Nota Bene: This is an open letter to Charlie Brown, Democratic candidate for CA-04’s open seat. I have notified the Brown campaign of this diary by email. It is also crossposted at Daily Kos.

***

Dear Charlie,

I supported you in your race against John Doolittle back in 2006. This year I would like to support you again in your open seat race against Tom McClintock. While I would never under any circumstances vote for Tom McClintock, as things stand right now I cannot in good conscience vote for you. I do not currently intend to cast a vote in the CA-04 House race.

Almost one year ago I decided to write to you because I wanted assurance from you on a matter that became very important to me after the 2006 elections. After a few brief formalities, I wrote the following:

Subject: A Constitutional Question

To: The Charlie Brown Campaign

Date: 10/1/07

… I have come to realize that my support depends entirely upon your answer to the following question:

Is the Congressional power of impeachment an oversight and investigative right which the House may exercise or not exercise at will, or is it an oversight and investigative duty which the House is obliged to fulfill for the sake of the Constitutional system itself?

I trust you can intuit the subtext of this inquiry.

A couple days later I received the following response from your campaign manager, Todd Stenhouse.

Subject: RE: A Constitutional Question

To: Me

Date: 10/3/07

Thank you for your question. Charlie asked me to respond to you directly on his behalf.

Charlie views the issue of impeachment as part of Congress’ oversight power – which includes everything from the power of the purse, to investigation, to censure, and on up the chain. That said, just like a district attorney may choose not to bring charges, so the House might choose not to bring impeachment charges.

As a number of investigations continue, the decision to actually vote on impeachment is a decision each member of the House must make – carefully considering the costs and benefits of such a decision – not just on the business of government, but the nation and world community as a whole.

For the past 6 years, we saw Congress essentially abdicate its responsibility to provide meaningful oversight over the Executive Branch – or to deliver the results the people need on so many issues – healthcare, global warming, education, and a horribly mismanaged foreign policy to name a few. The nation spoke loudly last November. Regardless of who the next President is, Charlie Brown will never forget who he works for, or what his responsibilities are as a member of Congress operating within the system of checks and balances.

Just over a year from the next election, Charlie’s focus is on bridging the growing divisions in our country, solving the problems we face, and the vital cause of electing new leadership to our Congress and White House in 2008. Only then, we believe, can we bring the sad era of corruption, incompetence, and scandal ridden partisan politics as usual to a close.

I hope this answers your question, and I hope we can count on your support in the months ahead

Thank you again for your inquiry.

To this I replied:

Subject: RE: A Constitutional Question

To: Todd Stenhouse, Charlie Brown’s Campaign Manager

Date: 10/10/07

Thank you for your reply. At the end of your email you said “I hope this answers your question, and I hope we can count on your support in the months ahead.” Unfortunately, no, you did not answer my question to my satisfaction. But I have not given up on you yet.

You wrote that “Charlie views the issue of impeachment as part of Congress’ oversight power—which includes everything from the power of the purse, to investigation, to censure, and on up the chain. That said, just like a district attorney may choose not to bring charges, so the House might choose not to bring impeachment charges.” Even if I put it in the best possible light, your answer is, in the end, a mere truism. Bringing impeachment charges implies the event of an actual vote of the full House on those charges. In such a vote the House does not have to vote (choose) to bring charges as they could vote against bringing charges.

The choice (the right) of a district attorney to bring charges or not is predicated upon there already having been an investigation into whether or not there are grounds to bring charges. The investigation is obligatory. While district attorneys often only review evidence and evaluate investigations conducted by law enforcement, in the House investigation, evaluation of evidence and the bringing of charges are combined in one body. The House functions to that extent less like a district attorney and more like a grand jury. While it is true that the House may ultimately vote not to bring charges, the question is really whether the House can choose not to investigate grounds for impeachment. That is why I did not ask merely about bringing charges, but about the investigation that necessarily precedes any decision over charges.

When I wrote initially I deliberately asked about the rights and duties of the office and chamber. I did this to spare you from having to answer the historical and specific version of my question. But perhaps I should ask it.

I agree with you that in the last 6 years we have seen “Congress essentially abdicate its responsibility to provide meaningful oversight over the Executive Branch.” For 5 years after 9/11 the Republicans proved themselves quite unwilling to provide such oversight. What I find reprehensible, however, is that in the one year since the Democrats took control of Congress they too have proven themselves unwilling to provide meaningful executive oversight. The reason for this delinquency is quite simple: Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table. Because of her decision Congress has left Bush’s claims of executive power entirely unchallenged and intact.

If Charlie is elected to Congress he will take an oath neither to me nor to you, nor to any party or any person. The oath will say nothing of “healthcare, global warming, education” or of our “horribly mismanaged foreign policy.” The oath will be to the Constitution itself – that would ultimately be “who he works for.” The oath would require him to affirm to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and it would require him to pledge his “true faith and allegiance to the same.” For a Congressman, when it comes to defending and supporting the Constitution there is no consideration of “the costs and benefits of such a decision.” He is duty bound in that regard.

Nancy Pelosi has forgotten and betrayed her oath of office. Her decision to take impeachment off the table has led to a dereliction of Congress’s Constitutional duty. Had a full investigation been allowed then it may very well have led inexorably to a vote on impeachment. But Pelosi had already said that impeachment was off the table. Consequently, no investigations could truly proceed and no oversight could truly take place. I consider her decision to take impeachment off the table every bit as dangerous to this country as George Bush’s extensions of executive power.

Indeed, Pelosi’s decision was arguably even more dangerous. The Constitution anticipates overextensions of executive power and provides impeachment as its specific remedy. Unlike “the power of the purse” and “censure,” impeachment speaks directly to the Constitutional question and has the express effect of defining and clarifying executive power. The Constitution, however, does not anticipate that Congress will render itself impotent by disavowing this remedial power because such a disavowal would grant the president de facto immunity from effective oversight and undermine the integrity of our system of checks and balances. That is, however, precisely what Pelosi has done.

So I can ask my question again in a different way: Does Charlie believe Nancy Pelosi had the right to “take impeachment off the table”?

If Charlie honestly believes that Pelosi had that right, then I, as a matter of conscience, will have to take my support for him off the table. More than that, however, if Charlie honestly believes Pelosi had that right then, should he be elected, he should not be able to take his oath of office in good conscience.

Now that I have told you where I stand on these matters, I hope you can tell me in specific terms where Charlie stands.

For several weeks I waited in vain for a response. Finally, I sent Todd Stenhouse another email:

Subject: RE: A Constitutional Question

To: Todd Stenhouse, Charlie Brown’s Campaign Manager

Date: 10/29/07

Todd,

Should I consider your lack of response to my reply an indication that you do not believe you can give me the assurance I require in order to pledge my support to Charlie Brown?

Unfortunately, that email went without reply as well.

Over the winter I decided to post the entire email exchange on Daily Kos. I hoped placing this discussion in a public forum would bring a response, and even if it didn’t I wanted to raise these points publicly because I believe all voters should demand that anyone who is running for Congress answer these questions and answer them rightly.

But between the holidays, the primaries, the summer, and the conventions the timing never seemed right. I have, however, run out of time. Circumstances now dictate that I cast my ballot on Monday, October 6, the first day of early voting here in California.

On all these matters I feel as strongly now as I did a year ago. With this open letter I am giving you one last chance to assure me that you are a man of integrity who will uphold the oath of the office for which you are running.

And so I ask my questions once again.

1. Is the Congressional power of impeachment an oversight and investigative right which the House may exercise or not exercise at will, or is it an oversight and investigative duty which the House is obliged to fulfill for the sake of the Constitutional system itself?

2. Do you believe Nancy Pelosi had the right to “take impeachment off the table”?

These questions ask the same thing in two different ways. You do not have to answer both of them, but if you want my vote you will have to give the right answer to one of them. If I do not receive a reply, or if I receive a reply with the wrong answer, then my vote will remain off the table.

Sincerely,

CA04 Voter