From a village green…
About 12 miles outside of Brattleboro, Vt., there sits in serene isolation at the foot of a little mountain the wee town of Newfane, founded in 1761 — 26 years before the Constitution was written. Local promoters say the community of 1,680-some citizens has one recommended place to eat — the Four Columns Inn — and one recommended place to stay — the Four Columns Inn, “tucked away on a tranquil village green…”.
The town’s website points out that Newfane sits in the geographic center of a collection of towns with such names as Townshend, Dummerston and Wardsboro, and it adds wryly: “There isn’t even the slightest suggetion that one can necessarily travel directly from one town to the next…”
But after Tuesday, Newfane — less isolated, and perhaps less serene — was on the national news map. Begining at 9 a.m., Newfane took part in that venerated New England exercise in direct democracy — the town meeting — and sent word of its displeasure to Washington, D.C.
By a paper ballot vote of 121 to 29, according to news accounts, the town meeting approved the last item of scheduled business on the agenda, Article 29.
That item read (verbatim):
“ARTICLE 29: We the voters of Newfane would like Town Meeting, March 2006, to consider the following resolution:
“Whereas George W. Bush has:
“1. Misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction;
“2. Misled the nation about ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda;
“3. Used these falsehoods to lead our nation into war unsupported by international law;
“4. Not told the truth about American policy with respect to the use of torture; and
“5. Has directed the government to engage in domestic spying, in direct contravention of U.S. law.
“Therefore, the voters of the town of Newfane ask that our representative to the U.S. House of Representatives file articles of impeachment to remove him from office.”
Vermont’s only Representative is the Independent Bernie Sanders, as much a manverick in the House as Newfane is in Windham County, Vermont.
Of course, with Republicans in control of the House, the Newfane resolution is almost certainly doomed. Still, the town’s website may now have another entry for its promotional category, “goings-on in southern Vermont.”
(UPDATE: A helpful reader points out that three other southern Vermont towns, all near Newfane, also approved impeachment resolutions on Tuesday. Here is a story from the Rutland, Vt., Herald describing those actions. Another reader suggests [see attached] a recollection of the “Hartford Convention.” Here is a summary of that interesting historical event.)
(COMMENT: For those readers wondering what this has to do with the Supreme Court, it should be noted that the blog’s range of interest includes other topics that bear on the functioning of the constitutional order. There are rising murmurs in Washington and around the country about the impeachment question — see, for example, Harold Meyerson’s column, here, in the Washington Post.)
These New England goings-on bring to mind the Hartford Convention.
Comment by The NJ Annuitant — March 8, 2006 @ 10:56 am
On your comment under the update, it’s also worth pointing out that Chief Justice Roberts would provide over any impeachment hearings if the U.S. House were to vote to bring any charges before the Senate. I think that has something to do with the Supreme Court.
Comment by Jeremy Pierce — March 8, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
Even so, SCOTUSblog has, up to this point, been a blessed oasis in the blogosphere, relatively free of partisan political rant in the main posts. Perhaps it was too good to last.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — March 8, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
I don’t see why impeachment of Bush is necessarily a partisan issue. Impeaching him for his social security plan would be partisan. Impeaching him for illegal wiretapping should not be. And I don’t see how anyone can consider starting a war under false premises, resulting in thousands of lives lost and billions of defense dollars wasted, not to be treason.
Comment by billposer — March 9, 2006 @ 6:34 am
“And I don’t see how anyone can consider starting a war under false premises, resulting in thousands of lives lost and billions of defense dollars wasted, not to be treason.”
Because I have actually read and understand Article III section 3 of the Constitution of the United States.
In addition, the legal question you pose is moot, because its factual premise is false.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — March 10, 2006 @ 11:14 am
I don’t see how merely reporting on people who want to start an impeachment process counts as partisan.
Comment by Jeremy Pierce — March 10, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
Apparently the concept of impeachment, by definition, is partisan. Even mentioning the word turns a blog post into partisan politics. An interesting perspective.
Comment by Steve M — March 10, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
“Even mentioning the word turns a blog post into partisan politics. An interesting perspective.”
I suppose it would be, if anyone had stated such a proposition, but no one in this thread has. Are you perhaps referring to something stated elsewhere?
My own earlier comment regarding partisanship referred to a general trend I have noticed in SCOTUSblog of late and not to this post in particular. It is a trend that I would think is obvious to any regular reader of the blog and which I hope is a temporary aberration.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — March 11, 2006 @ 11:55 am
A comment I received by email indicates I have not sufficiently clarified my point. I will try again.
In my view SCOTUSblog has been, and remains to this point, relatively free of the partisanship that is characteristic of most blogs. I consider than a point in its favor and hope it will continue. However, I have seen a few indications of a drift including, but not solely, the decision to post the particular item at the top of this thread.
One indication is simply the choice of words used to describe things. The controversial NSA surveillance program, for example, can be described in a variety of ways. The one time that the program is referred to as a “terrorist surveillance program” that phrase is put in quotes so as to distance the writer from the phrase, as if to say “I certainly don’t think that is what it is.” On the other hand, the same program is referred to as a “domestic spying program” without quotes. Whether monitoring of a call between the United States and a location in, e.g., Iraq constitutes “domestic spying” is a point in contention. A person trying to be neutral would choose a different phrase or distance himself from it with quote marks or with a qualification such as “so-called.”
Another indication is the choice of what is newsworthy. Anyone reporting news must necessarily sift through a large number of potential stories to select a few that are sufficiently newsworthy, reliable, and pertinent to the theme of the publication to warrant selection. Partisan position can influence that choice. The most notorious example was the decision of Dan Rather and 60 Minutes to go ahead with the National Guard memos story despite the dubious nature of both the documents and their source. It is painfully obvious that if the partisan implications of the story had been reversed, that story would never have been broadcast.
The “village green” story says that a handful of people in Vermont have passed a resolution with five disputed premises calling for the impeachment of President Bush. That seems to me to be very low on the newsworthiness meter and to have only a very tangential connection to the theme of this blog. The fact that it made the cut, in my opinion, adds to the other indications of a partisan drift.
Lest there be any doubt, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with a blog having a slant to one side or the other. Nearly all do. SCOTUSblog’s relative neutrality has been one of its unique aspects, but if the sponsors of the blog wish to abandon it, there is certainly their choice to make. In my own humble opinion, though, that would be a net loss to the blogosphere. Those who wish to read attacks on President Bush have a smorgasbord of choices already. A blog that stays focused on the Supreme Court and on matters with a direct and substantial connection to present and likely forthcoming cases, and which maintains a substantially neutral tone in its reporting, is a unique and valuable contribution. I would be disappointed to see it end.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — March 12, 2006 @ 11:37 am
Kent, I have noticed the same thing regarding the language on the NSA program posts – the recent posts have been quite jarring in contrast to other controversial topics such as the handling of detainees
Comment by Ben Kennedy — March 13, 2006 @ 4:05 pm