LA City Council to consider Presidential impeachment resolution?

rosevsbush.jpgOn Friday, will the City of Los Angeles follow West Hollywood and seven other California cities in passing a resolution calling for the impeachment of George W Bush and Dick Cheney?

According to “The People’s Email Network”, Councilman Bill Rosendahl will be approaching City Council tomorrow to do just that:

Bill Rosendahl, LA 11st District City Councilman, is set to introduce a resolution before the Los Angeles City Council on Friday August 17th to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

No mention of a similar resolution is listed on the City Council’s current agenda for Friday (.pdf). However, a “Pro-Impeachment ‘Presence’ Rally” is planned to being in front of City Hall 9:30am tomorrow morning , the last day Council will meet before their three week summer vacation.

The protest is being organized by the Los Angeles Impeachment Center who’s website notes that Rosendahl would “definitely” back such a measure calling for impeachment.

Other Councilmembers they’ve marked as possible supporters include Jack Weiss (“might me amenable to resolution”), Richard Alarcon (“strong possibility”), Herb Wesson (“definitely receptive”), Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, and Eric Garcetti (all three “possibles”). Dennis P. Zine is the only one listed as a firm negative.

I’m certainly not opposed to the idea of impeachment, but is it really practical to pursue when less than 18 months remain until Bush and Cheney will be out of office? And more to the current topic, is it really an issue our City Council should be spending their time and our resources considering?

23 Replies to “LA City Council to consider Presidential impeachment resolution?”

  1. Given how totally cocked up the operation of the City of Los Angeles is, department by department, day after day, these guys really need to get their priorities straight. Their sentiments are appreciated, but I’d much rather have Bill come down to my district and fill potholes or make himself useful in some more practical way.

  2. No kidding there are more important issues facing this city than to put out useless votes and resolutions that won’t change the course of anything except make a few people feel warm and fuzzy. Peeing in a wet suit accomplishes the same thing.

  3. I respectfully disagree. The national political corruption set in place by Bush and Cheney is at an all time high. Agenda’s like this, at least raise perception that we don’t want a Facist government who daily supports eroding the American people’s rights, to stay in place. One day more is too long to endure. Spying on Americans, lying under oath (Gonzalez) not releasing documents when demanded, assisting in cover-ups of law-breaking activities. All daily fodder in the Bush administration. If Congress won’t do it, let local governments start the tide of change. Yes, there’s lots of stuff for the Council to work on in the city… but when things have gotten so bad that local governments feel the need to step in, I think they deserve support. They have mine.

  4. Shouldn’t they first tackle something that’s actually THEIR JOB first?

    Fix my fucking potholes and then talk to me about impeachment.

  5. well, if you have issues with the City Council debating impeachment, then you will love the fact that the local silver lake neighborhood council spent time and (our) money debating a motion to impeach the President a few months ago! WTF is a neighborhood council doing wasting our tax money discussing impeachment? but i guess since they are controlled by pro-development forces and have yet to meet a corporate condo complex that they oppose, they have to spend their time talking about something! meanwhile silver lake continues to sprout faux modern condo-monsters like kudzu while traffic on our streets crawls to a standstill.

  6. Quite frankly, I was afraid to click onto the comments here but this thread has most definitely restored faith in my fellow citizens ; )

  7. Trixkidz: We Valley Village residents are having the same issue with the pop-up condos.

    Though thankfully, our neighborhood council has been adamantly opposed to such growth…going so far as to lodge a formal complaint with Wendy Greuel.

    My suggestion…next time your council elections come ’round, vote the bastards out : )

  8. Goddamit, I really would like to attend the Pro-Impeachment ‘Presence’ Rally but I have other plans. And I agree with what Tammara said.

  9. It may not do shit in the end, but it still sends a clear message. The second largest city in the nation voting to impeach Bush. OK, just the City Council…but what percentage of Angelenos (and I mean LA proper, of course) voted against Bush in 00 and 04? Even the people who voted for Bush, how many are disgusted by his administration now?

  10. If you’re for or against impeachment, that’s A WHOLE SEPARATE ISSUE.

    Cities can no more vote to impeach a president than they can vote to outlaw underpants or make France disappear. This is like the ants living under my house getting together and deciding to sell my house to a clown college – mind-bendingly RETARDED!

    Suggesting otherwise is to have these City Council nitiwits waste time (paid for with OUR MONEY) on stuff that is not their business and can never in a million years have any effect.

    I guess we should all go to these meetings and tell them so – but gee whiz that smacks of, well, effort….

  11. What Ruth said.

    BTW…Bill Rosendahl’s Office Issues Statement on Impeachment

    After considering the issue further, Councilman Rosendahl has determined it would be inappropriate for the City Council to take action on this issue. While it is an issue he feels passionately about, the City Council has no jurisdiction or power in impeachment proceedings, and introducing a support resolution would be unnecessarily divisive, and would distract the City Council from pressing matters within its jurisdiction.

    In other words, stop wasting everyone’s time and let’s all MoveOn dot org.

  12. Thanks, Ugly!

    And what a relief to see a glimmer of rational thought in the City Council – I really didn’t want to have to turn my house into a clown college.

  13. Quick Civics lesson, folks –

    The Founders who prevailed wanted a government of the people, by the people and for the people – so they provided a way to come from the bottom up to reach to the top government officials, whom the people have directly or indirectly placed there as their representatives. Jefferson’s Manual pertaining to House rules (adopted by the current House) allows state legislatures to ask for impeachment – and any citizen of California, let alone a city the size of Los Angeles, has the right to inform the state government of their wishes.
    Once any state does proclaim its intention to ask for an impeachment investigation to begin, it is accepted by the House and sent to the Judicial Committee, where it may or may not proceed to the full House for consideration.

    So, depending on your evaluation of the Bush administration, and your viewpoint concerning that which constitutes America and being an American, this might be a very important thing for all concerned – or maybe not.

  14. Rick

    Thanks for the concise definition on the Constitution and Jefferson’s Manual.

    1990 – LA City Council passed a resolution that banned the city government from doing business with any company that had foreign operations in RSA (South Africa). Well I was an American living and working in RSA for a little known private company called Andersen. That LA city resolution put all companies in RSA on notice that Apartheid’s days were limited. Proof of that for me was when 2 Managing Partners (both South African) making 7 USD figures working in RSA got transfers out of their home countries after this LA City Council Resolution.

    Let’s keep it simple. All elected officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution is their EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK. They violate their employee handbook – they should be fired.

    Why should LA City Council give a damn about Washington & possible violations to consider impeachment (1) They are the second largest city in the USA – the world will take notice (2) They were sworn in with an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution – they violate their employee handbook – they should be fired. For details on violations of Constitution by the Bush Administration (both Conservative & Liberal Constitutional experts) refer to Bill Moyers Talking Impeachment special (3) CA has the largest number of casualties and wounded US military that we know of – their constituents are coming home in coffins. (4) If as a City Council they do not denounce the violations of the Constitution this President and administration have done LA City Council are saying “we think that is okay”.

    Oh btw, I was one of those “nuts” that went to LA city council today – and above is what I told them.

    “The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis”. Dante

    http://www.bcimpeach.com
    http://www.youtube.com/voiceofamericans2008

  15. your facts are no longer current…

    more than 71 percent of the 119 communities who have taken on the task of voting FAVOR impeaching bush AND cheney.

    Board Approves Resolution Asking Congress To Impeach Bush, Cheney
    Resolution Passed 20-3
    UPDATED: 11:40 am CDT August 17, 2007

    MADISON, Wis. — The Dane County Board of Supervisors passed a controversial resolution early Friday morning to ask Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
    VIDEO: Watch The Report
    The resolution was approved by a 20-3 margin with two board members abstaining and 12 others were absent. The vote took place after 1 a.m. and many board members had left, WISC-TV reported.
    Earlier in the evening as the board took up the resolution and others, supporters of the measure held a rally outside. Some wore armbands to show solidarity for impeachment. Impeachment supporters wore the color orange, and organizers said that the demonstration was part of the new “orange for change” movement going on across the nation.

    The Impeachment Coalition of Dane County organized a mock funeral at the rally, complete with caskets labeled “Democracy” and “The Constitution.” Organizers aid that while they support the resolution, they’re pushing more for accountability than actual impeachment.
    “In the overall scheme of things, the vote isn’t all that important,” said rally organizer Dennis Coyier of the Impeachment Coalition of Dane County. “What’s important is that we’re here showing solidarity. We want to take out country back and bring it back to what it was, the principles on where we founded it upon, which are being destroyed,”
    As the board considered the resolution, several Dane County supervisors spoke out against it, saying it has nothing to do local matters. They called the debate a waste of county time and money, WISC-TV reported.
    Dane County Board Member John Kendrick defended the idea of considering the resolution.
    “Even though some people say this is not county business, apparently this is our job as it is your job as citizens,” he said. “We all have to defend the U.S. Constitution, and this is where it starts tonight, thank you.”
    According to a national Web site that tracks the movement, similar impeachment resolutions have already passed in 85 cities, townships, villages and counties around the U.S. Measures are pending in about 50 other communities while the resolutions have failed to pass in 34 others. (that’s 71.5 percent of the communities voting IN FAVOR of impeachment)
    In related news, the board also voted early Friday morning in favor of resolution establishing a Regional Transit Authority. (Read related story)

    http://www.channel3000.com/news/13914908/detail.html

    20 Congress Members for impeaching Cheney and 28 for Gonzales.
    http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25859

  16. Editorial

    Should impeachment have been on council’s agenda?
    September 1, 2007

    Earlier this month, a Portland City Council meeting opened, as I assume all of them do, with the Pledge of Allegiance. “I pledge allegiance … and to the republic …”
    It is my opinion that a half-hour later some councilors reneged on their pledge. Ms. Jill Duson’s resolution for impeachment came up for discussion and was defeated.
    If you believe as I do that our republic, our Constitution and its amendments are under attack from the current administration, then it is one’s duty as a citizen and elected official to say so.
    Several of the councilors made comments to the effect that while they are personally not opposed to impeachment, they didn’t think it was City Council business.
    OK, I was willing to concede that their position could at least merit a discussion, until I made a trip to City Hall. At the city clerk’s office, I was given a copy of the oath of office for council members.
    The very first words of that oath are, “I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” If a councilor does not believe that there have been offenses against the Constitution, a “nay” vote was warranted.
    However, if councilors believe that impeachable offenses have occurred, their oath of office for their city councilor position requires them to support the Constitution and vote “yes” for the impeachment resolution.
    Their oath of office makes the Constitution of the United States part of city business, and they should have “faithfully discharged the duties incumbent on them according to said Constitution.”
    Pete Cavanaugh
    http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=131069&ac=PHedi

  17. Editorial

    Should impeachment have been on council’s agenda?
    September 1, 2007

    Earlier this month, a Portland City Council meeting opened, as I assume all of them do, with the Pledge of Allegiance. “I pledge allegiance … and to the republic …”
    It is my opinion that a half-hour later some councilors reneged on their pledge. Ms. Jill Duson’s resolution for impeachment came up for discussion and was defeated.
    If you believe as I do that our republic, our Constitution and its amendments are under attack from the current administration, then it is one’s duty as a citizen and elected official to say so.
    Several of the councilors made comments to the effect that while they are personally not opposed to impeachment, they didn’t think it was City Council business.
    OK, I was willing to concede that their position could at least merit a discussion, until I made a trip to City Hall. At the city clerk’s office, I was given a copy of the oath of office for council members.
    The very first words of that oath are, “I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” If a councilor does not believe that there have been offenses against the Constitution, a “nay” vote was warranted.
    However, if councilors believe that impeachable offenses have occurred, their oath of office for their city councilor position requires them to support the Constitution and vote “yes” for the impeachment resolution.
    Their oath of office makes the Constitution of the United States part of city business, and they should have “faithfully discharged the duties incumbent on them according to said Constitution.”
    Pete Cavanaugh
    http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=131069&ac=PHedi

  18. Editorial

    Should impeachment have been on council’s agenda?
    September 1, 2007

    Earlier this month, a Portland City Council meeting opened, as I assume all of them do, with the Pledge of Allegiance. “I pledge allegiance … and to the republic …”
    It is my opinion that a half-hour later some councilors reneged on their pledge. Ms. Jill Duson’s resolution for impeachment came up for discussion and was defeated.
    If you believe as I do that our republic, our Constitution and its amendments are under attack from the current administration, then it is one’s duty as a citizen and elected official to say so.
    Several of the councilors made comments to the effect that while they are personally not opposed to impeachment, they didn’t think it was City Council business.
    OK, I was willing to concede that their position could at least merit a discussion, until I made a trip to City Hall. At the city clerk’s office, I was given a copy of the oath of office for council members.
    The very first words of that oath are, “I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” If a councilor does not believe that there have been offenses against the Constitution, a “nay” vote was warranted.
    However, if councilors believe that impeachable offenses have occurred, their oath of office for their city councilor position requires them to support the Constitution and vote “yes” for the impeachment resolution.
    Their oath of office makes the Constitution of the United States part of city business, and they should have “faithfully discharged the duties incumbent on them according to said Constitution.”
    Pete Cavanaugh
    http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=131069&ac=PHedi

  19. Editorial

    Should impeachment have been on council’s agenda?
    September 1, 2007

    Earlier this month, a Portland City Council meeting opened, as I assume all of them do, with the Pledge of Allegiance. “I pledge allegiance … and to the republic …”
    It is my opinion that a half-hour later some councilors reneged on their pledge. Ms. Jill Duson’s resolution for impeachment came up for discussion and was defeated.
    If you believe as I do that our republic, our Constitution and its amendments are under attack from the current administration, then it is one’s duty as a citizen and elected official to say so.
    Several of the councilors made comments to the effect that while they are personally not opposed to impeachment, they didn’t think it was City Council business.
    OK, I was willing to concede that their position could at least merit a discussion, until I made a trip to City Hall. At the city clerk’s office, I was given a copy of the oath of office for council members.
    The very first words of that oath are, “I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” If a councilor does not believe that there have been offenses against the Constitution, a “nay” vote was warranted.
    However, if councilors believe that impeachable offenses have occurred, their oath of office for their city councilor position requires them to support the Constitution and vote “yes” for the impeachment resolution.
    Their oath of office makes the Constitution of the United States part of city business, and they should have “faithfully discharged the duties incumbent on them according to said Constitution.”
    Pete Cavanaugh
    http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=131069&ac=PHedi

  20. Editorial

    Should impeachment have been on council’s agenda?
    September 1, 2007

    Earlier this month, a Portland City Council meeting opened, as I assume all of them do, with the Pledge of Allegiance. “I pledge allegiance … and to the republic …”
    It is my opinion that a half-hour later some councilors reneged on their pledge. Ms. Jill Duson’s resolution for impeachment came up for discussion and was defeated.
    If you believe as I do that our republic, our Constitution and its amendments are under attack from the current administration, then it is one’s duty as a citizen and elected official to say so.
    Several of the councilors made comments to the effect that while they are personally not opposed to impeachment, they didn’t think it was City Council business.
    OK, I was willing to concede that their position could at least merit a discussion, until I made a trip to City Hall. At the city clerk’s office, I was given a copy of the oath of office for council members.
    The very first words of that oath are, “I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” If a councilor does not believe that there have been offenses against the Constitution, a “nay” vote was warranted.
    However, if councilors believe that impeachable offenses have occurred, their oath of office for their city councilor position requires them to support the Constitution and vote “yes” for the impeachment resolution.
    Their oath of office makes the Constitution of the United States part of city business, and they should have “faithfully discharged the duties incumbent on them according to said Constitution.”
    Pete Cavanaugh
    http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=131069&ac=PHedi

Comments are closed.