The Declaration of Independence is the oldest legal document of the U.S. Federal Government. It is also a foundational statement in U.S. law. Because it was passed before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, and because it was written by the Second Continental Congress and not by the U.S. Congress, it is not formally a part of U.S. law. However, it most certainly is recognized as the inspiration for U.S. law, and is one of the most-cited documents in American political discussions. The original hangs in the National Archives in Washington, D.C. right next to the Constitution. If it is not technically U.S. law, it might as well be.

Those of us who have read the Declaration know that it opens with a brief discussion of the legitimacy of government. The authors of the Declaration argue that human beings possess “unalienable rights,” that is, natural human freedoms that no government is allowed to take away. Unalienable is a very strong word. It means that personal freedoms are not dispensed by the government as a privilege for lawful behavior . Citizens possess these rights naturally, and the government cannot take them away under any circumstances. The chosen word is unalienable, not closely associated with, or usually attendant, or granted in exchange for good behavior.

Two fine points can be made about this. First, since the rights are natural and unalienable, this means it is not necessary for a person to be a citizen to qualify for them. Foreign-born individuals have rights just as well as citizens. It is not our option to take away rights from foreigners any more than it is our option to take them from our own. Of course our country must defend itself against aggressors, but this does not mean we get to trample on their rights to do so. If we hold that rights are revocable under certain circumstances then we are also saying that the U.S. government has the right to revoke rights at its pleasure. That is, rights are no longer unalienable. This may be a credible argument but let us not allow the fiction of saying that the revocability of is consistent with the Declaration. It most certainly is not.

The second fine point is that the government, in the language of Constitutional law, guarantees rights, but does not grant them. The Declaration clearly states that the people consent to government only because the people want their rights guaranteed. If the government cannot guarantee natural rights, that government should not exist. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” Language cannot be any plainer than that.

The Declaration says that the people should not cast aside its government for “transient and light causes,” but also points out that it is the citizens’ duty to remove any leadership whose end-purpose is despotism. And the Founders used that precise word, duty, to describe our responsibility in this: “[W}hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” The only question before us is this: Are we experiencing a “long train of abuses,” or merely “transient and light causes”?

In the course of his presidency, our Commander and Chief is guilty of the following transgressions. All of these offenses exceed transient and light. Many involved the deaths of thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of foreigners.

He has entered the United States into a state of war under false pretenses.

He has cited possession of weapons of mass destruction as the reason for an invasion of Iraq, a claim now publicly understood to be false.

He has cited a material link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group Al-Qaeda as another reason for this war, a claim also publicly understood to be false.

He has failed to provide adequate medical care for troops severely wounded and otherwise harmed in the war in Iraq.

He was criminally negligent in the slowness of his response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

He and his entire cabinet went on vacation the day prior to the predicted landfall of Hurricane Katrina, despite dire warning by experts of the severity of this storm. The President never called his Cabinet back into order after the storm, and he himself did not return from vacation until over a thousand Americans perished.

He has refused, after Hurricane Katrina, to ease the financial difficulties of Gulf Coast governments by suspending the Stafford Act, a set of regulations that has greatly slowed recovery. Mr. Bush suspended the Stafford Act for New York City after the World Trade Center attacks, so this reluctance can only be seen as intentional.

He has repeatedly instructed government officials to eavesdrop on private telephone conversations without warrant.

He has permitted U.S. officials to maintain records of domestic cell phone calls even on individuals under no suspicion of criminal activities.

He has suspended the writ of habeus corpus in cases concerning terrorism, and has done so without seeking the approval of either Congress or the judicial system.

He has held foreign citizens in prisons without trial for indefinite periods of time.

He has publicly stated that he believes torture is an appropriate means of obtaining information under certain circumstances. He has never been forthright about what these circumstances are.

He has jeopardized the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq by repeatedly ignoring the advice of his own generals.

He, or a member of his staff, is responsible for publicly releasing the name of a secret CIA agent, which is in violation of the law and risks the life of both the agent and her informants.

He has neglected to cooperate with federal investigations to identify the individual who leaked the name of this CIA agent. This is in clear violation of his constitutional responsibility as chief law enforcement officer of the land to protect national security.

He has authorized billions of dollars in no-bid contracts for the Iraqi War to companies with clear ties to his administration.

He and his administration orchestrated the insertion of language into a Congressional bill that stripped Congress of its right to confirm appointments of U.S. Attorneys. He then used this new power to fire 8 U.S. Attorneys without cause and replace them with prosecutors with loyalties to his administration.

He has publicly asserted his right to read U.S. citizens’ private mail for “emergency reasons” and without a warrant, even though there is no evidence to date that terrorists have been using the U.S. Mail for communications.

He has repeatedly issued signing statements -- that is, public statements made after he has signed a bill into law -- in which he modified the law or even declared that he does not intend to obey it. On March 9, 2006 he issued a signing statement announcing that he does not intend to abide by a provision in the Patriot Act requiring him to report to Congress on the FBI's use of warrantless seizures.

He has gravely damaged the reputation of the U.S. abroad with his pre-emptive attack on Iraq. The perceived injustice of this attack has inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and has increased, rather than decreased, the terrorist threat to the United States.

He has eroded U.S.-European relations significantly by demonstrating a willingness to defy international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions.

Some would argue that, since this president’s term will expire in less than two years, that impeachment is not necessary. This argument makes two errors. First, it assumes that criminal acts should not be punished. Second, it ignores the possibility that the President’s successor could continue to expand on these abuses. If a leader is not called to account for abuse of power, this leaves an open invitation for later leaders to continue down the road to despotism.

The augmentation of power is a temptation to every powerful leader, no matter how good. Though it is right that we treat our leaders with respect and kindness, it is also understood that the rights of the people supercede the comforts and sensibilities of a leader in every circumstance. It is not enough to argue that impeachment is humiliating. It is also humiliating to be imprisoned without charges. It is not enough to argue that difficult times require extreme measures. Human history is fraught with difficult times, and despotism often materializes shortly after difficulty. Despotism leads to even more difficult times, and often to revolution and bloodshed. The President has called upon thousands of soldiers to sacrifice for freedom. He might consider his own impeachment a sacrifice.

This dispute is not about one man, or group of men. It is not even about one political party, or even one generation. If freedom is a true right it must pass intact to our grandchildren. And this must happen even if it means sacrifice for our own. The President could prevent most of that suffering if he would see the nation as a greater good than his own ambitions. A nation that has gone through forty-two presidents already will not shudder at the loss of another. But this same nation will be destroyed if it loses, or even compromises, its freedom and the dignity of its citizens.

There is nothing to lose in putting a leader in his place. But if we fall into the trap of thinking that our fortunes and the fortunes of a political leader are one in the same, we have already lost, and our leader has gained irretrievable power.

-- Michael C. Hébert