You are herecontent / Vermont Towns Vote to Impeach -- UPDATED
Vermont Towns Vote to Impeach -- UPDATED
Vermont Towns Vote to Impeach -- UPDATED
A single Vermont community's call for the impeachment of President Bush turned into a chorus Tuesday night, with town meetings across southern Vermont echoing the demand that Congress act to remove the president.
Voters in the town of Newfane, where the movement began, endorsed impeachment by a resounding margin. The paper ballot vote was 121-29 for a slightly amended version of the resolution that had been submitted by Dan DeWalt, an elected member of the town's select board. DeWalt's initial resolution declared:
Whereas George W. Bush has:
1. Misled the nation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction;
2. Misled the nation about ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda;
3. Used these falsehoods to lead our nation into war unsupported by international law;
4. Not told the truth about American policy with respect to the use of torture; and
5. Has directed the government to engage in domestic spying, in direct contravention of U.S. law.
Therefore, the voters of the town of Newfane ask that our representative to the U.S. House of Representatives file articles of impeachment to remove him from office.
The key amendment involved the addition of a call for the Vermont House and Senate to take up the issue. Though it is a little-known and even less-used power, state legislatures can officially forward impeachment resolutions to Congress.
The Newfane vote was expected. The surprise on Tuesday night came from neighboring communities where, inspired by Newfane's example, citizens demanded that their town meetings address the issue. At least four other Vermont towns -- Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney – voted for impeachment resolutions Tuesday night. Most of the additional resolutions passed by voice votes, but in Marlboro a show of hands produced a 60-10 vote for impeachment.
DeWalt, the Newfane official who started the process when he drafted an impeachment article and placed it on the official agenda for the annual town meeting, celebrated the grassroots revolt against George Bush and his administration as a healthy sign that democracy is still alive – at least in Vermont.
"In the U.S. presently there are only a few places where citizens can act in this fashion and have a say in our nation,'' explained DeWalt.
U.S. Representative Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who has been a fierce critic of the Bush administration, responded to the call from the towns with an acknowledgement that Bush "has been a disaster for our country, and a number of actions that he has taken may very well not have been legal." Yet, despite the fact that more than two dozen House members have cosponsored a resolution calling for the establishment of a select committee that would make recommendations regarding impeachment, Sanders said that Republican control of the House and Senate makes it "impractical to talk about impeachment" at this point.
Vermont Republicans and conservative commentators were dismissive, suggesting that town meetings ought to focus on local issues rather than attempts to check and balance executive excess.
But Newfane's DeWalt said impeachment was an appropriate item for town meeting consideration. While he noted that the resolution cited a number of issues, the select board member used the example of the continuing occupation of Iraq. "The war affects us here in Newfane," he said. "It affects us when our mothers and fathers and sons and daughters are sent off to war, and it affects us in our tax dollars to pay for that war."
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
We have very little time to lose to get impeachment hearings started. The only method that will work is rejected by many anti-war activists primarily because they are SO AFRAID OF THE REPUBLICANS.
Negative Campaigning, Negative Protesting and Negative Commenting on
News Articles in Newspapers
DOES HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT
on the effort to cause Impeachment Hearings.
Using these methods has caused Colorado's Rep. Udall to change his thinking on impeachment. Udall is in a race too close to call. More negative pressure may push him to call for hearings. Udall is getting closer.
We are monitoring his reply letters to his constituents. Two are below.
UDALL's (Feb 2008) LETTER JUST BELOW shows that he is dismissive of impeachment and doesn't much want to discuss it.
Dear Dr. Siu-Runyan:
Thank you for letting me know you think the House of Representatives should consider impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney. I appreciate your taking the time to get in touch.
I am not a lawyer, but I take my oath to uphold the constitution very seriously, and I understand why many Americans believe the current Administration has failed our country. The constitutional grounds for impeaching and removing a Vice President must be specific and ought to come from considered investigation by the House Judiciary Committee. That committee has not such taken action.
Based on what I know now, I am not persuaded that it would be good for our country for the House to take up a divisive impeachment proceeding against the Vice President.
I opposed going to war in Iraq and disagree with many other policies of the Bush Administration, and will work to change those policies. But I think those changes should come through the normal legislative and political processes, rather than through impeachment.
Thanks again for contacting me. I welcome your letters and e-mails and always listen closely to what you and other Coloradans have to say. For more information, visit my web site at http://markudall.house.gov/HoR/CO02/home.htm .
Warm Regards,
Mark Udall
Member of Congress
----------------------------------
Many Coloradoans received that same reply letter early on.
---------------------------------
------------------
------------------
UDALL's ( Sept 4, 2008) LETTER AT BOTTOM SHOWS
he's now thinking about impeachment and debating it with himself, perhaps getting closer to being for holding hearings (perhaps only trying to make us think so to get us to back off long enough to gain advantage)?
>From: "Congressman Mark Udall"
>
>
>To:
>
>Subject: Response from Congressman Mark Udall
>
>Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:35:44 -0400
>
>Dear Dr. Siu-Runyan:
>
>Thank you for letting me know you support impeaching President Bush. I appreciate hearing >from you.
>
>I have not and will not turn a blind eye to the >president's faults. I think his failures of >judgment and leadership will haunt future >generations for years to come. And many of those >failures were cited in the impeachment >resolution recently introduced by Rep. Dennis >Kucinich (D-OH).
>
>On June 11th I voted to refer that resolution to the Judiciary Committee instead of having the full House of Representatives debate it immediately. I did so because I was not then prepared to conclude that President Bush's actions constitute grounds for impeachment, and I did not think Members of the House should be called upon to vote on that question on that day.
>
>Impeachment is not entirely a legal question. It is partly political, which is why the Constitution entrusts it to Congress and not the courts. But I think it is essential that a decision to impeach any federal official should come only through a careful, thorough process that provides adequate due process for the accused and lays the proper foundation for a sound decision.
So, I think before the House votes on impeachingPresident Bush the president should have an opportunity to respond to charges
and the Judiciary Committee should hear from legal experts and prepare a report that will provide the basis for debate by the full House. That was the process followed regarding theproposed impeachment of President Nixon in 1974, and I think that set the example we should follow.
>
>
>Thanks again for contacting me. To do my job well, I need to hear from my fellow Coloradans. www.house.gov/ markudall
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Mark Udall
> Member of Congress
Seems to me that he is on the cusp of calling for hearings.
All US Congressmen can be swayed to some degree with Negative Campaigning, Negative Protesting and Negative Commenting on News Articles.
Udall has made it worse for himself by allowing his campaign manager Melanson to say "Mark is not going to do that. It's not what the people want." Easily proven wrong.
I was appointed by Bob Fertik to be the Colorado State Impeachment Coordinator for Democrats.com
I just finished emailing a simple survey of members of Democrats.com in CD01 (Rep, DeGettes District) asking for a yes or no answer.
99% came back positive for impeachment for both Bush And Cheney.
The Democratic Party is sitting on a powder keg of national impeachment fever within the Base of the Party.
If we can tap it and unleash it quickly we may be able to get hearings started before Nov 4.
You all will need to do this negative campaigning within your own states to make it happen. You must do it ruthlessly for it to be believeable. Find the one or two incumbent House Democrats or House Dems running for the Senate and accuse them of only one thing. Of being a traitor to their oath and to our Constitution. Also say that they are corrupt since they are covering up for a President and Vice President every voter knows is corrupt. The House Dems go nuts when we us their name and "traitor", or "corrupt" in the same sentence.
Today I and others attend and protested negatively at a Udall campaign event where supporters were meeting to hear Udall before going out canvasing the neighborhoods in Lakewood Colorado. The Udall activists went bananas over our sigative signs, cursing, screaming, and yes (tow ladies) crying to try to get us to stop.
The Democrats are Very Sensitive to this kind of negative campaigning.
Our lobbyists in Washington should not be doing this, but when they get home, yes.
The Democrats will probably take the Presidency, they will definitely win majorities in the House and Senate. IF THREATEN THE DEMOCRATS with the possibility of not having a filibuster proof Senate (Udall losing) and a veto proof House THERE IS A VERY STRONG PROBABILITY that we can move them to start impeachment hearings before Nov 4.
But you have to start now and be ruthless.
Someone smarter that I once said something like this "Washington will not change Unless YOU are willing to make the Democratic Party MORE AFRAID OF YOU Than YOU Are Afraid of the Republicans".
Time to step up. This is more important than any campaign. Politicians who won't hold impeachment hearings will do little that you will like.
John H Kennedy, Denver CO,
43 yr Democratic voter, Obama delegate to the Denver CO County Convention, and organizer of the
Impeach Colorado Coalition http://ImpeachCO.com
I am also the National Impeachment Network Coordinator for Colorado.
Anyone wishing to contact me should email me at:
protestinthestreet@yahoo.com
..