[JURIST] Witnesses before the US House Judiciary Committee on Friday presented sharply divided opinions [C-span video, flash; hearing materials] on whether the White House [official website] has overstepped its constitutional authority during George Bush's presidency, and whether or not such alleged abuses would justify his impeachment. Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) opened the hearings outlining the allegedly excessive actions by the administration:

It is no secret that I have grave and serious concerns about excesses in executive branch authority. At my direction this Committee has spent a considerable portion of its time, energy and resources investigating allegations concerning the politicization of the Department of Justice; misuse of signing statements; misuse of authority with regard to detention, interrogation and rendition; possible manipulation of intelligence regarding the Iraq War; improper retaliation against critics of the Administration, including the outing of Valerie Plame; and excessive secrecy by the Administration including the misuse of various privileges and immunities. I believe the evidence on these matters is both credible and substantial and warrant the response of the executive branch, under oath if at all possible.

Impeachment is a radical remedy to be used only in the case of executive misconduct that demonstrates that the official in question has abused his office for venal purposes. It is not a remedy that the framers believed was appropriate for matter arising simply out of political differences, and impeachment should not be a tool to be used to remove a President simply because a party or faction wants him out of office. Absent misconduct of a kind... which does not seem to be present, the removal of an executive should be accomplished by the constitution[']s two-term limit, and by the actions of the people and the electoral college.

We must resolve to confront our mistakes so that we do not repeat them. Throughout American history, in times of crisis, presidents have accumulated significant new powers, and the Executive Branch has often engaged in abusive conduct. These bursts of misconduct are often closely related to emergency circumstances. Crisis makes it tempting to ignore the wise restraints that both keep us free and reduce the likelihood of foolish mistakes. This nation has at times admirably set about correcting its course— realizing, as the dust settles, or as previously secret facts are revealed, that constitutional and legal norms have been breached. Our self-correcting mechanism is one of the great strengths of our democracy. It is time for such a searching assessment and self-correction again.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit [official website] ruled [PDF opinion] Friday that criminal courts have no authority to direct restitution payments [backgrounder] to anyone other than a victim. The issue came before the court in a case where the defendant was ordered to make scheduled restitution payments to a victim and had a lien placed against her house in accordance with the Mandatory Restitution Act of 1996 [PDF text]. A lower court found it was improper for the defendant and victim to agree to lower the amount due, and ordered some of the money already paid to be returned to equity in the house. Reversing that order, the Eighth Circuit held that the lower court lacked the authority to distribute fees already collected to anyone other than the victim. The court indicated that the defendant may have a cause of action against the victim for the invalid agreement.

The US Supreme Court ruled on another example of overreaching when managing repayment plans in 2006. In Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ahlborn [Duke Law case backgrounder] the Court held that federal laws governing Medicaid [HHS materials] do not authorize a state agency to assert a lien on a Medicaid recipient's personal injury settlement in an amount equal to the amount of benefits paid on the recipient's behalf when a lesser amount has been designated as compensation for medical care. Last week it was announced that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. will pay the state of Iowa [McClatchy report] nearly a million dollars in restitution for Medicare payments as part of a settlement stemming from allegations of fraud.

[JURIST] A report [PDF text] released Friday by Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] states that the Rwandan government [official website; JURIST news archive] has made substantial progress in reforming its justice system over the past four years, but has fallen short in several key areas. The report commended Rwandan authorities for better ensuring the delivery of justice, strengthening defendants’ rights and abolishing the death penalty, but cautioned that “the technical and formal improvements in laws and administrative structure have not been matched by gains in independence in the judiciary and assurance of rights to fair trial.” Human Rights Watch cited a failure by the government to ensure numerous fair trial standards, including the presumption of innocence, the right to present witnesses in one’s own defense, and right to protection from double jeopardy. The report also questioned the independence of the judiciary:

Judicial authorities operate in a political context where the executive continues to dominate the judiciary and where there is an official antipathy to views diverging from those of the government and the dominant party, the Rwandan Patriotic Front. A campaign against “divisionism” and “genocidal ideology” imposes the risk of serious consequences on persons who question official interpretations of the past and who would prefer other than the official vision for the future.