"We the People"

Friends and Patriots
It is not presumptuous to remind ourselves who is in charge."We the People" are the Government... "We the People" are in charge... but only if "We, that's You and I," have the sense of patriotic duty and courage to be in charge.

I believe it is time to charge forward. Those we have elected haven't the will and/or courage to do what they and all of us know must be done... Impeach George W. Bush! It is time "We the People" stop acting like scared sheep and take control of this rogue Bush administration. We have our U.S. Constitution and an important but little known set of guidelines that have long empowered us to do what we know must be done.

Impeach for Peace, a Minnesota-based impeachment group, has researched a method for impeaching the president using a little known and rarely used part of the Rules of the House of Representatives ("Jefferson’s Manual"). This document actually empowers individual citizens to initiate the impeachment process themselves.

"Jefferson's Manual" is an interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The section covering impeachment lists the acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor of the House.

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.

After learning this information, Minnesotan and Impeach for Peace member (Jodin Morey) found precedent in an 1826 memorial by Luke Edward Lawless which had been successful in initiating the impeachment of Federal Judge James H. Peck. Impeach for Peace then used this as a template for their "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 head of the Judiciary, and the other to John Conyers lead Democrat in the House Judiciary). There's also extra credit for sending a DIY Impeachment to your own representative.

Hold on to the other copy of the two letters until October 12th when we're having everyone send them in.

That's right — to make a big impact, we're having everyone send it in on the same date (Over 165,000 downloads so far representing over 622,000 mailings). We hope to flood the Judiciary Committee and John Conyers office with sacks of mail and cause a newsworthy event to further pressure the Congress to act on the memorials. Although, it's important to keep in mind that in the 1826 precedent, impeachment resulted as a result of a single memorial. Yours might be the one.

Get the PDF to send in, and DIRECTLY initiate the impeachment of Bush:
•Regular Version [pdf]• (html version)

•Extra Credit (your representative) [pdf]• (html version)

•For folks in District of Columbia [pdf]• (html version)

•District of Columbia Extra Credit!! [pdf]• (html version)

Frequently asked Questions and Answers

Concerns over the strategy of pushing for impeachment in this way?
See the 'Arguments Against Impeachment' at the bottom of the main page.

Audio, provided with permission from the "Mike Malloy Show."

EMAIL ALL YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT THIS!!

We would especially like to thank ImpeachBush.tv for their support, and whose charges related to impeachment we used in the creation of this document.

Also, if you're interested:

Information regarding Impeachment procedure

Precedent: Judge Peck's Impeachment supplied by the U.S. House of Representatives and policyreview.org.
House rules that allow for the submission of the memorial

Jefferson's Manual

Jefferson's Manual is a sort of interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Within the Manual itself, the section covering impeachment is designated Section LIII. Section 603 refers to the section of the entire volume (including the Constitution and Rules) in which you'll find the listing of acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor.

"In the House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 552); or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (April 15, 1970, p. 11941-2); by a message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444)."

Source: U.S. Government Printing Office
Precedents:
Hinds - III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515

Cannon's - VI, 552

---

Peck and contempt (care of policyreview.org)

There is the case of Judge James H. Peck, an 1830-31 impeachment and acquittal. President Monroe had appointed Peck to the bench in 1822. In 1828, the Democrats swept to power. That met the condition for partisan conflict.

Peck was judge in Missouri in a series of land claim cases in the territory of the Louisiana purchase. The law was complicated, the interests involved huge. In the first such case, in 1825 (the account here draws mainly on Bushnell’s in Crimes, Follies, and Misfortunes), Peck ruled against the client of a lawyer named Luke Edward Lawless. Because of the high degree of interest in the case, Peck published his ruling in a St. Louis newspaper in 1826. Shortly thereafter, a detailed rebuttal of Peck’s ruling appeared in another newspaper under the byline, "A Citizen." Peck was furious at the attack. He believed the "Citizen" rebuttal, in addition to its flawed legal reasoning, was replete with errors and misrepresentations of his ruling. Lawless’s authorship soon became known.

Bushnell writes:
Peck held the letter to be a contempt of court, sentenced Lawless to twenty-four hours in jail, and suspended him from practicing in federal court for eighteen months [a serious blow to Lawless’s livelihood as a lawyer specializing in land claims before the federal courts]. As the basis of the contempt ruling, Peck found that Lawless acted "with intent to impair the public confidence in the upright intentions of said court, and to bring odium upon the court, and especially with intent to impress the public mind, and particularly many litigants in this court, that they are not to expect justice in the cases now pending therein."

Lawless felt he was entirely within his rights to criticize a published decision and saw the contempt ruling as a tyrannical affront to the Constitution. He began a long crusade against Peck that ultimately led to impeachment nearly five years later on one article dealing solely with the judge’s treatment of Lawless. The article accused Peck of acting "to the great disparagement of public justice, the abuse of judicial authority, and to the subversion of the liberties of the people of the United States." James Buchanan, who went on to be elected president in 1856, was chairman of the House managers.

Peck maintained that his contempt ruling was within his powers as a judge, and his defenders argued that even if it went too far, Peck did not, as the article alleged, act with bad intent, believing that he possessed sufficient authority for his actions. At a minimum, however, it seems fair to say that Peck’s actions from the bench were harsh enough to meet the test of genuinely dubious conduct.

Peck was acquitted with 21 votes in favor of removal and 22 against. Where was the abuse of the separation of powers here? In this case, not in the statute books but in the common law — the precedents Peck relied on to hold Lawless in contempt and to sentence him harshly. As Bushnell observes, Peck’s defenders "sought to refute the charge of abuse of the contempt power by citing English and American precedents supporting the authority of courts to punish for contempts like Lawless’s." The House tried to hold his conduct to the standard of its more circumscribed view of judicial contempt powers. The Senate was not willing to rely on the House’s assertions to the extent necessary to remove Peck.

But the Senate, like the House, can hardly be said to have found Peck’s conduct salutary. Both chambers amply demonstrated this by approving, within a month of Peck’s acquittal, legislation introduced by Buchanan restricting contempt findings in federal courts roughly along the lines of the terms the House managers had unsuccessfully tried to apply in Peck’s impeachment. Contempt could be found in misbehavior in a courtroom or close enough to it to disturb its proceedings; or in misbehavior in such business of the courts’ as filing motions and briefs; or in the failure to obey a lawful court order. It could not be found in a newspaper rebuttal to a court’s decision. Buchanan’s legislation governs contempts in federal courts to this day.

Lawless' actual memorial: Source-U.S. House Precendents: Hinds III, 2496-2499

More information on Peck's impeachment; Carnegie Mellon University Universal Library

---

Petitions, memorials, and private bills

[109th Congress House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 108-241]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hruletx-69]

[...]
[[Page 593]]
Rule XII
receipt and referral of measures and matters
[[Page 599]]
Petitions, memorials, and private bills
3. If a <> Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner has a petition, memorial, or private bill to present, he
shall endorse his name, deliver it to the Clerk, and may specify the
reference or disposition to be made thereof. Such petition, memorial, or
private bill (except when judged by the Speaker to be obscene or
insulting) shall be en
[[Page 600]]
tered on the Journal with the name of the Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner presenting it and shall be printed in the Congressional
Record.

At the first organization of the House in 1789 the rules then adopted
provided for the presentation of petitions to the House by the Speaker
and Members, and for the introduction of bills by motion for leave. In
1842 it was found necessary, in order to save time, to provide that
petitions and memorials should be filed with the Clerk. In 1870, 1879,
and 1887 the practice as to petitions was extended to private bills, at
first as to certain classes and later so that all should be filed with
the Clerk (IV, 3312, 3365; VII, 1024). Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 1
of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

Petitions, memorials, <> and other papers addressed to the House may
be presented by the Speaker as well as by a Member (IV, 3312). Petitions
from the country at large are presented by the Speaker in the manner
prescribed by the rule (III, 2030; IV, 3318; VII, 1025). A Member may
present a petition from the people of a State other than his own (IV,
3315, 3316). The House itself may refer one portion of a petition to one
committee and another portion to another committee (IV, 3359, 3360), but
ordinarily the reference of a petition does not come before the House
itself. A committee may receive a petition only through the House (IV,
4557).

Source: U.S. Government Printing Office

Impeach Bush - Evidence Warrants Impeachment

"Iraq War Profiteering: Halliburton Abuses Contracts"
Just One of Many Impeachable George W.Bush's Offenses: Read On

Impeach Bush Yourself!

This is much more than just a petition.

There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.

That's where we come in. In addition to the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org, part of the movement to impeach the president, has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

STOP WAITING FOR YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO ACT FOR YOU.

You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in.

You have the Power to Impeach Bush but only if you use it! http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

More information on the precedent for submitting an impeachment
memorial, and the House Rules on this procedure, can also be found at
the above address.

If you have any doubts that Bush has committed crimes warranting
impeachment, read this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org/evidence/

If you're concerned that impeachment might not be the best strategy
at this point, read the bottom of this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace."
Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

Charges and Evidence:
Impeachment of George W. Bush

ILLEGAL WAR

The memorial goes on to set forth that, George W. Bush has intentionally misled the Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, intentionally conspired with others to defraud the United States in connection with the war against Iraq in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371;

Click here to See the Evidence

---

ILLEGAL SPYING *Update - Recently Found Guilty by District Court

The memorial goes on to set forth that, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805;

Click here to See the Evidence

---

ILLEGAL TORTURE *Update -Found Guilty by Supreme Court

The memorial goes on to set forth that, George W. Bush has conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land";

Click here to See the Evidence

---

ILLEGAL DETENTION *Update - Found Guilty by District Court

The memorial goes on to set forth that, George W. Bush has acted to strip Americans of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to legal 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 President of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant", all in subversion of law;

Click here to See the Evidence

---

ILLEGAL RELEASE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

The memorial goes on to set forth that, George W. Bush authorized the leaking classified national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an unknown number of covert U. S. intelligence agents to potential harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to investigate the matter;

Click here to See the Evidence

Iraq War Profiteering: Halliburton Abuses Contracts

War profiteering: Just One in a String of Impeachable Offenses Committed by George W. Bush

Please send this video to everyone you can. Direct your attention to Halliburton employee attorney, Alan Grayson's testimony. He nails, by quoting Abraham Lincoln's address on Civil War profiteering, the war profiteering being conducted by Halliburton and other corporations like Bechtel, Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), Custer Battles, and others. His testimony will make your skin crawl. You just have to watch this video... you can fast forward to Grayson's testimony is you must... but this is a congressional hearing all Americans should be aware of. Grayson's testimony runs from video minutes 22 to 28. Grayson quotes Lincoln in minute 27 to 28.

***********************************************************************
Video:
Senate Democratic Policy Cmte. on Contract Abuses in Iraq (09/18/2006)

Under "Recent Programs" Click:
Senate Democratic Policy Cmte. on Contract Abuses in Iraq (09/18/2006)

***********************************************************************

Bush, Cheney and the Corporations who reside in the Cayman Islands wrap themselves in the American Flag while defrauding in every possible way the American people who pay them billions of hard earned tax dollars. These people hate your country as they lead it into the pit of hell... and what are we doing? Watching? Waiting? Hoping it will all just go away?

Be mad folks. You should be seeing red. Something is wrong if you are not so mad you're about to explode. Am I trying to incite a riot. Yes I am!

...and if U.S. Intelligence or Bush himself is reading this... I just don't care! You, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, hate this country and the government you parasitize. Those who protect those who are destroying it from within love money and power to the exclusion of loving this nation. I care about this country... you don't! I have children who will not inherit power and prestige. Yes, I care for this country and the well-being of my descendants. I care enough to let traitors throw me in jail. Go ahead! Do me in. Isn't that your policy? No man... no problem. You can silence me only in death... but then there will be more voices. Even voices from the past will haunt you.

Abraham Lincoln said this about war profiteers, but he likely never imagined one of his successors (you, George W. Bush) would not only allow but coordinate and protect the war profiteering criminals.

Lincoln in proposing enactment of the Whislteblowers False Claims Act said, "Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains of the South and their countrymen molder in the dust."

Maybe the "we the people" should hope you (big brother) are invading our privacy... this is likely the only way our voices will ever be heard by you. If you won't listen to voices you steal from then you leave us no choice but to vote you out of power. If you have already stolen our elections "we the people" have no choice but to revolt. Let me remind you George W. Bush... nothing in our Constitution states that if any administration fails to recognize "we the people" as the ultimate governing power that "we the people" are, in fact, powerless. To the contrary, our Constitution (not just yours) gives "we the people" the final word. We can impeach you and our military (the people's military) can physically remove you and your regime form office should you refuse to honor the wishes of the people. Yes, I hope you intercept my messages... I have nothing to hide... I am not the traitor.


Duane Short
September 18, 2006

Whitney: Keep the Illinois National Guard Out of Iraq

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – September 19, 2006

Contact:
Jennifer Rose, Campaign Manager
Whitney for Governor, whitneyforgov.org
campaignmanager@whitneyforgov.org
618-528-VOTE

Tim Tacker, Communications Director
Whitney for Governor, whitneyforgov.org
communicationsdirector@whitneyforgov.org
815-735-6139

WHITNEY: KEEP THE ILLINOIS NATIONAL GUARD OUT OF IRAQ

As governor, Green Party candidate Rich Whitney will work to end the
involvement of the Illinois National Guard in the occupation of Iraq and
will prevent any further mobilization, making him the only gubernatorial
candidate to have a position on this important issue.

As a congressman, Rod Blagojevich voted to authorize President Bush to
attack Iraq. Rich Whitney opposed the war before it began, understanding
that the real goal was to ensure control of Iraq's oil and economy by giant
U.S. corporations - the same corporations that buy the votes of Democratic
and Republican politicians.

“I will not consent to sending our young men and women to fight and die in
the service of corporate greed, in an ill-conceived war that is making us
less safe and more hated around the world and that is starving our state
and local governments of funds to meet human needs at home,” Whitney said.

As commander in chief of the Illinois National Guard, the governor has the
authority to veto deployment of Guard units for federal duty. Whitney
acknowledged that, in response to the refusal of several state governors to
consent to mobilizations for operations in Central America under the Reagan
administration, Congress limited the power of governors to veto a
mobilization “because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or
schedule of such active duty.” However, he argued, this leaves open the
possibility of a veto because of the illegality of the mission.

The invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq is plainly illegal under
international law, particularly the U.N. Charter, which “as a whole imposes
a general prohibition on the use of force to resolve conflicts in
international relations,” Whitney said. The only exceptions are a specific
authorization by the U.N. Security Council or the right of self-defense,
the latter of which did not apply because the U.S. was neither attacked nor
even threatened by Iraq.

As such, Whitney said, the invasion and occupation were and remain acts of
aggression, a war crime under international law. Further, he argued that as
a government official, he would be legally required to not participate in
such a crime by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which states that
“Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a
crime against humanity... is a crime under international law.”

“I will not be even a complicit or passive participant in a crime under
international law," Whitney said. "I will do everything possible to prevent
the sacrifice of any more human life in the service of such a crime."

Defense of Denial: A Strategy

Tone Deaf Denial
A Defense of Denial

by

Duane Short
September 17, 2006

I've been asked, "Duane, why do you convey various degrees of anger with those who reject your environmental messages?" I answer, "my anger assumes those who disagree are intelligent enough to understand these critically important and easily deciphered environmental issues... if they really wish to understand. Would recipients of my messages rather I assume those who disagree with my messages are too ignorant to understand... or, at least, to offer meaningful repudiation of my messages. Should I assume their ignorance, I could present my messages in a tone of pity rather than anger. Would my conveyance of pity be more desirable than my anger? I suppose only the individual recipient of my messages knows for sure which tone is truly more appropriate."

Some ask me, implying I am not objective, "why use a tone at all?" I answer, "I suppose that would be considerate of the tone-deaf who, if also in denial of irrefutable facts, reject my messages."

I defend my objectivity with cynicism because the seemingly innocent suggestion I tone down my message is, in fact, a cynical suggestion. The suggestion, however subtle, implies my message is not worthy of passion or, at least, emphatic enthusiasm.

This contrived framing of the question is a strategy to defend their denial; a strategy developed by those refusing to face the physical realities of a finite planet . I call it, the framing of their Defense of Denial. Many of those who prefer "I tone down my message" fully accept and even enjoy, infomercials featuring consumers giddy with delight at the wonders of arch supports, face creams, mega-mansions on hurricane-prone beaches, laxatives, get rich quick schemes, sharp knives, herbicides (plant killers) and the like. Then, I am asked to tone down an environmental conservation / preservation message that - if heeded and acted upon - can help prevent or at least delay planetary scale water shortages, carcinogenic and other disease causing pollution, genetic abnormalities, global warming, and perhaps full blown ecological collapse.

I am asked, by some, to speak in monotone. Why don't they just tell me to shut up? Telling me to shut up would reveal their true state... "a defensive state of tone deaf denial."