Tag: W Bush

Posted on

Cracks in the Constitution?

This is an opinion article with a many correct truths, which I have bolded for your skimming pleasure.

By Ted Rall Wed Oct 26, 9:18 AM ET
Cracks Appear in the Constitution

NEW YORK–The phone rings with a blocked caller ID but I know who it is. My friend the film critic has just put down the same article I’ve just finished reading, a front-page blockbuster in the New York Daily News. It says that George W. Bush knew about Karl Rove’s scheme to blow CIA agent Valerie Plame’s cover for years, that he was Rove’s partner in treason from the start, that his claims of ignorance were lies. The News article is anonymously sourced but we know it’s 100 percent true because the White House won’t deny that Bush is a traitor.

“So they’ll impeach him now, right?”

My friend asked the same thing in 2001 when recounts proved Bush lost Florida, when the 9/11 fetishist admitted that he’d never even tried to catch Osama, when WMDs failed to turn up in Iraq, and when his malignant neglect killed hundreds of Americans in post-Katrina New Orleans.

“This means impeachment. Right?” Wrong.

Any one of Bush’s crimes towers over the combined wickedness of Nixon and Clinton. And there are so many to choose from! How many times has Bush “made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States” (a key count in the Nixon impeachment)?

Stop laughing, you.

Unfortunately for my friend and the United States, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Nixon and Clinton faced Congresses controlled by the other party. Because Bush belongs to the same party as the majorities in the House and Senate, nothing he does can get him impeached.

Our failed Constitutional system means we’re stuck with this disastrous demagogue for three more years. Gloat now, Republican readers, but party loyalty’s stranglehold on impeachment can easily take the form of a complacent Democratic Congress overlooking the misdeeds of a batty Democratic president.

Any safe can be cracked; every system of safeguards breaks down eventually. We can’t get rid of Bush because the Founding Fathers, who were smart enough to think of just about everything, dropped the ball when they drafted the article that provides for presidential impeachment. Because there were no national political parties back in 1787, their otherwise ingenious system of checks and balances failed to account for the possibility that a Congress might choose to overlook a president’s crimes.

Small parties were active on the state and local level during the late 18th century, but James Madison, George Washington and most of the other Founders despised these organizations as harbingers of petty “factionalism” that ought to be banned or severely limited. Washington used the occasion of his 1796 farewell address to decry “the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration,” he warned. “It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection…In governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.” Voting blocs were the enemy of good government.

In the new republic, Madison wrote in his seminal Federalist No. 10, political arguments should be considered on their own merits. Since candidates for and holders of political office would be judged solely as individuals, Congressmen would focus on the greater good rather than political alliances when weighing whether to impeach a president. Even when parties began to emerge as a national force in 1800, few politicians would have argued that a Democratic-Republican president should be safe from impeachment unless the Federalist Party happened to control Congress.

Another Constitutional breakdown, concerning the separation of powers, occurred in June 2004. More than a year after the Supreme Court decided in Rasul v. Bush that the nearly 600 Muslim men and young boys being held incommunicado at Guantanamo Bay were entitled to have their cases heard by U.S. courts, they remain in cold storage–no lawyers, no court dates. The Bush Administration simply ignored the ruling.

“[Bush’s] Justice Department,” Dahlia Lithwick wrote in Slate, “sees [the ruling] through the sophisticated legal prism known as the Toddler Worldview: Anything one doesn’t wish to accept simply isn’t true.” Because the Founding Fathers never anticipated the possibility that the nation’s chief executive would treat its final judgments with the respect due an out-of-state parking ticket issued to a rental car, the Supreme Court has been rendered as toothless as a gummy bear.

The more you look, the more you’ll find that our Constitution has been subverted to the point of virtual irrelevance. The legislative branch has abdicated its exclusive right to declare war to the president, who was appointed by a federal court that undermined the states’ constitutional right to manage and settle election disputes. Individuals’ protection against unreasonable searches have been trashed, habeas corpus is a joke, and double jeopardy has become routine as those exonerated by criminal court face second trials in civil court. Our system of checks and balances has collapsed, the victim of a citizenry more interested in entertaining distraction than eternal vigilance.

Where evil men rule, law cannot protect those who sleep.

~END~

So sites like Vote to Impeach Bush, while great to garner public support for the movement will not gain any political gain until the power of the Republicans sways to the left. A huge reason all votes will count in 2006 to push the political party to the Dems and see if they have the balls to enact some change.

Posted on

The Selfish Genius’ ploy for National domination

What images do you conjure up when you hear the name Karl Rove? Strategist? Presidential Advisor? Campaign king? Political history buff? or maybe controversy? Liar? Charlatan? Drop out? Traitor? or the infamous term “Bush’s Brain”?

In the autumn election season of 1970, a cherubic, bespectacled teenager turned up at the Chicago campaign headquarters of Alan Dixon, a Democrat running for state treasurer in Illinois. No one paid the newcomer much attention when he arrived, or when he left soon afterwords. Nor did anyone in the office make the connection between the mystery volunteer and 1,000 invitations on campaign stationery that began circulating in Chicago’s red-light district and soup kitchens, promising “free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing” for all-comers at Dixon’s headquarters.

As political dirty tricks go, it was minor league. Hundreds of the city’s heavy drinkers and homeless turned up at a smart Dixon reception looking for free booze. Dixon was embarrassed but the plot failed to stop his momentum: he was elected state treasurer and went on to become a senator. But the teenager who stole his letterheads, Karl Rove, has gone even further.

~The Brains – Tuesday March 9, 2004 posted in the Guardian

Mr. Rove has made a significant impact on American history then and even more so now. He’s been the master strategist working the strings of the political puppets in many republican circuits and today is considered by many, the most powerful advisor in politics.

Though the most widely known political figure in the world today is not Rove but our president George W. Bush. However, knowing Mr. Bush’s verbal communicative skills, social habits and quick wit decision making process, you know that he didn’t get where he is today without some help. “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” – and that man is Karl Rove.

Rove is an avid student of history and the political process, however, as he understands it backwards, forwards, loopholes and around corners. He is smart, shrewd, calculating and egotistical all with out a college degree. He attended the University of Utah, the University of Texas at Austin and George Mason University, however, he’s dropped out of each and does not hold a degree from any institution. Yet Karl Rove has risen through the rakes mearly by doing all things possible, public officials dear not do for their cause; playing a hard nosed, down and dirty game of politics.

Although he worked on George H. Bush’s primary campaign for president in 1980, his early successes were in Texas working the political ladder for a small circle of Republicans through the state. Rove won his first key victories in the rise of power through the successful run and Texas election of George W. Bush to the governors seat in 1994.

From that point on, Karl Rove influence has ballooned as has the Republican party – albeit not always on good faith and morals as they would have you believe. Right now the Republicans hold a majority in the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Presidency. A solid trifecta of power which has disillusioned the democrats and dissolved any remnants of political influence and power they had. The final step to complete reb-blooded republican dominance is the Supreme Court and as cautious conservatism is being pushed off the scale with the nominations of John Roberts and Harriet Miers (should she get appointed). Where does the conquest end? For egoists and power whores, it never does but you’re sure to see the lasting effects of this expansion with extreme changes in the decisions for freedoms, foreign policies and lifestyles for not only the American but world nation people as well.

Today. If you haven’t been hiding from the political pages of the news, you know that there is an on going investigation into the public disclosure of the name of one of our CIA undercover agents. This type of disclosure of any undercover operative, puts that person, their family and their mission into grave jeopardy. And if they survive all of this, their job is over, ruining their career. This type of action is inexcusable for any reason and should be subject to treason charges for the parties involved (which in this country could mean life in prison).

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has accumulated evidence during his two-year investigation regarding this still on going leak case and it has become apparent that the motives behind the ousting of this CIA agent (Valerie Plame) is in retaliation against her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. In the summer of 2003, Wilson, a former diplomat, strongly accused the White House of using “twisted” and false intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

[Joseph Wilson claimed firsthand evidence: At the behest of the CIA, he had flown to Niger in February 2002 to investigate the administration’s assertion that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium in the African nation for use in its nuclear weapons program. Wilson returned unconvinced the assertion was true. However, Bush himself made the charge in his 2003 State of the Union address, prompting Wilson to spread word throughout the government and eventually make public his rebuttal. (From the Washington Post article noted below)

The motive is clear. The revenge is damaging and reeks of Karl Rove. He is currently under oath and speaking with the commission on his role and knowledge of the case, however, it’s be come clearer that he has a connection to the case and the pressure is on to show how connected.

To take a side track, I realize that the majority of people in America could care less about politics. As long as they have their paycheck, air to breath, are getting some and just going along in life – happy go lucky. Its becoming increasingly clear that politics is effecting younger and younger generations. As I get older I realize this, but I understand at 21, the first thing on my mind after that Friday exam is hitting the beer fridge at 3 PM…

Maybe political and economic event always hit every generation around 30, but the CIA Leak case is just one in a series of events that show how undermining and deceiving our current government is (and you would think that forging uranium purchasing papers to start a war would be enough for a public out cry). I’m sure Karl Rove isn’t loosing sleep over this nuisance and he’ll be back to As time passes we are going to see a fanning out of issues we all have to deal with “business” however, this shouldn’t discourage any generation from getting involved with your own or next generation’s futures. We are continuing to have issues effecting younger gens; from rising education costs (US 1, 2, UK), the depletion of oil and other energy reserves, political unrest in other areas of the world (Korea, Syria, Iran, and Nepal?), the astronomical US National debt, rising healthcare costs, censorship or more directly the over-concentration of U.S. media control, separation of church and state *cough*, right to choose (abortion), and your Tuesday night hold’em tournament…

What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.
~Thomas Jefferson : Letter to William Stephens Smith (November 13, 1787)

Reference Links:
Role of Rove, Libby in CIA Leak Case Clearer (Washington Post)
Timeline: The CIA Leak Case (against Karl Rove) (NPR)
Leak Counsel Is Said to Press on Rove’s Role (New York Times)

Posted on

Can you believe this guy?!

Bush is soon (if not already) to be synonymous with “Cronyism“. So he’s nominated another appointee to the US Supreme Court. I guess to be nominated by George Bush to a political position in his administration, you have to have no qualifications what so ever. Michael Brown is hurting right now, at least he was a judge of Arabian horses…

So in light of another nomination by Bush to a high level political position, I’ve added this article from the Wall Street Journal. Apparently its a requirement for a Bush appointee to have no qualifications what so ever. If you’re lost on this post. Here’s the short history:

On Oct. 3rd, 2005, President Bush recommended for appointment to the US Supreme Court (the highest court for our country) and replacement for a retiring Judge Sandra Day O’Connor, a loyal aide and designated White House counsel Harriet Miers. Ms. Miers, has served as Mr. Bush’s lawyer and has run a law firm in his home state of Texas, however, she has never had ANY experience as a judge in the courts of law. I will say, as to not be totally biased against the nomination, that Rehnquist, whose death paved way for Roberts’ nomination, had not served as a judge before President Richard Nixon put him on the supreme court. Nineteen other justices previously had never served as judges before getting on the high court. As it stands now, both Republicans and Democrats are not happy with the nomination, and all Bush can say is… Well… She’s a woman!

Link to WSJ Article

Posted below in case its no longer available:

Cronyism

By RANDY E. BARNETT
October 4, 2005; Page A26

During the Clinton impeachment imbroglio, Alexander Hamilton’s definition of “impeachable offense” from Federalist No. 65 was plastered from one end of the media to the other. With the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, get ready for another passage from Hamilton to get similar play — this one from Federalist No. 76:

“To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.” (The italics are mine.)


Harriet Miers is not just the close confidante of the president in her capacity as his staff secretary and then as White House counsel. She also was George W. Bush’s personal lawyer. Apart from nominating his brother or former business partner, it is hard to see how the president could have selected someone who fit Hamilton’s description any more closely. Imagine the reaction of Republicans if President Clinton had nominated Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills, who had ably represented him during his impeachment proceedings, to the Supreme Court. How about Bernie Nussbaum?

As the quote from Hamilton suggests, the core purpose of Senate confirmation of presidential nominees is to screen out the appointment of “cronies,” which Merriam-Webster defines as “a close friend especially of long standing.” Cronyism is bad not only because it leads to less qualified judges, but also because we want a judiciary with independence from the executive branch. A longtime friend of the president who has served as his close personal and political adviser and confidante, no matter how fine a lawyer, can hardly be expected to be sufficiently independent — especially during the remaining term of her former boss.

By characterizing this appointment as cronyism, I mean to cast no aspersions on Ms. Miers. I imagine she is an intelligent and able lawyer. To hold down the spot of White House counsel she must be that and more. She must also be personally loyal to the president and an effective bureaucratic infighter, two attributes that are not on the top of the list of qualifications for the Supreme Court.

To be qualified, a Supreme Court justice must have more than credentials; she must have a well-considered “judicial philosophy,” by which is meant an internalized view of the Constitution and the role of a justice that will guide her through the constitutional minefield that the Supreme Court must navigate. Nothing in Harriet Miers’s professional background called upon her to develop considered views on the extent of congressional powers, the separation of powers, the role of judicial precedent, the importance of states in the federal system, or the need for judges to protect both the enumerated and unenumerated rights retained by the people. It is not enough simply to have private opinions on these complex matters; a prospective justice needs to have wrestled with them in all their complexity before attaining the sort of judgment that decision-making at the Supreme Court level requires, especially in the face of executive or congressional disagreement.

Even a star quarterback with years of high school and college football under his belt takes years of experience and hard knocks to develop the knowledge and instincts needed to survive in the NFL. The Supreme Court is the big league of the legal profession, and Ms. Miers has never even played the judicial equivalent of high school ball, much less won a Heisman Trophy.

Ms. Miers would be well qualified for a seat on a court of appeals, where she could develop a grasp of all these important issues. She would then have to decide what role text and original meaning should play in constitutional interpretation in the context of close cases and very difficult decisions. The Supreme Court is no place to confront these issues for the very first time.

Given her lack of experience, does anyone doubt that Ms. Miers’s only qualification to be a Supreme Court justice is her close connection to the president? Would the president have ever picked her if she had not been his lawyer, his close confidante, and his adviser? Of course, Hamilton also thought that the existence of Senate confirmation would deter the nomination of cronies:

“The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other.”

While the Senate once successfully resisted President Lyndon Johnson’s attempt to nominate his own highly able crony, Abe Fortas, to be chief justice, perhaps the performance of senators during the Roberts nomination reduced the deterrent effect of “advise and consent.” Judiciary Committee Democrats spent half their time making speeches rather than questioning. What questions they did ask were not carefully designed to ferret out the nominee’s judicial philosophy, favoring instead to inquire about his feelings, or whether he would stand up for the “little guy,” or bemoaning his refusal to telegraph how he would rule on particular cases likely to come before the court.

For their part, Senate Republicans were content to parrot the empty line that a judge “should follow the law and not legislate from the bench.” Sit tight and vote seemed to be their approach. By refusing to demand a nominee with a judicial philosophy of adherence to the text of the Constitution — the whole text, including the parts that limit federal and state powers — Republicans did nothing to induce the White House to send up a nominee who was at least as committed to limits on federal power as Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor had been.

Times like these demand a justice with a firm grasp on constitutional text, history and principles. Someone who can resist the severe pressure brought by Congress, by the executive branch, by state and local governments, and also by fellow justices to exceed the Constitution’s limits on government power. Does anything in her record suggest that Harriet Miers will be that sort of justice? We do not need to wait for Senate hearings to answer this question. What hearings will tell us, however, is whether the Senate, too, will succumb, in Hamilton’s words, to “a spirit of favoritism.”

Mr. Barnett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Law at Boston University and the author of “Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty” (Princeton, 2004).
“To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.” ~ Alexander Hamilton