Impeachment: the case for precedence

I believe someone in the last 50 years said that we should have a revolution about once every 20 years. I propose instead we have an impeachment about once every 20 years. Starting now. The purpose isn't retribution or punishment, but to define again the proper roles of president and congress. I hear the sigh of longing, but over the next year it just might happen. By the end of summer we should have a report on the "Gonzales Eight" the US District Attorneys fired by the then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in 2006 showing the reason for dismissal was to interfere with criminal investigations. That leads to Rove and Bush, though those writing this report may only look into the Department of Justice. Congress must then investigate Bush and that investigation could lead to impeachment. This article describes the incident in English history that prompted the inclusion of impeachment in our Constitution. The charge was subversion of the English Constitution and the result was that the king was no longer the law. He had to answer to Parliament. Back to our own founding document: Allowing Congress to impeach and remove a president is an act outside the normal checks and balances, normal separation of powers. That means in impeachment proceedings there is no such thing as executive privilege, a claim Bush has used to blanket all his actions. So the use of impeachment isn't punishment, but restoration. If we impeach Bush we say he has overstepped his bounds, he has abused power. We draw a line as to what is acceptable behavior in a president and what is not. If we don't, we accept what Bush has done and announce all future presidents may do the same, the balance of power has been undone. And that means Bush will have effectively rewritten -- trashed -- the Constitution. Yes, impeachment will be painful for the country. Is the Constitution worth it?