Raoul Berger (Impeachment)

[H2O Man]

One of the people scheduled to speak to the House Committee today is Stephen Presser, the Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History at Northwestern University’s School of Law. For old-timers on DU, the name Raoul Berger holds a special place: in the Nixon era, he was recognized as the leading expert on the laws regarding executive abuses of power and impeachment.

I suspect that those DUers who oppose impeachment are unfamiliar with Berger. It is also likely that others have not been exposed to his most influential writings. I thought it might be worth my looking through my library for a few suggested readings.

(1) "Executive Privilege v. Congressional Inquiry"; UCLA Law Review, XII, 1077; 1965.
(2) "War-Making by the President"; Pennsylvania Law Review,62; 1972.
(3) "The Presidential Monopoly of Foreign Relations"; Michigan Law Review, 35; 1972
(4) "Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems"; Cambridge.1973

Also, please see "Executive Privilege: The Withholding of Information by the Executive," Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Senate Judiciary Committee (92 Congress, 1 Session, 346; 1971).

[H2O Man]

1. Well,

I'll certainly re-read them. And I look forward to talking to myself again!

[Annces]

2. As my sister used to say

Well is a deep subject. :-)

[Jack Rabbit]

3. I majored in political science during the Watergate Era

Not only was I assigned Berger's book Impeachment, but his book Executive Privilege: a Constitutional Myth as well. I still have the books and referred to Impeachment a while back to argue on another board that the President does not have to violate statutory law to be impeached and removed from office. There is, for example, no statute that specifically prohibits the president from lying the country into war, but it certainly isn't something that any one wants the President to do. The second article against President Nixon was a laundry list of abuses of power, impeachable offenses that did not violate any statute.

The Republicans on the committee at that time attempted to argue that sicking the FBI or the IRS on one's "enemies" was not an impeachable offense because it violated no written law. However, Berger had disposed of this argument in Impeachment, which was written a year before the Watergate burglary. He simply provided a long list of English impeachments and demonstrated convincingly that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was not the same thing as felonies and misdemeanors. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was in fact any violation of public trust or abuse of power.

Many of Bush's crimes are more grave than Nixon's. While Nixon sought to harass his "enemies" with frivolous FBI investigations and tax audits, Bush has brought the full weight of the justice system against his opposition on charges ranging from the silly to the just made up. Bush's White House even succeeded in putting the Democratic former governor of Alabama in prison on an utterly ridiculous bribery charge. Is there any law against the President replacing federal prosecutors? The Constitution even says that they serve at the "pleasure of the president." Do we want the president to fire them because he is displeased that they will not bring trumped up charges against officer holder and even voters who oppose him? Of course not, and there should be no question that impeachment is on the table for any president who does.

The two volumes I read in college are still on my bookshelf.

[spanone]

4. sorry i missed this post yesterday....i will make note of the reading materials..thanks

[Octafish]

5. Wish I'd seen this, too.

Raoul Berger kicked Nixon in the pants. No wonder Corporate McPravda ignored what he had to say Friday. Fortunately, David Swanson got something into the digital commons:

Congress Hears Ringing Call for Impeachment

EXCERPT...

The second of two planned panels is even better, and includes Adams, Fein, Bugliosi, and six other witnesses. One of them, Elizabeth Holtzman, Former Representative from New York, will speak very persuasively for impeachment. Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson, Founder and President, High Roads for Human Rights, and the former Mayor of Salt Lake City, is likely to speak in support of impeachment too, while also supporting other alleged remedies. One chronicler of Bush and Cheney crimes who in recent months has opposed impeachment is John Dean; he had been scheduled to appear but did not make the final cut. However, there are four witnesses on the second panel who may not help the cause of impeachment. Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, is a supporter of restoring the rule of law, but whether he'll advocate restoration of the rule of the Constitution we shall see. The other three almost certainly will not. They are: Bob Barr, Former Representative from Georgia, 2008 Libertarian Nominee for President; Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law; and Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law.

CONTINUED...

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69478

I'm still waiting for Corporate McPravda to mention the hearings in any but the most condescending tones. It's clear the ownwers of the Fifth Estate are worried they, too, will be brought up on charges of war crimes and treason.

Thank you for the heads-up, H20 Man! Anyone who writes "Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth" is must-know. Sorry I didn't see this sooner. It seems that for a long time there's been too much blah-blah on DU to see the important stuff.