Back in November, when it became clear that Nancy Pelosi would become Speaker of the House, she repeated an earlier statement that "Impeachment is off the table." Today Congressman Murtha's spokesman clarified statements over the weekend, saying that "[H]e doesn't believe that impeachment is appropriate at this time." As Byron Williams asked yesterday in the Huffington Post, Remind me, why is Impeachment off the Table? Mr. Williams concludes "Nothing can be off the table until we have the truth." This is an important goal, to investigate and understand our recent history. But there is not that much more to understand. We already know that laws have been broken, that powers have been abused. This is why we have impeachment.

Democrats are sensitive to the political costs of an impeachment. It would not be an easy process to explain, and popular support is far from guaranteed. Democrats are, rightfully, mindful of the Clinton impeachment fiasco. Of course, the GOP didn't lose their congressional majority for ten years, despite their display of vindictive incompetence. But the conclusion that impeachment is simply too politically unpopular is short-sighted.

As Mr. Williams points out, we have seen numerous, well-documented abuses of executive power over the past six years. The Bush administration has sought, through legal and extra-legal means, to concentrate power in the White House, and they have largely succeeded. This concentration of executive power is detrimental to representative democracy. Despite our general optimism, Americans have no special immunity from an abusive government. Perhaps domestic surveillance, extraordinary rendition, detention without charge, and torture are all used sparingly, with the best of intentions, not reckless abandon. Perhaps. But these are not the hallmarks of a healthy democracy.

Supporters and detractors of the Bush administration can agree that the President and Vice President are not prone to change. Their views of the government, and the world, have developed over decades. They will not shift just because their policies are currently unpopular. They like their unitary executive just the way it is.

But ignore Bush and Cheney for a moment. What does our collective inaction in the face of high crimes mean to future Presidents? What incentive will the next White House have to reject the powers and precedents of the past six years? What if, when the next President takes office, a cautious, pragmatic Congress has not stopped any abuses of presidential power? With this collective inaction, our representatives will have silently accepted the unitary executive and its inherent corruption.

Recent history suggests the precedents will continue to accumulate, solidifying our unitary executive in its throne. We will have our investigations and hearings, and those are all to the good. But such consequence-free deliberations and revelations will not cause the slightest hesitation in the White House's ongoing accumulation of power and abuse of the Constitution. Nothing else has - not declining polls, nor the loss of Congressional majorities, nor embarrassing tales of incompetence, has swayed these men from their goals. Right now, the White House does not consider congressional or popular reactions when carrying out their policies - they do not care. All they see is power, and among the powerful they only see themselves. Perhaps the next President will be noble and just, unmoved by the astounding powers accumulated by the Bush administration. Perhaps, but power has a tendency to corrupt. Even the most idealistic new President will consider using the powers accumulating in the West Wing.

Our nation's founders, so disgusted with despotism and autocracy, left us tools for just such conditions. Congressman Murtha explained that "One is popular opinion, the election, third is impeachment and fourth is the purse." This is an important step, discussing impeachment in a normal speaking voice, as easily as one might discuss conference committees or appropriations.

The other tools, while useful, may not be up to the task. Public opinion has not been sufficient, and may not be for future Presidents. Congressional elections have not changed White House policies and there are no more elections for President Bush. The next President may not be impressed by future votes either. Congress is trying to use its budgetary authority, but this has not yielded policy shifts, or even negotiations, as one might hope. If they cannot use the budget to exert a measure of control now, what reverence will Congress hold with future Presidents?

One can hope, as so many have for the past six years, that enlightenment will descend upon the White House and a thoughtful dialogue will commence. This would fulfill our historic expectation that the executive and legislative branches will work together for the good of the country. Is there any rational basis for such hope?

So what is the Congress and, by extension, the nation, teaching the next President right now? How do we respond to an executive unbound by popular opinion, or reason, or shame, or the Constitution? Richard Nixon taught us, for a time, that even the President is subject to the law. Though the Watergate burglary did not involve massive death or destruction, the law proved superior to the President. Bill Clinton taught us that a President can survive months of revelations about embarrassing personal transgressions. In the end, his crimes did not harm the general public and did not merit punishment.

Right now, we are teaching our prospective leaders that a stubborn, unpopular executive can do almost anything, no matter how many laws are broken or lives are lost, and remain in power. What other lesson can be drawn?

Oversight is important, but oversight without serious consequences will not be enough. Investigations and hearings are the picks and shovels of congressional oversight - slow, labor-intensive tools, incrementally yielding results. They are essential in an effective legislature. But in terms of Congressional authority, impeachment is the Constitution's jackhammer. Unwieldy, loud, and direct - it cannot be ignored. It's time for Congress to reacquaint itself with the jackhammer.