On Dangerous Ground

[Shirleypal]

I was listening to Tomm Hartman today, sorry forgot who he had on, the question was asked why the American people are not speaking out more or out on the streets protesting, he said the reason being is that the people are afraid because they are worried about their losing their jobs and feel if that happened they couldn't find another one, many American's are just a few paychecks away from being homeless, Tomm told the story of a friend of his back in the seventies who wanted a weeks vacation and couldn't get it because he hadn't been with his company long enough, so he just quit, took his vacation and had another good job a week later, those days are gone my friends, that may very will be part of the reason, but if you remember it was young people, a lot of college students who protested the Viet Nam war who at the point in their live had nothing to lose. I guess the young people today don't get it, this is their future that is in jeopardy. Sadly he may be right.

[majda]

Also, standing up and walking out in protest - is no action at all.

You base your stand on the Constitution and the Rule of Law - and follow due diligence.



This is moving along.

Under normal circumstances, 'you base your stand on the constitution and the rule of law - and follow due diligence'.

These ARE NOT not 'normal' circumstances! Standing up and walking out in protest (disgust) is indeed 'action', and would send a clear message out into the country and world. This administration is getting away with what it is doing because they know that the representatives will not step 'out of the box'!!!

[Riddick]

I think we are now moving into a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.

If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed.

Hmm, a Precedent from the President, eh? Sounds as if there's a Bush 43 legacy right there, this flagrantly in-yo-face, wholescale executive branch "power grab" business ... left unchecked, I can surely see it not stopping solely with this White House -

And then, consequently, what OF any resulting vacuum of power in the halls of Congress? Well just IMHO seeing as it has been historically a federal body itself NOT wholly unfamiliar with extending its reach beyond the Constitution, it might be tempted for a grab from further down the chain --
The U.S. Congress could further usurp States' rights, and mebbe next the states'll usurp more rights from counties, the counties from the municipalities...

and folks on the street, We The People, what can WE do...? Oh yeah, right, we might continue to provide any wanna-be Pharaohs on levels above with structural support.... like, hey! It takes some pretty big stones to build a pyramid, and they don't move into place by THEMSELVES y'know!!

[whskyfan]

Well, it may be moving along, but at the rate it is moving bush will be living in Paraguay before anything is actually accomplished.
The country is at risk and nothing, absolutely nothing, is more important than preserving the Constitution of the United States. That, along with the impeachment of bush, cheney and the rest of this administration, should be all that is discussed in the House and the Senate. Everything else can wait until these issues are resolved.

[Joolz]

There are those republican and bushco talking points out there, that blame the state of the union on this congress. Don't be bamboozled by it.

Also, standing up and walking out in protest - is no action at all.

You base your stand on the Constitution and the Rule of Law - and follow due diligence.

If this congress is not moving fast enough for you - contact the republicans who are obstructing every attempt to move ahead.

Check out this thread:

showthread.php?s=&threadid=29336

and this one:

showthread.php?s=&threadid=29337

This is moving along.

Thanks for saying this, Linn. I couldn't agree more. I want to see Congress, as Corvid put it on one of the threads you linked, "doing it by the book." And we all know what that book is. Or should. If we set aside the Constitution and the Rule of Law for the sake of some rash expediency, then we BECOME no different than that which we abhor. We will have set aside the very thing we wish--or should wish!-- to protect and uphold.

I understand frustration. I'm frustrated, too. But the wheel IS turning. The majority the Democrats hold in Congress is slim, and as Linn points out, the Republicans are obstructing damn near EVERYTHING they try to do. THAT is exactly WHY things seem to be moving so slowly. Watch C-Span if you don't believe us. It's all there LIVE every day.

[Joolz]

The country is at risk and nothing, absolutely nothing, is more important than preserving the Constitution of the United States.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. However, this is exactly what they are TRYING to accomplish.

If you want it to move faster, then maybe try drumming up enough Republican votes in the Senate to achieve the 2/3 majority NEEDED to convict on impeachment. Without THAT it won't happen, no matter how much you, or I, might WANT it to happen. To impeach without a conviction is a futile gesture that accomplishes nothing. That's the reality of the situation.

As MORE and MORE and MORE of the absolute corruption of this administration comes to light, the chances of SUCCEEDING with impeachment gets better and better. As these Republicans begin to see the horror on the faces of their constituents as MORE and MORE and MORE of this crap hits the fan, many of them will realize that their cushy, comfy seat might not be so easily kept in '08 if they don't step up to the plate themselves.

Hang in there, people! It's gonna be a long, bumpy ride.

[Linnea]

Bless the goddess for your post Joolz. Was beginning to feel lonely in the hinterlands of reason and balance.

[Joolz]

Hi, Linn. I know that feeling, too. Glad to be out here in the "hinterlands of reason and balance."

[SETIsLady]

Well said Linnea & Julie, they have to keep doing it the right way, and we have to keep the pressure on. Its just as much OUR responsiblity as it theirs.

[Dr Powerfun]

Earlier Cynthia Lynn asked the poser " 'Why would Republicans allow this to happen when the next President could very likely be a Democrat?' Many Republicans are making a fuss, but why aren't they ALL trying to put a stop to this?

Surely they must realize this surpasses partisan politics."

Well, I think at least part of the answer to any lack of realization or refusal to recognize the potentially perilous precedent may hinge on an individual's cranial location, or "where their head is at"

Now, my specialty isn't geographical psychology, but as I read, presently my feeling is long ago some folks' skulls made a political migration from the Hinterlands of Reason and Balance into the dangerous ground of the Metropolis of Irrationality and Imbalance. Simply from my own observations I surmise that once one's mind takes that trek it's not so easy to go back, primarily due to a massively wide and tall wall OF PURELY Partisan dogma (in some cases in large part built up by listening to too much squawk radio)

Interestingly enough, WITHIN the Metropolis despite irrationality and imbalance in abundance all political thoughts and actions seem perfectly reasonable and balanced... amongst those residents whose delusions are compatible, that is...

I should also add as a cautionary note that IMO as I see it this affliction is not unique to just one brand of politics! Once a purely partisan migratory trek begins an internal dogmatic wall starts to form, & it can be difficult if not impossible to stop its growth since the sufferer generally does not even recognize the existence of the barrier...! And indeed, it does NOT EXIST save in the mind of the afflicted.

Truly, should any battles waged in Congress & by concerned citizens halt or deter the current administration's wanton and unwarranted leveraging of power to the executive branch, I do sincerely hope that folks won't get smug or complacent, & will resist any temptation to wander away from the hinterlands...
after all, a mind is a terrible thing to waste -
(IN a related vein here's an article on 5 ways to develop independent thought)

Now you'll have to excuse me, I have to go get Riddick & Justen.... [ Mildred says it's time for group! ]

[Joolz]

...and we have to keep the pressure on. Its just as much OUR responsiblity as it theirs.

Yes, it is OUR responsibility, too. We have to keep voicing our concerns TO our representatives in Congress in both Houses in letters, emails, and phone calls. It's not enough to just post about our dissatisfaction with the criminals in the White House on the internet(s). Let them know. AND, it's important to talk about it with friends, family, co-workers, and total strangers (the check-out line is a good place for that). Plant seeds everywhere you go.

[majda]

"When Will We Have Had Enough?"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P682rGIhZwI

[tiffany]

"When Will We Have Had Enough?"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P682rGIhZwI

This video says so much.......IMPEACH THEM NOW!!! Our time has run out.........month by month, day by day.......our freedoms disappear, our miltary is dying, our rights have been flushed...if we don't do something now...it is too late.

Scream, yell, fax, phone, yell some more, make your voices heard loudly..cuz our time is up.

[tiffany]

Many of us have been on this forum for several years. Think, think about what happened over those years. Our rights have been stolen and are gone in just these few years. We have an illegal president, our men and women are being slaughtered or sacrificed as bush states. Our Habeous Corpus is GONE!!! We are in deep doo doo and I have a terrible feeling that this guy who calls himself our president is going to do something before his ride is over and perhaps stay in office. There is something very sinister going on...Remember Hitler Bush's granddaddy's fav.

[majda]

Dangerous Privilege
by AZIZ HUQ

[from the August 13, 2007 issue]

It's time to do something about executive privilege.

Having stretched the Constitution to the snapping point, the White House now brandishes "executive privilege," talismanlike, to ward off discovery of its wrongdoing. White House counsel Fred Fielding not only refuses to provide specific evidence to Congressional committees investigating the firing of US Attorneys but makes the unprecedented claim that the President can block former advisers from appearing before Congress. Echoing an argument last heard in the infamous torture memo of August 2002, the President also claims unfettered control over federal criminal prosecutions--hence barring one way of challenging Fielding's startling arguments.

This obfuscation, though, is not merely an extension of the Administration's pet theory of monarchical executive power; it is also a calculated strategy to avoid accountability. The Administration knows that federal courts have long been reluctant to force secrets from the executive, and is thus willing to fight the House Judiciary Committee's contempt citations against Joshua Bolten and Harriet Miers. By playing hardball until the clock runs out on the Bush II era, the White House hopes to eliminate accountability for warrantless wiretapping, partisan manipulation of the Justice Department--and even torture. Worse, it sends the message to future Presidents that they can do the same.

The case for limiting executive privilege by a clear law does not rest on White House shenanigans alone. In fact, executive privilege is a vague concept that has metastasized in a short half-century. To prevent it from undermining democratic government, reform is urgently needed.

Start with the Constitution, which makes no mention of executive privilege. To the contrary, only Article I--listing Congress's powers--even mentions secrecy. Article II, describing the presidency, does not. It is not surprising that the branch of government worst structured for keeping secrets receives the sole constitutional power to do so, for the Constitution embodies a presumption toward disclosure. It mandates elections, which are mere farce without information about what a government does. And by constraining government power to muzzle criticism, the First Amendment deepens the constitutional tilt toward transparency. Nevertheless, Presidents since George Washington have exploited the absence of clear constitutional rules to withhold information. With the exponential growth of government after the New Deal and World War II, such inchoate and ill-defined claims suddenly became a potent weapon in the battle over separation of powers.

By the time of Bush II, the President's personal right to keep conversations with advisers confidential had morphed into a bottomless well of secrecy obscuring not only the Oval Office but the entire White House. It extended to cover advisers like Miers and their conversations with people outside the White House. It hid from Congress the August 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief, which revealed that Bush had been warned about Al Qaeda's determination to attack. And of course it sheltered Dick Cheney, who made the startling argument that the office of the Vice President entitles him to keep secret not only conversations with Administration officials but also with private citizens.

The problem will not vanish in 2009. The executive branch has the greatest capacity to create secrets, thanks to its enormous intelligence apparatus. The growing risk of abuse, and the greater capacity for corrosive secrets, means we must find new ways to constrain the Article II leviathan. Moreover, arguments defending the privilege are much weaker than supposed. Foremost among these is what Bush calls the need for "crisp decision-making." Without secrecy, he implies, Presidents do not get candid advice.

There are three reasons this canard ought not to fend off a new law. First, executive privilege is never absolute: The Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon ordered the disclosure of intimate conversations between a President and his advisers. Second, claims for executive privilege are now untethered from any decision-making process that involves the President; they have been extended, viruslike, to the sprawling White House policy-making staff. Third, is it so bad for officials to feel the eyes of the people on their back? After all, they have a fidelity not only to the person who happens to sit in the Oval Office but also, via the Constitution, to the people. Why should officials ever forget their second--and arguably greater--obligation?

By contrast, the risk that Congress will abuse its investigative powers is smaller than generally imagined. Congressional overreaching is mitigated because the President's party is always on hand in Congress to publicize and condemn partisan investigations. Congressional misuse of power, unlike its executive counterpart, is always open to public criticism and condemnation.

An effective law on executive privilege would define and limit it. A law would clarify not only which communications are covered but when Congress can overcome the privilege: Allegations of criminal wrongdoing or violations of law would suffice to dissolve any absolute claim of nondisclosure. The law could then create mechanisms for threshold disclosure to a limited pool of legislators and staff. For disputes that persist, it would expedite judicial appeal. Courts would be obligated to resolve cases of constitutional moment quickly, to stop the clock from being run out. And clear sanctions would be imposed on the privilege's abuse.

The struggle over testimony today is but a fraction of a larger fight. The White House's effort to cloak its dismal legacy should not obscure the importance of the larger battle over the fundamental balance of constitutional power.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml ... 0813&s=huq