Katrina vanden Heuvel (The Nation): Crisis of the Republic Time

[Jack Rabbit]

From The Nation
Dated Monday May 1

Crisis of the Republic Time
By Katrina vanden Heuvel

If you had any doubt that this is a time of constitutional crisis, read the important, frightening (and under-covered) story in Sunday's Boston Globe. It documents an accumulating pattern of Presidential abuse, overreach and lawlessness . . . .

Defending our country means defending our form of government, as well as our physical safety, and that means defending the constitution from the vicious attacks emanating from this White House.

Read more

[LiberalPartisan]

1. Did I ever tell you I LOVE that woman?

Kristina Vanden Heuvel absolutely rocks!

When I see her sparring with the right wingers she always just shreds them. Cool, calm, collected and always on the mark.

I'm REALLY happy she's on our side!

[EVDebs]

6. She's got a CIA connected pappy. Maybe that helps us get * outta there

but who knows ?

Katrina's father William's bio in wikipedia

""William Jacobus vanden Heuvel (b. 1930) is an attorney and diplomat from New York. He has served as United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations and as Ambassador to the European office of the United Nations in Geneva.

Vanden Heuvel served as an early protege of Office of Strategic Services founder Wild Bill Donovan at the U.S. embassy in Bangkok, Thailand. He later undertook highly successful legal practice with Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts in New York. He serves now as chairman of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and continues to be active in public service and private business.

A graduate of Deep Springs College, Cornell University, and Cornell Law School, he was editor-in-chief of Cornell's law review. He is father of Katrina vanden Heuvel, longtime editor of The Nation.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_vanden_Heuvel

Shows his OSS/CIA background

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Exchange on The Nation's blog

(Posting times are EDT)

I love the consistency of KVH's distortions.

If one reads the Boston Globe article in context and separating out the reporter's obvious agenda, what you are left with is something quite desirable for our American Democracy.

The issue that Bush is rightfully asserting is: Can Congress override the Constitutional authority directly given to the Executive Branch? If so, then we no longer have 3 equal branches of government.

This issue should be and ultimately will be decided in the Supreme Court as our Constitution has wisely provided for.

It will not and should not be decided by left or right wing agenda groups who want greater power for their side than is provided for in the Constitution.

If you want to change the balance of powers and enumerated authorities given to each branch, change the Constitution. Until then, some of us remain thankful for a president who challenges one branch who wants to illegally usurp the enumerated powers of another branch.

Not let all the usual left wing voices run rampant with their "defense" of usurping the enumerated powers. They do it often on this site so it should be no surprise if they do so again.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/01/2006 @ 12:50am

. . . and the response:

LL's reasoning is more preposterous than usual today. I know that's saying a mouthful.

The issue that Bush is rightfully asserting is: Can Congress override the Constitutional authority directly given to the Executive Branch? If so, then we no longer have 3 equal branches of government.

The issue also works the other way. The issue that Bush's critics are asserting is: Can the chief executive override legislation passed by Congress? Of course, he can in a limited way. It's called a veto and the president may use it. This one has not. It also seems curious to me that a Republican Congress would pass legislation that would bind the hands of a Republican president.

If you want to change the balance of powers and enumerated authorities given to each branch, change the Constitution. Until then, some of us remain thankful for a president who challenges one branch who wants to illegally usurp the enumerated powers of another branch.

Gee, nothing like begging the question, LL. What makes Bush right in this case? You have to take each case individually, by the way; the president does not have blanket authority to just dismiss laws Congress passes any more than he has the authority to decree legislation. Andrew Johnson was absolutely right to challenge the tenure of office act in 1868. He was nearly removed from office over it, but the Constitution does say that cabinet officers will serve at the pleasure of the president.

One of the pieces of legislation cited by The Boston Globe which Bush has chosen to ignore is a torture ban. What gives Bush the right to ignore this? The US is a party to the Convention against Torture, which categorically bans the practice. Under Article 6 of the main body of the Constitution, it is the law of the land. Consequently, not even his authority as Commander in Chief gives him the right to ignore an international treaty to which the US is party. What is the dispute about Congress passes legislation regulating the use of torture.?Torture is illegal, period. Bush can't make it legal by decree. If any detainees are being tortured for any reason, not only is it an impeachable offense, it is a crime against humanity.

Mr. Bush is relying on the Nixonian unitary executive theory, best summed up by Nixon himself as if the president does it, then it isn't illegal. That is utter horsepucky. It should be noted that Nixon made that remark in a post-resignation interview with British journalist Sir David Frost. It was not so much a legal theory as a loud, obscene howl of wounded animal. Nixon resigned not for the good of the country but because it was a forgone conclusion that he was about to be impeached and removed from office for violating the very laws he had sworn to uphold. If the president breaks the law, then the president is an outlaw.

Bush richly deserves the same fate as Nixon. If anything, he is even more reckless and irresponsible in claims of unbridled executive power than Nixon. Our Constitution provides for separation of powers and checks and balances. The Nixonian presidency discards that and makes the president a dictator and the only check against his power is a quadrennial plebiscite, which as we now know too well, would be meaningless if voters were purged from the rolls, made to wait hours in line, or votes just not counted or counted by some machine error wrong.

His Imperial Incompetency has exceeded his authority. It's time to dethrone him and replace him with a real president.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/01/2006 @ 2:18pm

[zeemike]

3. Wow that was a good exchange

And Jack Rabbit won hands down even if you are not a lefty.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Thanks

One of the things I like about posting on The Nation is you get to talk back to real, live Bush Bubbahs. There is a small contingent of them.

[Tanuki]

4. K&R

The article vanden Heuvel links to, by Charlie Savage, is a "must-read", and thank you for bringing it to our attention:
<snip>
Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.
<snip>


<snip>In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.<snip>

<snip>Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass -- including the torture ban -- involve the military.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ''to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military.<snip>

[mhr]

5. All True, But What Does She Expect One To Do?

The conservatives control everything.

In that light, educated bloviating is just that educated bloviating.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Right now?

How about agitate for the impeachment of His Imperial Incompetency?

ON EDIT

And don't forget to impeach the Vice Emperor first.

[mhr]

9. I Invested 1,000 Hours Of Personal Time In The 2004 Elections

I personally watched the ES&S touch screen voting machines change democratic votes to republican votes.

I watched the Democratic party do nothing in response.

If the vote is not sacred, all is lost.

Hence, I am now a registered independent.

I don't trust the system at all, no faith left.