Why Does Everyone Seem To Ignore This?

From WAR: It's Not the President's Decision by David Swanson:

The U.S. Constitution leaves the decision to wage war to Congress, and Congress can enforce its decision not to wage war by refusing to fund it. Blocking a funding bill for wars requires the House of Representatives alone, and both Democrats and Republicans in the House are rapidly joining us in saying No to war funding.

It's time to finally get serious, to lobby, to protest, to sit in, to nonviolently disrupt and resist in local district offices until enough Representatives commit to voting No on any bill to fund more war.

Public Opposes Wars, Will Our Representatives?

Viral Incompetence

Why are there so many ignorant “experts”? Why does incompetence greet us with more and more frequency?

Is incompetence like a virus? Does it spread like wildfire unless a strong logical defense is put in place? Or do we wait until it destroys everything except that which is immune to it?

Glen Greenwald asks Should a Brookings "expert" know what the presidential oath says?

Constitutional Accountability

Isn’t it our duty as citizens of the United States of America to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for violations to the United States Constitution?

From Memo to Obama: Moving Forward Doesn't Mean You Can't Also Look Back by Arianna Huffington:

In one week, the U.S. Constitution will be front and center as Barack Obama solemnly swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" it. Given all that has happened over the last eight years, that oath is not nearly as pro-forma as it used to be.

During his final press conference yesterday, President Bush said that when it came time "to protect the homeland" he "wouldn't worry about popularity." He would "worry about the Constitution of the United States." It wasn't clear, as it hasn't been for most of his time in office, whether his concern was directed at upholding the document or circumventing it.

So as the Obama Years are about to begin, one of the questions facing the new president is what will he do about the transgressions of the Bush Years? Will his promise to protect and defend the Constitution include an investigation into the assaults on it perpetrated by members of the Bush administration?

Given the multiple -- and massive -- obstacles looming directly in front of him, Obama is wise not to be driving into the Oval Office looking in his rearview mirror. But I hope he will realize that moving forward and looking backwards are not mutually exclusive. Particularly if he isn't the one focused on the past.

There is no doubt that the economic crisis, Iraq and Afghanistan, health care reform, and the regulation of Wall Street should be the Obama administration's primary concerns.

But that doesn't mean we, as a country, should allow Bush and Cheney's offenses to accompany their perpetrators to a peaceful retirement in Texas and Wyoming.

Dark Secrets

From Known Unknowns by Scott Horton:

Under President Bush, the Constitution took a shellacking. We had the most devious, secretive government in our nation's history. In the end, it was at war with the rule of law itself. But this isn't the time to be talking about indictments and prosecutions, though that may come in the fullness of time. Now is the time to force those dark secrets from the recesses in which they've been hidden and insure that the public fully understands what was done by the most incompetent, corrupt and lawless government we've ever had. Charting those dealings is the first step. Correcting them is the second.

From Last Secrets of the Bush Administration by Charles Homans:

In March 2001, U.S. Archivist John W. Carlin received a letter from Alberto Gonzales, then counsel to the newly inaugurated president George W. Bush. It concerned an important deadline that was looming—one that Bush owed to Richard Nixon.

In 1974, Congress ordered a lockdown on all records kept by the Nixon White House, afraid that the outgoing president would try to wipe out the paper trail of his disastrous second term and chastened by the recent destruction of decades’ worth of FBI files by the late director J. Edgar Hoover’s loyal secretary. That order was expanded four years later into a law requiring that all presidents’ papers—everything from briefings to personal notes and everyday communications between the president, vice president, and their staffers—be handed over to the National Archives twelve years after their terms ended for eventual public release. Ronald Reagan was the first chief executive to whom the Presidential Records Act applied, and his papers were due to be turned over to Carlin at the beginning of Bush’s term.

Gonzales wanted Carlin to delay the release until June. His letter didn’t say why, but Carlin agreed. Then in June, Carlin got another memo from Gonzales—Bush’s attorney now wanted until the end of August. Carlin agreed again. The extensions continued until November, when Bush issued an executive order: effective immediately, the release of presidential records would require the approval of both the sitting president and the president whose records were in question, rather than just the former. It was what open-government advocates would later describe as a two-key system: under Bush’s rule, Nixon could have buried the Watergate tapes without explaining himself to anyone.

Bush’s executive order had little to do with any concerns of Reagan himself, whose estate has since shared his papers enthusiastically. Some administration critics theorized at the time that Bush was trying to shield from scrutiny his father’s vice presidential records, which were among the Reagan White House documents—but ultimately it wasn’t really about George H. W. Bush, either. It was about the new president and vice president, and the kind of government they intended to run.

Read the rest here.

Pelosi And The People

From Pelosi Gets "Booked" & Confronts Her Own Past by Linda Milazzo:

For me, as an Italian American woman who wants Pelosi to succeed, watching her in action was difficult. She's sweet and congenial and inherently likable. But those positives pale when compared to her tragic misdeeds. Those of us who value our democracy and our Constitution are too patriotic to succumb to her charm. If only her valor, her love of nation, and her observance of the rule of law matched her likability. But they don't.

Saddest of all is the contrast of who Pelosi once was to who she his now. For a woman who was once at the cutting edge of social progressivism, Nancy Pelosi has lost her way. She has strayed from her former social consciousness into the malaise of power. A sorry state for a woman who 32 years ago was a pivotal player in the 1976 Presidential campaign of radically progressive California Governor, Jerry Brown.

In that critically important campaign, known as "The People's campaign," Pelosi helped Brown push hard for social values. She was instrumental in his win in the Maryland primary. Who would believe that 30 years later, Nancy Pelosi, who'd fought so hard for social change, would subvert the Constitution and enable the crimes of George Bush and Dick Cheney? In 1976, Nancy Pelosi was a well connected political volunteer and social justice activist. She maximized her minimal power to promote a grassroots Presidential campaign.

Today, that same Nancy Pelosi, with exponentially more power, turns a deaf ear to "The People" and quashes their dissent. How troubling that a once valiant activist, at the forefront of social causes, is now a tool of the administration and an adversary of participatory democracy. Since January of last year, members of peace and justice organizations across the nation, not to mention her own San Francisco constituents, have been begging Pelosi to meet with them to discuss defunding and ending the war in Iraq and impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney. Pelosi has refused their requests.

Read more here.

Keep On Pushing, Dennis

No one should be above the law.

From Kucinich Pushes on Impeachment by Jason Leopold:

Congress has plenty of evidence that George W. Bush deserves impeachment for misleading the nation into war in Iraq, authorizing torture and other grave crimes, and violating the Constitution – and it is now time to act, says Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

“How many more hearings do we need to have to prove this administration has violated the Constitution, taken the law into its own hands, and condoned torture?” asked Kucinich, D-Ohio, author of some three dozen articles of impeachment.

“These articles of impeachment are about accountability,” Kucinich said in an interview. “I think our country is at risk. We’re setting a terrible precedent for future administrations if we choose to turn a blind eye to the crimes committed by this administration.

Read the rest here.

Unbelievable!!!

“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.”

“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.”

This Is Just Plain Wrong

Religion can make people do some good things. Mostly it just makes them do nutty things. Here is an example:

From Obama quits church, citing controversies:

Sen. Barack Obama said Saturday that he has resigned from the church where controversial sermons by his former pastor and other ministers created political headaches for his campaign.

"We don't want to have to answer for everything that's stated in the church," the Democratic front-runner said. "We also don't want the church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes."

Bye bye separation of church and state. So long freedom of speech. Adios “…but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The irony here is that sometimes I wish that the Constitution had a clause that simply banned all religions from being practiced in the United States. Of course that would not be right since it would be a limit on our freedom. It is better for people to learn the errors of their ways on their own, rather than by mandate. However, it certainly would simplify things for Barack Obama right now. The fact is that we do have freedom of speech and we do have freedom of religion. So I find myself trying to defend the Constitution in regards to something that I don’t even believe in. That of course would be God and religion.

I realize that this is a political issue as well as a religious one. Should it be? Doesn’t the Constitution make it clear that religion should not be a part of politics? Is the Constitution wrong about this? Were the founders just trying to tell us that belief in God is illogical and has no place in government?

The other irony here is that the freedom of speech and freedom of religion that is being attacked here is the same freedom of speech and freedom of religion that the attackers cherish. The attackers in this case are Republicans and the right wing. They just don’t like the content of the speech coming from Obama’s former church. If the shoe were on the other foot I’m sure they would not like it. This is a not so subtle point that they just don’t seem to understand, as their constant attacks on the ACLU demonstrate.

It seems to me that Obama is demonstrating a form of censorship by distancing himself from Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ. This just seems wrong to me.

The Dog Of War Is Unchained

From Rutgers Clinic Sues President Bush Over Iraq War by David Swanson:

The Rutgers/Newark Constitutional Litigation Clinic filed suit today in the Federal District Court in Newark against President Bush over the War in Iraq. The Complaint seeks a Declaratory Judgment that the President’s decision to launch a preemptive war against a sovereign nation in 2003 violated Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which assigns to Congress the power to Declare War.

According to Professor Frank Askin, founding director of the Clinic and attorney for the Plaintiffs in New Jersey Peace Action v. George W. Bush, six law students worked with him through much of the academic year studying the issues and preparing the law suit.

The unusual 20-page Complaint relies very heavily on the annals of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, at which the Founders deliberately denied to the president the power to wage war except in response to a sudden attack when Congress did not have time to act. “The Founders were very clear,” said Askin “that only Congress could make that awesome decision. They were not permitted to delegate that power to the president and thus be able later to disclaim responsibility for a decision gone bad. It was that momentous decision that allowed Thomas Jefferson to proclaim that the Convention had ‘chained the dog of war.’”

The Crux Of The Problem

In the United States we have many laws. Some of the best ones are found in the Constitution. How many of these laws are enforced? If the good laws were enforced we would not have some of the problems that we face. Instead we have a Congress that simply proposes more laws when faced with an angry constituency. Of course, many of these new laws that are passed will not be enforced. That is the crux of the problem.

One of the best and most important of these laws has not been enforced. The Constitution states that “Congress shall have power to declare war.” If it had been followed to the letter the debacle that is Iraq might not have happened. If Congress had taken the time to deliberate, would we have attacked Iraq? Even a Congress with a Republican majority would have given this more thought than George W. Bush did.

Take our current economic situation. It has come about because of the credit/housing situation and high oil prices. I believe attacking Iraq has contributed to the high cost of oil significantly. I’ve just mentioned the law that was broken concerning Iraq. Several laws were broken when it comes to what banks and lenders did that contributed to the credit/housing crisis that we now face.

From Those Chickens: The Economic Crisis and America’s Poor and Struggling by Michael Blim:

(Parenthetically, where were the Federal Reserve, financial regulators and the Congress when the crisis had begun to show itself in October, 2006? Where are the US attorneys and the Attorney Generals of 23 states, all of whom are equipped with statutory authority to stop predatory lending and impose civil, as well as in some cases criminal penalties on perpetrators?)

Banks made greater profits on sub-prime loans because they could charge working class and near-power households more for their mortgages. They sold them in packages at higher prices to customers eager for extra profits. Everybody made out – except those purchasing the mortgages. Disaster was just around the corner.

In the case of the Iraq War Congress abdicated their responsibility by passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

In the case of the current economic crisis banks and other lenders broke existing laws. If they had abided by these laws our current credit/housing crisis might not have occurred.

Congress reacts by doing what they can do, passing new laws. It makes them look like they are doing something. This is not always the best solution. Sometimes all that is needed is the enforcement of existing laws.

Perhaps we should elevate the Government Accountability Office to the same level of stature as the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the government.

What good are laws that are not obeyed? What happens when the lawmakers themselves break the law? What happens when the lawmakers ignore others who have broken the law? Isn’t this a mockery of justice?

The Craziest Thing About Jeremiah Wright

Many Americans seem to think that Jeremiah Wright is crazy, or at least a little nuts. Many Americans seem to be upset because Jeremiah Wright said “God damn America.” I do think that Wright is crazy, but not for the reasons that most Americans do. Most of the things that I have heard Wright say have some basis in reason. Even what he has said about AIDS is based on logic. Flawed logic, yes, but still logic. I can see how he went from Tuskegee syphilis experimentation on blacks to thinking that the AIDS epidemic was started as an experiment on blacks.

So, why do I think Jeremiah Wright is crazy? Because he believes in God. There is no logical reason to, no proof that God exists. He believes for the same reason so many others do, just because. That’s all. Just because. “God damn America” doesn’t bother me at all. Partly because I agree with him. America really sucks right now. Thank you very much Georgie the Dubya. Partly because I don’t believe in God. No God. No hell. They don’t exist. There is not much to upset me in “God damning” anything. It’s basically a meaningless phrase. Millions of Americans are upset with Jeremiah Wright for all the wrong reasons. They should be upset that God and religion are being dragged into our political election process where they don’t belong. They should be upset that all three presidential candidates are guilty of doing this, especially since Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain should all know better. After all, they are all members of Congress and should at least know a little bit of what the Constitution says.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

“…but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

I’m still waiting for an atheist presidential candidate who has at least read the Constitution. That’s someone I would happily vote for. I wouldn’t care at all what her reverend had said.

More Of What's Not In The Constitution

Memo to Mike Huckabee:

Hey Mike. If you ever become the president, remember you have to swear that oath. You know, it says that thing about “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." People forget about it because of that Bush guy, but that oath is still there, and so is the rest of the Constitution too.

Also Mike, these words and phrases are NOT in the U.S. Constitution (And we don’t want you changing it and putting them in):

1. god (even if it’s capitalized as in: God, it’s still not there, and you can’t use that argument that god is everywhere, he’s still not in the Constitution, sorry Mike).
2. abortion
3. gay
4. marriage
5. gay marriage
6. God's standards
7. pray
8. homosexuality
9. bible

And a reminder of what IS in the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… The First Amendment

Your good ol’ buddy,
Paul T.

What IS In The Constitution

From Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

It could be argued that that the Saudis are our enemies. After all fifteen of the attackers on September 11, 2001 were from Saudi Arabia. Isn’t George W. Bush now giving them “Aid and Comfort”? Is George W. Bush committing Treason against the United States?

According to George W. Bush tyrants (like Saddam Hussein) are bad and should be replaced by a democracy. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a tyrant and is not a democracy. Why are they not part of his “axis of evil”?

What's Not In The Constitution

Everywhere you turn you find news of the need for tax cuts, the fed to stimulate the economy (sounds a little dirty to me), for a “stimulus package” (sounds really dirty to me), and other things that some people think the government should be doing to “help” the economy because it’s fallen and they think it can’t get up again on its own.

Is it the governments role to “help” an abstraction?

These words and phrases are NOT in the Constitution:

1. economy
2. economics
3. fed
4. stimulus
5. tax cut
6. wall street
7. federal reserve
8. stimulus package

Nothing To See Here, Move Along

What is there to say about the New Hampshire primary results? Politics as usual? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? Why do the New Hampshire voters not want change? Oh well, let’s just keep shredding the Constitution while we bomb Iran back to the Stone Age.