The Self-Importance of Being Berkeley

The city government needs to know its role

By Alexander Marlow
From the September 2006 Print Edition

It seems like Berkeley, of all places, has taken a liking to Speaker of the House Denny Hastert, or at least to his constitutional powers.

The Berkeley City Council unanimously approved a referendum to appear on the November ballot that will poll Berkeley citizens on the question of impeaching the U.S. president and vice president. But regardless of the vote’s outcome, the referendum is a failure: it is illogical, costly, and falsely premised.

The referendum is neither legally sensible nor logical as it merely advises Congress to carry out impeachment. It also has no legal weight, instead it meekly declares 

… THAT THE PEOPLE OF BERKELEY (1) CALL UPON THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD B. CHENEY; (2) CALL UPON THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO SUBMIT A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; DIRECTING THAT COMMUNICATIONS TO THOSE EFFECTS BE SENT TO APPROPRIATE PARTIES; AND (3) ESTABLISH A TEMPORARY CITY OF BERKELEY TASK FORCE ON IMPEACHMENT. 

Translation: (1) Berkeley will ask Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney; and (2) Berkeley will ask the California State Legislature to do the same (3) there will be a costly committee established in Berkeley to numbingly repeat steps (1) and (2). 

Unsurprisingly, Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates supports the referendum: “Look at what [George Bush] has done to shred the Constitution … Imagine if there was a constitutional crisis and nobody noticed.” Ironically enough, Berkeley is the city suffering from a “constitutional crisis.” The rogue city is taking a (likely drug induced) stab at involving itself in impeachment proceedings, despite the fact that only Congress possesses the power to impeach.

The referendum will establish a wasteful and ineffectual extension of the city government because only Congress can impeach the president, and although hard to fathom for Berkeley officials, Congressional Republicans will not impeach Bush.

If the referendum imposed no cost on the city, it would be laughable. But adding the measure to the ballot will cost $10,000, and the costs of the new task force are still unknown. Hence the reason why Berkeleyans consistently pay the highest city and county taxes in the state — they vote to spend money without expecting results. Even investing $10,000 in Constitutional classes for Berkeley’s public officials would produce a more tangible return.

As usual, Berkeley officials ignore reality. In the face of the referendum’s uselessness, Mayor Bates contended that it “… is basically giving the people a chance to talk, to join the debate.” But is debate Berkeley’s goal? 

The Peace and Justice Commission of the Berkeley City Council, the committee first approving the referendum, recommended in September 2005 the City Council join the “Cities against the Death Penalty” organization. A city is not open for debate when it claims to speak for all of its citizens on controversial issues. Only the council’s flimsy grasp of constitutional law is debatable at this point.

The Peace and Justice Commission has a bad habit of trying to define Berkeley as a liberal city, even if it costs taxpayer money to state the obvious. In the last year, it has moved to endorse the U.N. Concert for Peace and the Fifth Annual Berkeley Peace Lantern Ceremony. To top it off, the commission recommended the Pentagon withdraw the National Guard from Iraq. Time and money are wasted on empty gestures.

What’s more, even the premises behind the referendum are false. Geoffrey King, Cal grad and co-founder of the Constitution Summer organization helping to draft the referendum explained the referendum: “We’re talking about a perfect storm of torture, domestic surveillance and lying.” 

Regarding torture, in March of 2005, the Navy inspector general reported that there existed only seven confirmed cases of prisoner abuse out of 24,000 interrogations at Guantanamo, and unlike our enemies, Americans disciplined those responsible for these abuses. Furthermore, al-Qaeda operatives are conditioned to charge abuse when detained.

Regarding domestic surveillance, after the 9/11 attacks, Congress gave Bush the power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to stop domestic terrorism, and a congressionally approved patriot act expanded the governments’ surveillance powers. By no means is Bush the only public official behind surveillance.

Presumably King’s reference to “lying” suggests George Bush fabricated intelligence to wage war. Unfortunately King confuses bad intelligence with lying. If Bush lied when he said Saddam Hussein had and/or was pursing WMDs, than so did the CIA, French Intelligence, British Intelligence, German Intelligence, Jordanian Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, Egyptian Intelligence, the U.N., Director George Tenet, Former President Clinton, weapons inspector David Kay, Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, just to name a few.

The referendum is yet another unproductive example of silly liberal attempts to oust Republicans from power. However, I am grateful Berkeley officials are concentrating on a silly referendum, instead of pursing a realistic goal such as electing Democrats to office. This referendum formally articulates that Berkeleyans don’t like Dubya. Considering only 6.6 percent of Berkeley residents voted for him in 2004, no one will be surprised.

And besides, even if Bush and Cheney do get the boot, Hastert will be ready to fill in — I can hear the cries for a new commission and his impeachment already.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot