly that he knowingly and willingly directed warrantless searches against American citizens. He said that the war on terrorism permits him to take this action. The framers of the constitution clearly foresaw this condition when they wrote the laws defining our republic. A strict constructionist interpretation of the law dictates that there is absolutely no ambiguity in this case. The conservatives can't have it both ways. If they truly believe in the principle of original intent, they should stand up for it. If only there were a spine to be found in the halls of Congress, the President should be removed from office.