The Case for Impeachment
C-Span2 Book TV 8/2/06
With Dave Lindorff and Barbara Oskansky

The authors present legal grounds for impeachment of Bush
Title: The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office
Authors: David Lindorff, Barbara Olshansky
ISBN: 0312360169 Format: Hardcover, 288pp Pub. Date: May 2006 Publisher: St. Martin's Press Barnes & Noble Sales Rank: 32,282




How to Impeach a President

Impeachment in the News
Beginning today, you can go to to learn about a "National Teach-In" on impeachment organized by the Center for Constitutional Rights and Melville House, launching nationwide on July 19 in cities and towns across the country.


Guide to Impeachment and Censure Materials Online


*  Latest impeachment news from the wire services via Yahoo!  *

*  Latest impeachment newsphotos from AP via Yahoo!  *

*  Video coverage of the Senate impeachment trial via C-SPAN  *

Presidential AcquittalFeb 12, 1999


The Internet carries only a limited amount of reputable information on impeachment and censure. For those interested in developing a better understanding of these processes, JURIST: The Law Professors' Network recommends resources in the following categories:

Impeachment Primers Constitutional and Statutory Provisions on Impeachment Impeachments in History [see also Impeachment Procedures/Senate Trial] Impeachment Procedures

Senate Trial [see also Senate Impeachment Trials: A JURIST Mini-Guide]

US Supreme Court Cases on Impeachment Censure [see also Censure: A JURIST Mini-Guide] Clinton Controversy Academic Opinion
  • Hearing on the Background and History of Impeachment (JURIST; House Judiciary Committee/Constitution Subcommittee, November 9, 1998; includes written and video testimony by law professors William Van Alstyne (Duke); Susan Low Bloch (Georgetown); Robert F. Drinan, S.J. (Georgetown); Michael J. Gerhardt (William & Mary); John C. Harrison (Virginia); John O. McGinnis (Cardozo); Richard Parker (Harvard); Daniel H. Pollitt (North Carolina); Stephen Presser (Northwestern); Cass R. Sunstein (Chicago); Laurence H. Tribe (Harvard); and Jonathan Turley (George Washington))
  • Law Professors' Letter to Congress Opposing Impeachment (JURIST; November 6, 1998)
  • Akhil Amar (Yale): "Now Playing: A Constitutional Nightmare" - Washington Post, September 20, 1998
  • Akhil Amar (Yale), Susan Low Bloch (Georgetown), Eric Freedman (Hofstra) and Jonathan Turley (George Washington), "Is a Sitting President Subject to Compulsory Criminal Process?" [testimony before the Constitutionalism, Federalism and Property Rights Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, September 9, 1998] (Washington Post)
  • Richard Fallon (Harvard): "Three Questions Deserve Consideration" - Boston Globe, September 12, 1998
  • Scott Gerber (Florida Coastal): "If it Reaches the Senate, the Chief Justice is Ready" - Christian Science Monitor, October 8, 1998
  • Michael Gerhardt (William & Mary): Interview - C-SPAN, October 7, 1998 [audio; requires RealPlayer]
  • Michael Gerhardt (William & Mary): Transcript of Chat Session - Washington Post, September 16, 1998
  • John Parry (Pittsburgh): "The Misrule of Law" - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 11, 1998
  • Laurence Tribe (Harvard): "How to Bring Clinton to Justice Without Punishing the Nation" - Boston Globe, September 16, 1998
  • "Top Profs: Not Enough to Impeach" [survey of twelve constitutional law scholars] - National Law Journal, October 5, 1998
Public Opinion Further Reading (offline...)
  • Michael Les Benedict, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson (1973)
  • Raoul Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problem (1973)
  • Charles Black, Impeachment: A Handbook (1974)
  • Eleanore Bushnell, Crimes, Follies and Misfortunes: The Federal Impeachment Trials (1992)
  • Michael Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis (1996)
  • P.C. Hoffer, P. C. and N.E.H. Hull, Impeachment in America, 1635 to 1805 (1984)
  • John R. Labovitz, Presidential Impeachment (1978)
  • William H.Rehnquist, Grand Inquests (1992)
  • Gene Smith, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson (1976)
  • Theodore H. White, Breach of Faith: The Fall of Richard Nixon (1975)


  • Bibliography of Journal and Law Review Articles on Impeachment, 1913-1998 (Cornell Law Library)


Send suggestions for additional listings to

Return to JURIST: The Law Professors' Network

JURIST's Guide to Impeachment and Censure Materials Online is a featured link on these news and information Web sites:

Ramsey Clark's Articles of Impeachment of George W. Bush et al.:

Articles of Impeachment
President George W. Bush
Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
and Attorney General John David Ashcroft

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. ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seized power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carried out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lied to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorized, ordered and condoned direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Ordered and directed the violent overthrow of sovereign states, disappearances, kidnappings, assassinations, summary executions, murder and torture.

5) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

6) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

7) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

8) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

9) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

10) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

11) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

12) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

13) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

14) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

15) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

16) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

17) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

18) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.


These articles of impeachment, setting forth high crimes and misdemeanors by President Bush and other civil officers of his administration were drafted by Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General during the Johnson Administration.

The text of these articles of impeachment was copied from,
a page on the website of Vote to Impeach.


The United States Constitution states in Article II, Section 4: "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."

Thus far in the history of the United States there been three Presidential impeachment proceedings -- in 1868 against President Andrew Johnson for his removal of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office Act - 1974 against President Richard Richard Nixon for the Watergate coverup (106 years after Johnson) - 1998-99 against President Bill Clinton for concealing an extramarital affair (24 years after Nixon).

Modern Impeachment Procedure:

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure
By Ronald Arthur Lowry of Law Offices of Ronald Arthur Lowry

The involuntary removal of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in our history. The only legal way such can be accomplished is by the impeachment process. This article discusses the legal standard to be properly applied by members of the United States House of Representatives when voting for or against Articles of Impeachment, and members of the United States Senate when voting whether or not to convict and remove from office a President of the United States, as well as the procedure to be followed.

Article I ァ 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I ァ 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Article II ァ 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:

"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." (Emphasis supplied).

Thus, the operative legal standard to apply to an impeachment of a sitting President is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." There is substantial difference of opinion over the interpretation of these words.

There are essentially four schools of thought concerning the meaning of these words, although there are innumerable subsets within those four categories. The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make:

"What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office..." Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).

This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.

The second view is that the above Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II ァ 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms. There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III ァ 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." (Emphasis supplied). Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed. Article II ァ 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." (Emphasis supplied). This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature. In the past, England had used impeachment of the King's ministers as a means of controlling policy (Parliament could not get rid of the King, but could get rid of his ministers who carried out acts Parliament believed to be against the best interest of the country). However, in English impeachments, once convicted that person was not only removed from office but was also punished (usually by execution).

The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard. Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place. See Impeachment Trial and Errors, by Irving Brant, pages 17-19. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious then simply "maldministration." This view is buttresses in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened. (Query: If Congress passed such a code of impeachable offenses, could that be applied retroactively, much as a definition, to a sitting President? Would such an application be viewed as an ex post facto law? Also, would such a statue be an attempt to amend the Constitution, without following the amendment procedure?)

Both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress. Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.

The trial in the Senate is handled by "Managers" from the House of Representative, with the assistance of attorneys employed for the prosecution of the impeachment case. The Senate sits as a jury. (In the past the Senate has heard judicial impeachments by appointing a subcommittee especially for that purpose, which then reports its findings to the Senate as a whole. See Rules of the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials, Rule XI.) The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more then two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I ァ 3).

If the President is convicted by a vote of the Senate, and removed from office, yet another grave constitutional crisis is the presented. Does the President have a right of appeal, and if so, to whom? Article I ァ 3 of the Constitution states:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments..."

For many years, the conventional view was that the forgoing section of the Constitution meant that the Senate was the final arbiter when it came to impeachments (at least as to Federal Judges) and that what constituted an impeachable offense would be unreviewable. See Ritter v. U.S., 84 Ct. Cl. 293 (1936) cert denied 300 U.S. 668 (1937).

However, if there is an impeachment standard (and there can be no doubt that there is as the Constitution specifically establishes one - "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"), then it is only logical that it is possible for that standard not to be correctly followed. If such is the case, who is responsible for saying that the standard was not correctly followed? There can only be one answer - the courts. As there has never been a successful impeachment and removal of a sitting President, there is no authority "on all fours" for the proposition either way. However, there is authority which would shed some light on this complicated question.

Congressman Adam Clayton Powell was accused of serious misconduct and excluded from the United States House of Representatives by a vote of its members. Article 1 ァ 2(2) of the United States Constitution describes the three qualifications (age, citizenship, and residence) to be a member of the United States House of Representatives. Article I ァ 5(1) provides that each House of Congress shall be the sole judge of the "qualifications of its own members." After being excluded by a vote of the House membership, Representative Powell filed suit against the Speaker of the House, John McCormack, contending that the exclusion was unconstitutional because the requirements for membership in the House of Representatives are limited to age, citizenship, and residence. Representative Powell further contended that the only way to remove him (as a "civil officer" of the United States) was for an impeachment to be brought and the matter tried in the United States Senate. The attorneys for the United States House of Representatives countered with an argument to the effect that the legislative branch of government (i.e. The House of Representatives and the Senate, each) had explicit grants of quasijudicial power in the Constitution which generally were exceptions to the Article III grant of judicial powers to the Federal Courts. The specific argument by the attorneys for the House was that the Court should "declare its lack of jurisdiction to proceed." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 at 514 (1969).

The Court rejected this argument and concluded that the House of Representatives had overstepped its bounds in excluding Representative Powell from its membership. The important point of this decision is that the United States Supreme Court decided that it can review actions by Congress removing elected officials from office. The fact that Federal Courts have decided not to review judicial impeachments is of no consequence. Federal Judges are not elected, but rather, are appointed for life. The authority for the appointment of Federal Judges appears in a different section of the Constitution (Article III) from the impeachment language applicable to he President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Also, a different standard is used for impeachment of Federal Judges, which standard appears in Article III, specifically that the judges shall serve during "good behavior." One could distinguish the Federal cases declining to review judicial impeachments on the bases that the impeachment of a President and the impeachment of a Federal Judge are simply not the same thing. A Federal Judge is appointed for life by the President with the approval of the Senate. If the Judge is impeached, and the Senate removes the judge from office, it appears that what has really occurred (as intended by the Framers) is that the Senate has revoked its approval of that judge. Therefore, the act in removing the judge would be totally political. This is bolstered by the fact that the standard applicable to Federal Judges, "good behavior," is much lower then the standard for removal of the President. The "good behavior" standard appears to be virtually tantamount to serving at the pleasure of Congress.

The Supreme Court of the Untied States has decided that it should not review judicial impeachments, using the "political question" doctrine to sidestep the issue. Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). In the Walter Nixon case, Judge Nixon attacked the rule of the Senate allowing a subcommittee to hear evidence, rather then the Senate as a whole, in his judicial impeachment. The opinion of the Supreme Court declined to review Judge Nixon's case, and in dicta is not binding on future Courts. Even though the Court was unanimous in concluding not to review Judge Nixon's removal from office, there were multiple concurring opinions. The concurring opinion of Justice White indicates an unwillingness, on his part at least, to conclude in advance that a Presidential impeachment would be unreviewable. See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:

"Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority's argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis."

This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:

"If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that judicial review of a Presidential impeachment is Constitutionally possible, where would such judicial review begin? Would it begin by the President filing suit in a United States District Court? If so, and relief were denied by the United States District Court, the President would have a right of appeal to a Circuit Court of Appeals, but might only have a right to review by the United States Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari. Thus, the Supreme Court could deny certiorari, and avoid ruling on the issue entirely.

But what if the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction over the review of a Presidential impeachment? After all, there were no inferior Federal Courts at the time the Constitution was created. The only Federal Court discussed al all in the Constitution is the Supreme Court. Could the President file suit against the Senate in the Supreme Court itself? And what of the possibility that, even if there is an avenue for judicial review, the "political question" doctrine which prevents Courts from deciding matters which are inherently political, rather then legal would be used to avoid ruling on the central issue? See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).




NSA's Illegal Warrantless Wiretapping Update

Recently we have learned some pretty alarming details about the National Security Agency's (NSA) illegal domestic spying.  A May 11th USA Today story revealed that the warrantless wiretapping program is far broader in scope than the President has previously claimed.  Tens of millions of Americans' phone records have been compiled into the largest known database in the world.  

As reported in the USA Today story, this in direct violation of the Telecommunications Act.  Section 222 of this Act prohibits telephone companies from revealing information about their customers' call history including who is called and how frequently.  Inbound and outbound calls, wireline and wireless services are covered by this Act.

Underscoring the seriousness of these privacy protections, the Federal Communications Commission has the authority to levy fines up to $130,000 per day per violation.  While this is capped at $1.325 million per violation, these penalties are intended to deter phone companies from revealing private consumer data.

Congressman John Conyers, Jr.


30 Members of Congress Favor Special Committee to Investigate Impeachable Offenses

We now have 29 Members of Congress who have joined me and cosponsored House Resolution 635. The Atlanta Progressive News, which has reported regularly on this bill, summarizes the efforts to date with this article.

We continue to add cosponsors because of an effective grassroots campaign. A number of municipalities have passed resolutions calling for the president to resign or worse. Over 42,000 people have signed on as Citizen Cosponsors of House Resolution 635 at my website. These actions have helped encourage many Members of Congress to take a stronger stand against the president.

Former Congresswoman Liz Holtzman reminded us at the Harper's Forum that the Nixon impeachment efforts were a success, while those against Clinton backfired, because of public opinion. There was a huge groundswell of public support for holding the Nixon Administration accountable for their crimes. We need to make sure that we press our case against the president with the country behind us. If you haven't yet, please help us grow this support by going to my website, and:

Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.

"Do-It-Yourself Impeachment." Now any citizen can download the DIY Impeachment Memorial and submit it, making it possible for Americans to do what our representatives have been unwilling to do. The idea is for so many people to submit the Memorial that it cannot be ignored.

Feel free to download it, print out TWO copies, fill in your relevant information in the blanks (name, State, etc.), and send in two letters today (One to the Speaker of the House, and the other to John Conyers of the House Judiciary). There's also extra credit for sending a DIY Impeachment to your own representative.
Get the PDF to send in, and DIRECTLY initiate the impeachment of Bush: OR?

Download, fill in your relevant information in the blanks (name, State, notary is optional), and send in a letter today.

Impeachment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The impeachment procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. ...

Downloadable Documents

Note: to save a document to your disk, right click on the link and select "Save Link As..." or something similar. Your browser may be slightly different.


  • "A Guide to the Impeachment of George W Bush and Richard Cheney" - grounds for impeachment, discussion of basis for local government resolutions, Section 603, model resolution. 10 page booklet, [PDF] Written 4/27/06, very minor updates 5/11/06
  • "An Impeachment Resolution? Cool! Can it be done in my town?" - Yes, you can do it. 2 page flier, 10 KB [PDF]

Local Impeachment Resolutions

Please feel free to download these documents, edit them, and use them in your impeachment work. HTML versions are available here.

Proposed Impeachment Resolution for a State Legislature to use. .doc .pdf
Basis for state initiated impeachment. .doc .pdf
Proposed Impeachment Resolution for a City or Town to use. .doc .pdf


  • "Is Impeachment Patriotic" - one page flyer [PDF] 7/4/05

A message from Ramsey Clark
The case for impeachment is clear beyond question.
Thu Jun 15, 2006 15:32

Lapham's Case for Impeachment
By Terrence McNally, AlterNet

A message from Ramsey Clark

The case for impeachment is clear beyond question.

The list of Bush's crimes is long. The 鉄hock and Awe invasion was Bush痴 war of aggression -- a crime identified as the 鍍he Supreme international crime by the Nuremberg Tribunal. Remember Falluja, the American Guernica, a virtual destruction of a defenseless city by superior military technology (36,000 homes, 8,400 shops destroyed in the final assault alone); Abu Ghraib, the shameful celebration of sick forms of sexual torture; Haifa Street, Baghdad, where a U.S. helicopter gun ship killed 13 unarmed people and injured 50 dancing around a burned out Bradley Armored Vehicle; Abu Shifa, a small village, where U.S. soldiers were accused of rounding up civilians, forcing them into a room, then opening fire, killing 11 people, including a 75 year-old, a 6 month-old baby, and five children under the age five; Haditha, where Marines murdered 15 defenseless civilians, and injured many more, most women and children; and tiny Guantanamo, where the U.S. has compiled human rights violations in four years that have been denounced by the entire world including the United Nations. Yet President Bush arrogantly refuses to close the Guantanamo prison, or return the land and sovereignty to Cuba while U.S. officials fret over three prisoners who committed suicide in one day to 兎mbarrass the U.S.

The grand total of civilian deaths in Iraq is probably more than 250,000, and rapidly growing. (The Lancet Medical Journal) U.S. military deaths exceed 2500, the seriously injured number more than 15,000 and the number who will suffer mental and physical impairment from the occupation of Iraq is in the unknown tens of thousands.

What respect for human dignity! What reverence for life! What better way to make enemies?

The necessity for citizen action to secure impeachment is also clear beyond question. The Congress will not act unless We, the People demand it and vote those out of office who fail to respond.

Our government is geared for war as directed by transnational corporations, domestic industries, and the corporate media.

Both branches of our One Party system, Democrat and Republican, favor the use of force to have their way. Consider,

* (1) Regime Change in Iran (1953) the Shah replacing democratically elected Mossadegh; Eisenhower (R);
* (2) Regime Change in Guatemala (1954) military government for democratically elected Arbenz; Eisenhower (R);
* (3) Regime Change in Congo (1961) assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Eisenhower (R)
* (4) the Vietnam War (1959-1975), Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nixon (R);
* (5) Invasion of Dominican Republic (1965), Johnson (D);
* (6) Contra Warfare against Nicaragua (1981-1988), resulting in regime change from the Sandinistas to corrupt capitalists; Reagan (R);
* (7) Attack and occupation of Grenada (population 110,000)(1983-1987) Reagan (R);
* (8) Aerial attack on the sleeping cities of Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya, (1986) Reagan (R);
* (9) Invasion of Panama Regime Change (1989-1990), George H. W. Bush (R);
* (10) Gulf War (1991), George H. W. Bush (R);
* (11) "Humanitarian" occupation of Somalia leading to 10,000 Somali deaths (1992-1993) George H. W. Bush (R) and Bill Clinton (D);
* (12) Aerial attacks on Iraq (1993-2001) Bill Clinton (D);
* (13) War against Yugoslavia (1999) 23,000 bombs and missiles dropped on Yugoslavia, Bill Clinton (D)
* (14) Missile Attack (21 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles) destroying the Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Plant in Khartoum which provided the majority of all medicines for Sudan (1998) Bill Clinton (D);
* (15) Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan, Regime Change (2001-present) George W. Bush (R);
* (16) War of Aggression against Iraq and Hostile Occupation (2003)-present) George W. Bush (R);
* (17) Regime Change in Haiti (2004) Democratically elected Aristide for three years of chaos and systematic killing, George W. Bush (R).

There have been major aggressions every several years.

Remember that every Congress in the past half century has approved excessive military budgets and the last three have approved increases that have made the U.S. military budget larger than those of all other nations combined.

The U.S. will remain a military threat to the world until it vastly reduces its military expenditures. The single highest priority for peace is cutting the U.S. military budget. The United States government may have been able to outspend the Soviet Union into economic collapse in the Cold War arms race, injuring the entire planet in the process. Now Bush has entered a new arms race and is provoking a Second Cold War with China. Yet what can China do, as the U.S. builds a first-strike oriented missile shield and uses Japan and a huge advanced military base at Pyongtaek on Korea's west coast, not 500 miles from Beijing?

The U.S. at this time is capable of striking any place on earth with a nuclear armed missile within one hour of the order to fire, launched from a Trident II, or other nuclear weapons system. We are at this time spending billions on a new generation of nuclear weapons that can be used tactically, against four blocks of Falluja, or an alleged Al Queda camp in Pakistan. At the same time, we threaten Iran and others for seeking to develop nuclear energy with the claim that they may build a crude bomb. Yet the only defense a nation today has to U.S. militarism is the threat of nuclear retaliation. The U.S. is seeking total dismantlement and prohibition of all weapons of mass destruction everywhere else, because it possesses the vast majority of all WMD痴 and far superior delivery systems.

George Bush loved being a War President while he was winning - winning over the bodies of impoverished and defenseless people, that is. Someone told him only war presidents can be great presidents. He will love war again if his polls go up.

President Bush would rather make enemies by the use of force to have his way, than seek agreement with friends by helping others and recognizing their rights and interests. He prefers to go it alone, and then entice or coerce whatever help he can get from others, whether it is for Iraq, global warming, the prohibition of land mines, or the use of minors in war, addressing hunger, poverty, AIDS, natural disaster relief, or most United Nations activities, and absolutely, the International Criminal Court which might indict him. He is spared defeat at the polls because he cannot seek re-election.

He can be held accountable only by impeachment. The American people must not acquiesce to his crimes.

Consider that all the major candidates, Democrat and Republican -- Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, McCain, Frist, -- voted for the war and/or favor the Iraq Occupation.

To stop U.S. militarism, the U.S. must vastly reduce its military expenditures, 50% in five years and further down from there on. It must use those savings to combat poverty, hunger, sickness and unemployment at home and abroad.

The U.S. must seek friends by word and deed, rather than make enemies. The harm George Bush has done to the way the rest of the world sees our country will take a generation to overcome, after we change our warlike ways.

But the only way to convince the world that We the People do not approve of the conduct of George W. Bush is to impeach him. Otherwise we can only be seen as approving of his acts, or as powerless to prevent them.

And the only way we can deter the next, and future Presidents, from seeking war rather than peace is to impeach George W. Bush and his key advisors now. Only then will political leadership know the American people will not accept more war.

Last week placed an ad calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush on the second page of the internationally read newspaper, USA Today. The impeachment movement has placed similar ads in the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. The time to impeach is now. This movement has grown with your continuing support. Please make a donation to the campaign today so that the movement will grow in the coming months. Click here.

Ramsey Clark
June 15, 2006

Go to to get involved and support the campaign to impeach Bush.

Elizabeth de la Vega
Elizabeth de la Vega, a former federal prosecutor, was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Minneapolis as well as a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Branch Chief in San Jose, California.


3/07/06 C-SPAN: Harper's Magazine re: Impeachment
#1 (6.82MB) 29Min 46 Sec

#2 (8.29MB) 36Min 13Sec

#3 (6.48MB) 28Min 19 Sec

#4 (7.06MB) 30Min 50 Sec

#5 (5.86MB) 25Min 35 Sec

Harper's Magazine's_Magazine

Impeach Bush and Cheney Now!

Editorials and Information on
How to Impeach Bush

Movement to impeach George W. Bush

The Impeachment Procedure

Treason Under the Constitution



Click here to subscribe to the APFN RSS feed.

Subscribe to the RSS feed

You can subscribe to this RSS feed in a number of ways, including the following:

  • Drag the orange RSS button into your News Reader
  • Drag the URL of the RSS feed into your News Reader
  • Cut and paste the URL of the RSS feed into your News Reader
One-click subscriptions
If you use one of the following web-based News Readers, click on the appropriate button to subscribe to the RSS feed.

my yahoo



American Patriot Friends Network

"...a network of net workers..." 

 APFN Sitemap

APFN Message Board

APFN Contents Page

APFN Home Page


Hit Counter

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C ) material the use of
which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance
understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and
social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair
use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without