I read the Declaration of Independence aloud every Fourth; I try, with less success, to read Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail at least once a year.
It's an amazing read; FWIW I think it one of the great tragedies that Dr. King's writings and other speeches are all but eclipsed by the trot-em-out-in-February clips of the "I Have a Dream" speech. I'm no King scholar, but one can see a universe even in this relatively short letter. What's that got to do with impeachment? Well, in the case of our well-intentioned but keep-the-powder-dry leadership in Washington... everything. Follow...
I find the following passage searing in both its bluntness and its concise analysis; I can only imagine its effect in 1963. I won't do a line edit, but here's my point: is Pelosi and her ilk the "white moderate" of 2007? Read it now, with the Constitutional crises of habeas corpus, wiretapping, commutation, torture, and name-your-tragedy in mind:
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another mans freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro the wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating that absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Okay, a tough diagnosis. But, what to do about it? Let's read on:
... I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.
It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrations. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end or racial injustice. As T.S. Eliot has said, "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason." [emph added]
Sadly, I'm no editor, so I can't get the sense of that passage any tighter. But here's what I think it says to the "realists" who say that "we'll never get the votes in the Senate" and "impeachment" will backfire: It is "just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use [the argument of practicality] to preserve immoral ends."
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. What does your Constitution demand of you?