And Again: The Wrong Debate
Those who speak loudest for the Democratic Party have fallen victim
to a peculiar disease that goes under the name "Compartmentalized
Brain Syndrome" or "CBS" for short. Information is
deposited in various compartments of the sufferers brain, but traffic
is not established between the various compartments. The patient
is unable to connect cause and effect, or any other logical tie
between portions of, say, a public statement.
Take Congressman "X" or Senator "Y" (both may
be seen every day and every night on various "talking head"
shows) who issue passionate pleas for a swift, "proportionate",
and bipartisan solution to the president's problems (read "censure"),
then unleash an equally passionate litany of the president's reprehensible
conduct, his lies under oath, his general disgrace of the office.
If the second part of such statements is true, the first can only
be explained as CBS.
Alternatively, connections are asserted where healthy minds see
none, such as between impeachment of the president and the future
pollution of water.
The same politicians also tend to comment on the president's own
CBS but, as evidence of their own affliction, they think of his
particular variety of the disease as a great asset.
Advanced cases affect the eye-brain connection. During the floor
debate on impeachment, several Democratic members of the U.S. House
of Representatives offered us ostensible quotes from the Constitution
of the United States not to be found in the standard version, as
words like "against the state" following "high Crimes
But the worst derailment of this historic debate occurred with
the introduction of the word "punishment."
Nowhere in the Constitution is the power to punish conferred upon
the Congress of the United States. Indeed, Article I, Section 3.
specifically refers any penalty to the realm of the ordinary legal
process of "Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment."
The sole matters to be considered by Congress are removal of the
president from his present office, and his disqualification from
future office. The inclusion of "Misdemeanors" in addition
to "high Crimes" attests to the Framers' intention to
provide a catch-all term which would confer both the obligation
and the mandate upon legislators to employ common sense in making
the determination. If instead the language had confined action to
specific crimes, all manner of misconduct might have escaped constitutional
And what the Framers did not want under any circumstances was for
a president to remain in office after he had become unfit to serve.
That, and only that is the question facing this nation.
If it is true what Democrats are saying about the president - that
he lied under oath, that he disgraced the office, that his conduct
was altogether reprehensible, that he has failed to be truthful
about his misdeeds - then this president is clearly unfit to serve.
Any human being who consistently conducts himself in a manner inconsistent
with the office held renders himself unfit to carry on in that office.
Thus, whereas Congress has not been given powers to punish the
president, it is under mandate to impeach and remove from office
a president who has become unfit to serve.
The president apparently disagrees not only with the details of
his own conduct, but with the constitutional provisions and processes
currently invoked. A few hours after articles of impeachment had
been adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives, the president
declared both that and any future action in the U.S. Senate irrelevant,
by announcing his intention to stay in office until "the last
hour of the last day of [his] term."
It may be argued that, having taken an oath to "preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (not
once but twice), the president has rendered himself unfit to serve
simply by so disavowing those oaths on national television.
Much talk may be heard about a "constitutional crisis."
Generally, people use the phrase to describe the president's predicament.
No. Congress acting on its constitutional mandate in addressing
presidential misconduct is not a crisis. Quite the contrary. It
is a shining example of the rock-steady underpinnings provided by
Yet a constitutional crisis has begun to cast its shadow across
the fruited plain. It comes in the form of lawmakers who, having
won election under cover of the Democratic Party of the United States,
use their office to promote any and every course that will take
us off the constitutional path. At first they appeared to be only
House members - mostly those listed on the web site of "Democratic
Socialists," the American arm of the Socialist International.
But now, several United States Senators have picked up the "Rhetoric
of Unconstitution" by announcing a verdict before any trial.
That, my fellow Americans, is a constitutional crisis.