Who Is Going To Stop The Congress From Formally Making Bush Dictator?

[DistressedAmerican]

The more I think about the Hamdan decision, the less I feel that it was a huge win.

To be clear, the military tribunals were not in and of themselves found unconstitutional in the Hamdan ruling. Holding detainees without Congressional approval was found unconstitutional. The same logic seems to apply far more broadly with Bush's self instituted dictatorial powers.

So in the wake of the ruling, we have a rush in Congress to CODIFY BUSH'S NEW FOUND "INHERENT POWERS" OF THE THEORIZED "UNITARY EXECUTIVE" AS LAW.

That is what this ruling does, it puts the decision in the hands of the Repug controlled Congress known for acting as a tool of the administration in pretty much all matters (short the Dubai ports deals and immigration). They have already made it clear that they are currently working to give Bush whatever he wants.

Before Bush operated in legal limbo. Once the Congress checks off on this abuse of power, it will be established law. It worked for Roman emperors. "Dictator for life" status was actually written into the law by a cowed and weak Roman Senate. I get the feeling we are moving down that exact same road, where weak willed Repug rubber stamps are about to willfully surrender much of their balancing power right over to the President.

Welcome to the formal dictatorship of George W. Bush. It will be decider-topia.

We can't let that happen!

[Junkdrawer]

1. A strange kind of two-faced dictatorship...

Here's the thing: There's a HUGE reservoir of "The Most Advanced Democracy on Earth" belief in the general electorate. And BushCo needs this (and the fear of Terrorism) to recruit their Imperial Army. That's why the veneer of Democracy is maintained.

Now, anyone who's been paying attention knows it's bullshit, but it seems to be useful bullshit.

[Lerkfish]

2. the real, sad answer is apparently no one.

I discussed this with a coworker a while back. There is no one to stop him except congress, which is acting as his rubber stamp, so therefore there is no one to stop him.
He will completely ignore the supreme court, and......so? What will that do? The supreme court could find him accountable for all sorts of crimes, but you cannot indict a standing president, you can only impeach them, so nothing at all will happen.

IMHO, this is very wrong, but so is the alternative. If you allow a standing president to be embroiled in a trial while in office, you know Ken Starr would have had Clinton behind bars for most of his presidency.
Then what?

I dunno. This is a mess of monumental proportions. It highlights how the system of checks and balances, when working, is not only valuable, but absolutely necessary.

[DistressedAmerican]

5. You Can Say That Again.

I'll admit that I did not put it together in my mind until recently. I was laboring under the hope that when these cases hit the court, there would simply be some sort of cease and decist order given. Not so. They just told Congress write whatever laws you want to allow Bush to keep doing these things.

Here's a question I have, since the court has the power to declare laws unconstitutioonal, don't they now find themselves in the position of ruling (years and thosands abused later) on the Constitutionality of whatever laws Congress comes up with?

These wheeles turn so slowly that it hurts my head.

[goclark]

20. He already is a Dictator

For a land that has a "Free" Press andonly 33% of the people can bare to look at him, he has created a 21st Century Dictatorship.


:(

[tavalon]

10. You're comparing the appropriate impeachment

of an overreaching, treasonous President with the frivolous attack of a President based on his personal life?

It's apples and oranges. I don't see it.

[Lerkfish]

12. no, no I"m not. I'm saying nothing of the kind. What I AM saying...

I'm considering both the good use and the bad use if the president were allowed to be indicted while in office, if there were no prohibition to indicting a standing president. I'm pointing out that it could be used a political weapon, like if Ken Starr had that power.

I"m saying that while it would be great in the case of Bush, it would be bad in the case of Clinton.

I was NOT stating an equivalency of what would or would not warrant impeachment between Clinton and Bush. Obviously, Clinton was unjustly impeached for petty partisan reasons. Bush, on the other hand, deserves to be impeached for crimes against the nation, including treason, IMHO.

you're barking up the wrong tree, here.

[tavalon]

17. I misunderstood what you said

Mea culpa.

[Lerkfish]

18. no problemo. I'd have been concerned if I'd read what you thought you

read, too. Based on what you thought, I'm proud of you for jumping into the fray.
Don't lose that instinct.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Naaah. The Reichstag..er, congress will stand up for the people.

That is, before they "compromise" on only 99% of what the boss wants.

[rosesaylavee]

4. Our hope is that the fear of reprisal during the

fall election will keep the RW congress doing its job now. If we do not take the congress back this fall, there will be no recourse thru them. IMO, nothing short of revolution will prevent him from grabbing power at the point.

This election is that important in my view.

[madokie]

6. this upcoming election is the most important one in our life times IMO

and I have lived through 14 of them and been aware of them since Ike.

[DistressedAmerican]

8. The Stakes Are Amazingly High.

I hope the country realizes that. Sometimes I fear that even if they disapprove of the current deal, most Americans are now so cynical that they have just accepted things as the new status quo and gone to a movie.

[madokie]

22. thats a good way of putting it

[DistressedAmerican]

7. Agreed.

There was a good Isakoff report liked here today that suggested much the same kind of preelection delay on this rubber stamp coming down. Sees logical. However, I do worry that their slipping grip on power may mean that they see themselves going down anyway. Then, why not grab for the brass ring on your fall?

May as well.

We MUST retake Congress this go round. Anything short means continued war and abuse of presidential power for the forseeable future. I really can't stomach too much more of this insanity.

[seemslikeadream]

9. The Dukester?

[cali]

11. Although I didn't think of Hamdan

as a huge win, I find your musings more than a tad paranoid. Bush is not going to be made dictator for life. The republican congress is showing signs of serious stress, and will likely fracture. This really is hyperbole

[DistressedAmerican]

14. The "Dictator For Life" Was A Reference To Historical Rome.

An anlogy to make the point about weak willed legislatures.

I am talking about ratifying Bush's new theory of inherent presidential powers and the unitary executive in wartime, that wartime being a very openended "generational war".

Bush is gone on Jan 09 either way. But, the structural changes and the legalized crimes will continue.

I am not totally out of whack. But thanks for checking on me.

[BuddyYoung]

13. I think the actual term is: Presidential Dictatorship. nt

nt

[Cronus Protagonist]

15. Wouldn't a reapportion of powers require a Consitutional amendment

If so, it won't be ratified anyway.




Educate Your Local Freepers!
Flaunt Your Opinions With Buttons, Stickers and Magnets from BrainButtons.com
>

[librechik]

19. Yeah, they can't make him dictator constitutionally--so they will do

nothing. As usual. And we will continue in this twilight zone of de facto tyranny, with some of us not even realizing it.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beelzebud]

21. Bush became a dictator with the passage of the Patriot Act.