Monday, May 15: I’m still surprised by the popularity of this post, but I welcome new readers and civil commenters nonetheless. When you’re done reading the post, read this one about tonight’s speech.
Friday, May 12: This post is still generating interest (for some odd reason!), so I’ve re-opened it for commenting. Read the entire post, read parts of it, follow instructions or not, talk about the weather…whatever. Happy Friday! 
Update II (5/11): I’m really quite disappointed with commenters on this post. It’s not about dissent; I allow non-ad homimen dissent at LBC. But I asked for two things on this post: other examples of abuse of power and other possible articles of impeachment. Exactly one commenter attempted to answer one of the questions. Many disagreed and didn’t address the questions. A few told me I was crazy (although most of those didn’t make it past the troll filter). Even commenters who agreed with the post didn’t answer the questions.
The hypothetical Article I drafted was deliberately vague. You’ll notice that I created a (1) but didn’t add (2). I wanted readers to come up with additional articles and examples. It was an exercise, an experiment to see what commenters would come up with.
But most didn’t bother. I could have added something like, “If you don’t think he should be impeached, don’t comment,” but people would have commented anyway. That’s the way we are. Whether people ask or not, we want to tell them what we think. I know my opinion about what should be done with Bush is controversial. Controversy sells. I can handle controversy. It’s the reason I’m a high ranking blogger. But this little impeachment hypothetical failed. Oh, well. On to the next post.
Read about boycotts that backfired and voter revolts. Good article.
Later…Someone responds to one of the questions on his own blog. Probably because I closed commenting. The blogger calls himself an independent and has “controversial” views.
Captain Ed blogs on righteous desertion. That’s why I’m a conservative, and not a Republican.
As I suspected and hoped, illegal alien protests have mobilized Americans who care about their country. States are exercising their power while they still have it. Even as Congress works to pass an amnesty bill before Memorial Day.
I read these words somewhere: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Taxation without meaningful representation…
Update (3:18 p.m.): I know the standards for impeachment are very high and my suggested article isn’t concrete enough. I appreciate everyone’s input, even dissenters, but I wish commenters had followed instructions, answered the questions, and continued the hypothetical. That was the purpose of this post. Blogging since 2003, however, I ought to know better! I doubt more than a few readers even read the questions. 
If you want to comment, it would be extremely helpful to read the entire post first.
*** Scroll down for more reactions ***
——————————————————————————————————————–
According to Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution:
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.
I believe George Bush’s failure to enforce immigration law and stop the foreign invasion, which he has the power and authority to do, warrants impeachment. Because of Bush, illegal invaders are emboldened, demanding that which they have no legal right to obtain.
While the invasion has caused incalculable physical and economic harm to legal citizens, the president proposes to offer amnesty and allow the harm to continue. To the detriment of those he swore to protect, Bush chooses instead to protect those he has no duty to protect. His actions are in violation of the Constitution.
How would George Bush’s articles of impeachment read? Let’s see take a look at a hypothetical Article I, inspired by the impeachment articles of Richard M. Nixon and William J. Clinton.
***
RESOLVED that George Walker Bush, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Article I: Abuse of Power: Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, failing to impart the due and proper administration of justice by protecting citizens against foreign invasions, contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch (Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Internal Revenue Service, for example) and the purposes of these agencies. This conduct has included one or more of the following:
(1) Complicit with foreign governments in breaching U.S. sovereignty. America’s founders codified the notion that “We the People” would govern the country by a representative democracy. The government remains legitimate only through consent of the governed, and “We the People” retain the inalienable right to alter the government, abolish it, or amend the Constitution.
***
Questions for you:
A. What other examples of Bush’s actions would make a case for Abuse of Power?
B. What additional articles of impeachment could be presented? Obstruction of Justice? Contempt of Congress? Why?
————————————————————————————————————–
Addendum and Reactions:
Blogger Misha argues that if our government is tipping off the Mexican government on the whereabouts of peaceful Americans standing watch over the borders to aid illegal aliens and Bush knows about it but does nothing, he should be impeached.
From reader/attorney David B.:
Ms. Barber,
Although I agree with you on the immigration issue, your impeachment suggestion is absurd. The President has put forth legitimate arguments in support of his position on immigration. You and I may find them less
than compelling, but I expect that you and others in the conservative blogosphere could keep the debate civil and somewhere north of the sophomoric rantings of the far left moonbats.I still love you,
Under Siege in Texas
Check out the latest Vent. It’s very good.
Maricopa County, Arizona, is sending out the posse. But without the backing of the federal government, what will it accomplish? Round up a bunch of illegal aliens, throw them in jail, call ICE, and… Complete and total waste of fiber optic energy.
As you may know, Ronald Reagan tried amnesty back in 1986. As I didn’t care much for Reagan or politics at the time, I could not have cared less. What do I think now? It was a bad move that obviously didn’t work. If I, sitting on the sidelines, can see it, why can’t Bush?
Lorie at Polipundit says:
I love La Shawn, and agree with her most of the time, but if presidents could be impeached anytime they performed poorly on an issue, there wouldn’t even be time left for cocktail parties in D.C. There would be non-stop impeachment proceedings 24/7. Should Ronald Reagan have been impeached for his amnesty plan? How about Bill Clinton for his handling of the terrorist threat. (Well, I’ll admit that one is pretty tempting.)
Debbie Schlussel quoting a story about a friend, a former border agent:
He said that U.S. Border Patrol officials provided office space inside their headquarters to Mexican consulate officials, allowed the consulate to dictate the agents’ activities, and gave the consulate information on ongoing investigations. (Emphasis added)
If Bush knows about this and approves, does this rise to the level of treason?
Commenter Erik says:
Other posters have framed the issue as Bush refusing to do anything, Bush being lax on border security, etc. If that is merely the case, no, he should not be impeached, as his laxness does not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
However, yesterday’s revelation that U.S Border Patrol (under the umbrella of the DHS, which was created on Bush’s watch) is tipping off the Mexican government as to the whereabouts of the Minutemen raises the issue to another, more serious level.
If Bush ordered this, then he has affirmatively attempted to undermine U.S. border security, and that IMO would most definitely be an impeachable offense. And given Bush’s past statements about the Minutemen, the speculation is not unreasonable.
If Bush didn’t order the Mexican government tipped off but knew about it, it still might rise to that level, as it certainly falls under what another poster refers to a malign neglect. It would also be, as LaShawn suggested, a clear violation of his oath of office. (Emphasis added)
- Read Herman Cain’s A letter from a slave to an illegal alien.
- Other bloggers: I read that our government was alerting the Mexican government of the movements of the American volunteer group, the Minuteman Project. Michelle Malkin’s posted updates on the Department of Homeland (In)Security’s non-denial denial and other links. Well, Bush did call his countrymen vigilantes.
- Also see the Independent Conservative (with links to shocking audio) Minuteman Blog, Daily Pundit, Confederate Yankee, Riehl World View, Right Wing News, Ace in the Hole, Digger’s Realm, The Lone Wacko, UNCoRRELATED, Hot Air (and here), Wizbang, Tammy Bruce, SFPH Blog, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler…More Vent!
