Constitutional grounds for Impeachment

According to the US Constitution 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.

The definition of "high" crimes according to the National Center for Constitutional Studies is:

Acts of serious misconduct in public office (such as violating the Constitution or abusing one's political power to harm citizens or get personal gain).

In my humble opinion, President Clinton never was convicted of treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors and therefore should never had been impeached. It seemed to be a political witch hunt, because the Republicans in Congress simply did not agree with the presidents life style and actions. So receiving a blow-job in the oval office, and then lying about it, does not in my mind constitute a "high" crime. The only citizens harmed in that fiasco was Hillary, Monica and the intelligence of the American public

However, the allegations and open admissions by the Bush team regarding domestic eavesdropping and spying, could conceivably open up his presidency for these very same proceedings soon. Katrina Vanden Heuvel in this weeks The Nation "The I-Word is Gaining Ground" says constitutional scholars and politicians from both sides of the aisle are beginning to discuss this possibility of impeachment. This is not something that the country should take lightly, which is what seemed to happen 10 years ago with Clinton. This situation is much more serious and has more constitutional ramifications than Whitewater or even Watergate.

This involves the president attempting to over-ride the other two branches of government in order to set up the executive branch to be the all knowing and all powerful wing of the government, and that begins to smell like a dictatorship. It is time that both parties in Congress step forward and curtail the ability of the executive branch to usurp unconstituational powers from the other two branches, and bring balance back to our government.

In a seperate article in this weeks The Nation titled Bush's High Crimes Jonathan Schell says:

For the generations who came of age after the mid-1970s, it is worth recalling why warrantless domestic surveillance so shocks the political system. It needs to be repeated that the same arguments cited by Bush--inherent presidential power and national security--sustained the wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr., unleashed illegal CIA domestic spying and generated FBI files on thousands of American dissidents. It needs to be repeated that in 1974, the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon included abuse of presidential power based on warrantless wiretaps and illegal surveillance. It needs to be repeated that a few months later, presidential aides named Cheney and Rumsfeld labored mightily to secure President Ford's veto of the Freedom of Information Act, in an unsuccessful attempt to turn back post-Watergate restrictions on homegrown spying and government secrecy.

Most of all it needs to be repeated that no constitutional clause gives the President "because I said so" authority. The fact that former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo tried to concoct a laughable fig leaf out of Congress's 9/11 use-of-force resolution in no way diminishes the President's culpability. Nor does the evident collusion of a handful of Senate leaders, including minority leader Harry Reid, who was evidently informed at least partly about the spying program.

Amazing coincidence that Cheney and Rumsfeld are again at the center of another domestic spying controversy. I guess it is true, old dogs never learn.