|
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 07:39 PM by Peace Patriot
stating that the laws do not apply to him and his regime, and Congress has done nothing about it. They should have impeached him immediately, with the first "signing statement." This is an egregious violation of the Constitution, but the test of whether or not the Constitution is still working is not someone violating it--which happens from time to time--but rather the reaction of the other branches of government, and of the members of the violating branch who still believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. That no one has reacted to this is a bad sign--and only one among many that the "checks and balances" of the Constitution are gone.
The Democratic Congress that was just elected should correct this lack of reaction immediately, and tell Bush to rescind the "signing statements" on pain of impeachment. The previous Congress--the Diebold I Congress--was so stacked with Bush "pod people" that they didn't care even about the rights and privileges of Congress, let alone the state of the country and its foreign policy. But the Diebold II Congress is more representative of the people, who clearly outvoted the machines and gave the Democrats a bigger win in Congress than was planned (I think a modest gain for the Democrats was planned, but not majorities). However, we are STILL dealing with a Diebold Congress, in which most members owe their power, in part or in whole, to Bushite electronic voting corporations using TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code in all the new electronic voting systems--a coup that was engineered by the biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney (abetted by corporatist 'Democrat' Christopher Dodd), with the "Help America Vote For Bush Act" of 2002. Also, only one third of the Senate was up for re-election this time, so the Senate, where the Democrats now have a hairsbreadth majority (and the committee chairs), isn't that much changed. Powerful Democratic Senators who voted for the war, and have supported it in every way (people like Biden, Feinstein, Clinton, Dodd and Lieberman) still have a lot of control. It's possible, however, that, although they like Bush's war and are in cahoots with the war profiteers, they may balk at usurpation of Congress' power on other matters, such as "signing statements," domestic spying, suspension of habeas corpus and possibly on torture and indefinite detention, or other matters.
The leadership has said, "Impeachment is off the table." I think that that in itself is an unconstitutional statement--and a violation of their oath of office. You can't take impeachment "off the table." It is the only tool that the peoples' representatives have for curtailing an out-of-control executive. And, boy, is this executive out of control! We have never had such a tyrant in the White House in our entire history! I take it as a "politic" statement, however. If they have intentions to impeach, it would be impolitic to announce it ahead of time, before the case has been made in Congress, and before the vote is at least initially vetted (and they may run into a Lieberman blockade in the Senate). And, if they do not intend it, but mean to use the threat of it to hem in the Bush Junta, then it would be unwise to wield this threat around with precipitous statements to the press. Bush and Cheney no doubt are aware of the many things that they could be impeached for. Pelosi doesn't have to say a thing.
But I sure wish that she had worded her "impeachment" statement differently--such as saying that "Congress is always prepared to do its duty, as to impeachment, if the facts warrant it," or something like that. However, she did leave the door open for impeachment to be put BACK on the table. She didn't say there would be no impeachment; she said it is not imminent, not currently being discussed. They have Bush and Cheney over a barrel, and that's where they might want to keep them. I tend to think that this is what the leadership is doing, and I'm not crazy about it at all, because it leaves so many egregious crimes unpunished, and as precedents for future tyrants.
All in all, I would say that the Constitution is creaking back to life--but that we may yet be facing serious Constitutional crises. At what point would Congress throw down the gauntlet? Bush/Cheney ignoring their subpoenas? More "signing statements"? An invasion or bombing of Iran without consulting Congress? There are some pretty feisty and courageous, and smart, new members of Congress, and some old ones, of a similar type, who now have the power of subpoena and power to set the agenda. It's hard to imagine that a crisis point will not come. I think we will then see whether the Constitution is dead or not.
One other thought: Our form of government is in an extremely fragile state, mostly due to a series of stolen and/or non-transparent elections beginning in 2000, which have inflicted us with a traitorous and thieving executive branch, and a toadying Congress (the Diebold I Congress, just ended). I think there is great internal, behind-the-scenes unrest--in the military, in the intelligence community, in some segments of the moneyed class, in the Republican Party, in Congress, and around the country, for instance, in state governments. This unrest may already have resulted in some sort of deal that the American people are not privy to--which is infuriating, but perhaps understandable in some ways. It's possible that some things about this regime--and I'm thinking particularly of Rumsfeld and his activities--are so earth-shaking that their revelation would simply destroy our government, our credit (already teetering) and civic stability. What we know is already bad enough. Imagine that which we don't know, for instance, about 9/11, and the unprecedented stand-down of NORAD that day. You and I and the American people would want to know the cold-ass truth, and we have a right to know. But if you were a US Senator, would you think so? Or CEO of a corporation trading in dollars? You see what I mean. Measures may have been taken to "secure the realm," so to speak--to remove the worst culprits and hold the others on a tight leash. Maybe I'm writing a novel here, but I do have a feeling that something like this has occurred. And it is not democratic, or transparent, or constitutional--but maybe it's the best that responsible people could do, under the circumstances.
Reading our government these days is like reading entrails. We, the people, are largely excluded from serious decisions. How we get our power back, and RESTORE Constitutional government and democracy, is by hard work on TRANSPARENT elections. That's OUR job.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
