Dan wrote:
Indeed, even if/when they rule against Bush on some of his
interpretations of executive authority under the Constitution, the whole
process is
inherently constitutional. Checks and balances doesn't mean that one
branch acts with constraint
but that the other branches of government
will check their actions when they overstep their bounds. So, a
President that oversteps his bounds is not an anomaly, which should be
grounds for
impeachment. Rather, it is normal for presidents to have a very
expansive view of executive power that is reigned in by congress and the
courts.
Bush portrays himself as the Commander-In-Chief in wartime. Everything
that I've seen is consistent with that actually being his view. That is
a
constitutional responsibility of Bush. He repeatedly alludes to this
while defending his actions. I realize that you dont think that his
actions are consistent with the Constitution, but Ive seen no evidence
that the Bush
administration doesn't believe that its actions are consistent with the
constitution. That is what I think is needed to establish a comment that
the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper as representing Bush's
views of the constitution.
This last sounds so nice and reasonable that I was a bit taken aback when
I read it. He's just doing his job, how reasonable sure, that's gotta be
it.
The problem is the depth and breadth of Bush's actions. You have
mentioned several examples of other presidents extra constitutional
actions, some of which are relevant, some of which are not, but has any
other single president compromised so many aspects of the Constitution?
Let's go over them again, starting with torture which, besides being
against numerous state, local and federal laws is prohibited by the eighth
amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). Torture is an assault on the
very fabric of who we are. Anyone who understands and respects this
country and the constitution should understand that. You say Nixon was a
criminal because of a burglary, what do you call someone that proscribes
torture?
Continue with the writ of Habeas Corpus, the right to be brought before a
court or a judge; a right first enshrined in the Magna Carta nearly seven
hundred years ago and included in Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution: "The
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Have
we been invaded? Has there been a rebellion? But there are people in a
gulag in Cuba whose right to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
has been suspended. There are prisoners that have been in solitary for
years without being brought before a judge. Lincoln is criticized to this
day for suspending HC (his suspension of the writ was ruled
unconstitutional, btw) and in his case a third of the country had rebelled
and there were _real_ enemy combatants within twenty miles of the
capitol. HC has also been de facto suspended for U.S. citizens like
Padilla, accused at first as being "enemy combatants".
Hand in hand with HC we have the egregious violation of the sixth
amendment: "..the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury
of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with
the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defense."
Where in the world does the constitution say we can set up a concentration
camp on foreign soil and hold prisoners there indefinitely, torturing them
and depriving them of their rights? We're not only violating our own laws
and international law, but the laws of every civilized nation on the
earth.
Moving on we have the fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized." Both the wiretapping by the NSA and some
provisions of the patriot act violate this amendment.
These aren't challenges to the constitution like the assisted suicide law
you mentioned, these are act first and ask questions later violations of
our sacred rights. And these aren't actions by a president to protect
himself from prosecution like the Nixon case you presented, they are
attempts to expand the power of the presidency and diminish the rights of
the people.
Name me a president that has violated such a wide array of constitutional
rights. The only one that even comes close is FDR and his confinement of
Japanese Americans in concentration camps, the most egregious and reviled
violation of constitutional principal of the last century. Lincoln
suspended HC, but I don't remember hearing that he tortured anyone or
spied on them while they were at the library. Truman tried to stop a
strike, does that justify holding people in solitary confinement
indefinitely?
Finally, lets discuss the "war". The "War on Terrorism". When does it
end? For that matter, when did it start? Were we not combating terrorism
before 911? Are we going to compromise peoples rights for as long as this
so called war, which could conceivably go on forever, lasts? We're not
at war! Worse than that our so called war on terrorism is actually
empowering the terrorists.
Yes, 911 was a horrific act worthy of a terrible retribution. But lets
remember that the attack could have been prevented simply by heightening
airport security or by a more vigilant intelligence system. Is it really
necessary to compromise so many of our hard won rights as a result of this
act? We're accomodating the terrorists by doing so, not combatting them.
So while you may see a man that's just trying to do his job, I see a man
that doesn't really know what his job is supposed to be and doesn't really
care. The presidential oath of office is: I do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United
States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States."
PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Why do you think the oath of office requires the President to protect the
constitution and not the people?
Because it’s the Constitution that protects the people.
--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
