The column is here, at least for this week. Rauch is a very thoughtful and fair-minded columnist, and his criticisms are always worth taking seriously. Here's the start and the finish of the column:
Suppose, at least for the time it takes to read the next several paragraphs, that the ousting of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was a political railroading. Suppose the intention, whether out of malice or opportunism or both, was to overturn the 2006 election. What, actually, would that have looked like? And how different would it have looked from what happened last week?
I think that Blagojevich is probably a crook, and so does everyone else, so the question may seem academic. But it's not. Overturning an election is fundamentally antidemocratic and, in a democracy, potentially dangerous. When it needs to be done, the proceedings need to be objectively distinguishable from a railroading. In other words, the rules must be scrupulously fair. Otherwise, the process for removing corrupt politicians becomes, itself, indistinguishable from political corruption....
"Maybe one day it might happen to you," Blagojevich warned the state senators. He called his removal "a dangerous precedent that could have an impact on governors in Illinois and governors in other states."
He had a point. In the scramble to remove him, too many corners were cut. Not legal corners -- the law was faithfully executed -- but prudential ones. The press and the public were too quick to take a prosecutor's accusations at face value. The Illinois Legislature was too willing to act as an arm of the prosecution instead of an independent fact finder. And the political class was too cavalier about nullifying an election.
Whatever his wrongs, Blagojevich was right about this: The rules that removed him are not sufficiently distinguishable from a railroading, and they are wide open to abuse. We may find out, before long, that the door he was just shoved through swings both ways.
These two lines do not add up, because they amount to charging the public with being "antidemocratic".
Maybe the public's desire was rash and unwise. Maybe the impeachment of Blago by the legislators was rash or unwise. But then the legislators' were a reflection of the will of the people! Hard to see how that is antidemocratic in any way.
Is an elected term now subject what amounts to a popularity survey?
We talk about the problems of Wall Street because so many CEOs have to worry about the quarterly report instead of long-term progress.
Is there an analogy here?
An unpopular executive can be fired by the legislature anytime when it's clear that it's time for him to go. I'd prefer the "vote of no confidence" mechanism of parliamentary systems, but impeachment is the only thing we've got.
Granted, as a legal proceeding the impeachment may have left something to be desired. As a legislative initiative, it may be the most popular thing the Illinois legislature does this year.
The rarity of impeachments suggests that they are not performed lightly ... at least, below the Presidential level.
(not to speak of his manner of expression, which could have been created by David Mamet.)
He stiffed a hospital because it wouldn't pay him off. And it is a sure thing that he did this kind of thing habitually, and that there were many similar cases.
At the end of the day, the state constitution gives the legislature the right to do this. If this was so undemocratic, why is there no clamor for either amending the constitution or instead voting out the legislators?
Blago may have been discarded simply because he was greedy and reneged on a long standing revenue distribution agreement.
Alas, Obama now has to get rid of Fitzgerald (and, fast) and Fitz's replacement has to agree that Blago has suffered enough so that there is no further opportunity for discussion that might include Obama or Emanuel.
Does anyone doubt that 2 or 3 years ago, a bunch of Chicago/Illinois folks sat around a table and discussed Obama's candidacy and what information/documents would be withheld and why? Isn't it likely that both Blago and Emauel were at that meeting?
Does anyone doubt that 2 or 3 years ago, a bunch of Chicago/Illinois folks sat around a table and discussed Obama's candidacy and what information/documents would be withheld and why? Isn't it likely that both Blago and Emauel were at that meeting?"
No doubt Cheney and Addington have the NSA surveillance records of this meeting. Ask them. Cheney has made it clear he intends to remain active in national politics; he can actually see the terrorists from his front door!
Court cases are just railroading by jury!
Life is just railroading by God!
And don't get me started on trains!
The appointment was a train wreck, a PR stunt, and an insult to the people of Illinois. The fact that Burris himself is honest is beside the point. The decision to make any appointment at all in the midst of a scandal about trying to sell the seat was a terrible idea. To take such a serious step in Blago's patented off-the-cuff, governance by press conference manner was the act of a man coming unhinged. As such, it was a strong argument in favor of rapid action by the legislature. For Rauch to try and pas it off as a perfectly legitimate choice shows he doesn't understand the situation.
Does anybody doubt this meeting took place in the past, deep beneath Kenya, with Vampire Evis presiding, and that Vince Foster was the agreed upon sacrifice to the Dark God Nyarlthotep?
That's the way they roll in Chicago, you see. And if you disagree, your just another Obamabot. And by Obamabot I mean a literal android created by Obama.
All I'm saying is Obama has his father's eyes...
Plus, as people have said: it's an impeachment, not a criminal trial. How long is the state supposed to last with a governor under that kind of cloud, such that every act of his was tainted? (Of course, the country survived even though the Clinton impeachment dragged on, but Clinton's impeachable behavior didn't call into question every official act he took as president.)
The only real issue here is restrictions on calling witnesses. I have to admit I'm not quite sure what the point is of restrictions on discussing evidence in a criminal case (with Brady obligations and open record laws) AFTER the indictment is filed. And even then, the problem was that Blago didn't really try.
As for Rauch's bottom line question as to what a railroading would look like, I think a proceeding that relied on hearsay and the absence of real evidence would be much more of a railroading than Blago's impeachment. Using someone's own admissions against them doesn't strike me as much of a railroading, especially when the impeachee doesn't bother to explain those admissions.
"I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times. They have pervaded the country, from New England to Louisiana;--"
FWIW, I'm not convinced that the railroading-will-become-common reductio is so bad; at worst it makes us sort of like a parliamentary system, which hasn't been an unmitigated disaster for most of the world, I think.
When I got to this part:
I almost spit up my coffee. Impeachment is _hard_. Its so hard that Blago is the first governor in Illinois history to be impeached. This is in a state where 3 of his 7 predecessors wound up in prison.
My advice to future Governors who want to avoid being "railroaded" like Blago? Don't ask your subordinates to hold up reimbursements to a Children's Hospital because an administrator has failed to give you a $25K "campaign contribution"...especially when you know you are under federal investigation for corruption and your offices might be bugged.
Here's the thing. As a citizen of Illinois, I supported the impeachment because of the "evidence" that was presented on the tapes to the public and the legislature. But here's the rub--even if the entire tapes exonerated Blago from criminal activity as he claimed, I would still support the impeachment. Blago had a habit of ignoring the will of the voters, of being adversarial with the legislature to the point of making our state government ineffective, and he was a media whore who took no concrete steps to defend himself, instead enjoying his new found celebrity. That's not what I expect from my governor. If we had a recall process in IL, I'd have voted to recall him. But we don't, so I didn't have to: my representatives did it for me.
Thwarted in our attempts to get Recall, we had been pushing for impeachment.
The people got what they wanted. Blago apologists, especially those on the outside looking in, can keep their worthless two cents.
This may reflect that impeachment is difficult, but I think it also reflects the fact that Blago wasn't impeached simply because he was corrupt. Previous Illinois governors have been corrupt and have managed to ride out their terms in office. Blago was impeached because even before this he had already alienated everyone who was in a position to offer him support when these allegations came to light. If you've spent the past few years pissing people off, don't be surprised when nobody steps up to defend you.
Exactly. You can't very well complain about the process when you don't participate in the process.
Furthermore,the legislature is elected by the people, so it's hardly undemocratic.
If The People demanded a special election (assuming you can do that in IL), and they voted him out of office early, would Rauch consider that undemocratic as well?
-----------------------------------------------
It wouldn't have gotten a 59-0 vote. Or even 2/3.
It is the large supermajority - plus an unwritten rule that this should not be done merely because a Governor is unpopular with those in the legislature - that prevents casual impeachments.
It is more of an ethical than a legal restraint, but it matters, and cuts the number of legislators who might be willing to impeach even further.
We saw that happen in 1868 in the U.S. Congress. Andrew Johnson was not removed as President because a few senators did not feel right in doing so, even though they were with the Radical Republicans in a lot of things.
Of course the proceeding was not what it should have been. They were taking the transcripts on faith. But even the recordings that were played would have really been enough to impeach. And Blagojevich didn't actually say anything was wrong with the transcript.
It is really, as then House Majority leader Gerald Ford said in 1970 when trying to impeach Supreme Court Justuice William O. Douglas - an impeachable offense is what a majority of the House of Represenatuves says it is. (and sufficient cause is wahtever 2/3 of the Senate agrees)
The fact, as C.Gray mentioned upthread that three of the last seven governors ended up in prison (and now likely 4 of the last 8) shows that the Illinois Legislature has a high threshold of patience--but not when the state is being turned into a national laughingstock by a Governor who seemed intent on sullying his office with every official action.
In this respect, Governor Blagojevich's conduct was similar to that of Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton, who was pushed out of office three days earlier than expected because he was apparently selling pardons.
On top of that, impeachment is not the same thing as overturning an election. To overturn an election, the loser or the losing party should take office. That's what used to be possible when the person with the second most votes became president after a successful impeachment. But it doesn't happen anymore at the federal level, and I don't think Blago's republican opponent is now the Gov of Illinois.
Yes, which is why the authors of the Illinois constitution put in a provision that requires impeachment by the House and removal by two-thirds of the Senate. A minority of state senators could block the removal of an impeached official. This is another example of giving political minorities leverage in the system as well as maintaining checks and balances.
This is even more apparent in the U.S. Constitution, where each state gets two senators each. Thirty-four senators representing seventeen states with less than 8% of the population can block removal of an impeached official.
Perhaps not an unmitigated disaster, but the parliamentary system hasn't shown itself to be obviously superior either. And if people want a parliamentary system, I would prefer that they formally create one rather than manipulate the current system in a poor approximation of one.
And this isn't a case, it's an impeachment.
Meanwhile, Sarcastro: one of your best ever.
I think that Fitzgerald and the Illinois legislature showed an incredible lack of respect for the people and their government.
By failing to appear he disrespects the institution and the state constitution he was sworn to uphold. This is an independent basis for removing him from office, in addition to the underlying allegations.
It is not at all for professional disciplinary boards to remove someone from a profession for failing to cooperate with an investigation of them by the board. Why should the Illinois State Senate expect less.
The 5th Amendment doesn't apply in a civil or political context. If you aren't willing to address the charges against you on the merits and under oath, it is entirely appropriate to assume that you are guilty.
________________________________________________________
It is also worth noting that the U.S. provides extraordinary job security for elected Governors and Presidents.
There are only a handful of countries where a directly elected President is head of government. In most countries, a simple loss of a parliamentary majority can produce a between election removal of the head of government from power. Even in Illinois, it takes far more than that to remove a Governor.
Besides, every one of those Illinois representatives and senators will be running for reelection at the end of their respective terms. If the electorate thinks they overstepped their bounds in removing this raving fool, it can elect others in their place. I will bet, though, that no one runs against any one of these legislators on the "pro Bloggo" ticket.
Mr. Rauch is clearly off base. He must be a lawyer, not a politician.
In effect, all but one of Illinois's elected legislators told Bloggo what Ayers told Chamberlain after WWII reached England, quoting Cromwell:
A two-thirds requirement to remove an official is designed to make such a thing difficult and rare.
[1] Yes, I'm aware that the federal constitution has the same lack, and we'll suffer for it someday, if we haven't already. States can run recall elections, but a national recall election is probably unworkable. Way back in 1973, I thought Congress should propose an amendment adding gross incompetence to the grounds for impeachment. If that had been in place, they could have cut about a year out of the Watergate investigation and impeached Nixon on his own claims to have been unaware that, in his basement, his employees were plotting crimes and executing them using bags of $100 bills from his own campaign funds. If you didn't believe him, he was a crook, if you did, he was grossly incompetent...
Not that Nixon was actually incompetent or the most criminal President in my lifetime.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.