The Importance of Impeachment: How the Tea Party is Abusing Constitutional Procedure

by Nomad

Since the first presidential impeachment in 1868,  the procedure has proved to be a terribly imperfect tool. However, even when not applied, its existence is essential for the Republic. 

David Stewart's book, Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy is a fascinating study of a constitutional crisis. The book is set against the period immediately after the war of rebellion when the nation was attempting somehow to put the country back together. Just to show you how easily things can go terribly wrong, Lincoln's best intentions turned out to be a colossal misjudgment.

Not many historians have pointed out that Lincoln was, in fact, neither Republican nor Democrat in this second term. He was the candidate for the National Unity Party and he chose as his vice-president, Andrew Johnson, was a Southern Democrat. (Imagine that? A single ticket made of both parties?) 

Had Lincoln not been murdered, the constitutional crisis of presidential impeachment would have been avoided. However, the new president's suspected loyalty to the defeated South, his position that states had the right to their sovereignty- even after what most saw as outright sedition- were too much for some in Congress to bear. When faced with an unyielding Republican minority (every bit as querulous and uncompromising as today's Tea Party) determined to unseat the president by hook or crook, the 17th President's arrogance and stubbornness made impeachment unavoidable. 

It's a good read. And the story of how and why the Radical Republicans attempted to use the process of impeachment to remove President Johnson gives a lot of insight into the ways elected representative under partisan stress can lose track of their primary mission.

Huckabee: Connecting End-of-Life Issues with Abortion Reveals Republican Weakness

by Nomad

Mike Huckabee in an attempt to garner attention, has managed to connect the abortion debate and end-of-life matters. Although Huckabee appears unaware of it, that connection actually highlights the problem with the Republican stand on abortion. On top of that, both subjects are toxic to winning the 2016 election.

The other day, while making a speech at the Susan B. Anthony List, a 501 (c)4 anti-abortion organization, former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee attempted to play the "Scare the oldies" card. (It's been Fox News' bread and butter since its inception.)

As reported by Politico,

The former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate said women typically cite hardship or inconvenience as their reason for getting an abortion — the same reasons that he said could be used to justify ending the lives of the elderly.

The same technique of scaring the senior voters was used by Sarah Palin in her death panel nonsense. Huckabee told the audience:

“If we teach the generation coming after us that it’s okay to terminate a human life because it represents a financial hardship or social disruption, what are we telling them?”

Huckabee is the kind of politician that doesn't fear to tread the paths where other GOP angels tend to slither away from.    

In this speech, Huckabee chided his compatriots for shying away from the subject of abortion which he sees as a sure-fire election-winning issue. (Somebody should have told him that according to a 2013 poll, seven in ten Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade)

Huckabee ironically is attempting to connect a pair of unpopular positions and is expecting some kind of political gain.

Lebanon Suddenly Became More Gay-Friendly than 14 US states

by Nomad

Despite its myriad problems, (such as marketplace suicide bombings, factional divisions and refugees), the Middle-Eastern nation of Lebanon appears to be more progressive when it comes to equality rights for its gay minority than, say, Texas or Oklahoma.

According to Victoria Kim writing for PolicyMic:

LGBT rights activists in Lebanon are celebrating a historic ruling that reversed the criminalization of gay sex in Lebanon.

The recent case was highlighted a quarterly magazine called Legal Agenda, published by an NGO of the same name.

Judge Naji El Dahdah, of Jdeide Court, Beirut, threw out the case, in which the Lebanese state accused a transgender woman of having a same-sex relationship with a man, on January 28. The verdict relied on a December 2009 ruling by Judge Mounir Suleiman that consensual homosexual relations were not "against nature" and could therefore not be prosecuted under article 534 of Lebanon's penal code, which prohibits sexual relations that are "contradicting the laws of nature," and makes them punishable by up to a year in prison. "Man is part of nature and is one of its elements, so it cannot be said that any one of his practices or any one of his behaviors goes against nature, even if it is criminal behavior, because it is nature's ruling," Suleiman said.

This latest development comes after what some saw as last years' crackdown of a very discreet underground gay scene.

Compare that to the states in the US that  still have anti-sodomy laws on their books. Despite a 2003 Supreme Court decision  to invalidate an earlier ruling in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, fourteen states have yet to abolish the laws. The Supreme Court ruled that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution. 

And yet, Alabama,  Florida, Idaho,  Kansas,  Louisiana,  Michigan,  Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia all have retained the unconstitutional laws. While these states have no way to enforce the laws, they have also not been repealed at a state level. Although obsolete, the laws have been used have been used to stop gay Americans from adopting and fostering children and gaining custody of their own kids.