Letter(s) Of The Day

today there are two, on the same theme, from the same paper.

In his Feb. 1 letter, David Pulliam argues that if President Bush has committed impeachable offenses, one must also recognize that Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln also committed impeachable offenses (“If Bush Impeachable, So Was FDR”).

Pulliam claims that “grievous harm” was “inflicted by their wartime measures.” As a teacher of American history and government, I feel compelled to correct this simple error of analysis.

Impeachment is a legislative tool that can be used to remove presidents from power who subvert the U.S. Constitution. Lincoln did not subvert the Constitution. To the contrary, he exercised power outlined in Article 1, Section 9. Habeas corpus can be suspended (it is a privilege, not a right) under invasion or rebellion.

The Civil War certainly qualifies as armed rebellion. Therefore, Lincoln did no “grievous harm” to our country, and he certainly did not suspend the Constitution or subvert it in any way.

As for FDR’s internment of Japanese during World War II, this action (though I disagree with it) was upheld by the Supreme Court.

The only presidents to have been impeached were Andrew Johnson (for violating the Tenure of Office Act) and President Clinton. As we saw with the latter case, the House of Representatives may impeach a president for nearly anything. The bar has been lowered, not raised, regarding impeachable offenses.

The war-time wiretapping power Bush claims to have is a power hinged on a war that by its very definition has no end. That is also something to take into consideration.

— Brian Cleveland, Altoona.

and

. . . and war hasn’t been declared

The key difference between President Bush and FDR is that America actually was at war when FDR detained Japanese citizens. Unless David Pulliam can point to a declaration of war from Congress, this country is not technically at war. Hence “war powers” are not granted to Bush.

He must still follow the rule of law: “Those who make the law must be accountable to the law.” And as a side note, if President Clinton was impeached for an affair in the White House, why can’t Bush be impeached for clearly breaking the law of the Constitution (namely the Fourth Amendment and its protection of privacy)?

— J.J. Roepke, Altoona.

--source