Law or Lawlessness

Dankdude · #1 08-07-2007, 10:00 PM

We are not a nation of laws, if law cannot be enforced at the highest levels of our government. It's that simple.

Noting the Constitution assigns both the right and the obligation to Congress to intercede when the executive branch violates the law is one thing, asking Congress to actually do it, is apparently, quite another. While it is agonizingly obvious the time has more than arrived for Congress to do what the Constitution mandates, namely rein in a rogue president, such action would be extraordinary nonetheless.

Mr. Bush and his entourage have not only broken the law, they flaunt it. Moreover, this group that now controls the executive branch even assumes to take the power of law brazenly unto itself; in some cases, even relying on their allies in Congress to change laws the administration had already broken, to retroactively shield White House officials and their subordinates.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a perfect example. Just two weeks prior to the 2006 midterm elections, Congress passed legislation that permitted the administration to detain, at its own discretion, anyone the executive branch - specifically, Mr. Bush as the commander in chief - deemed to be a terrorist. Once the law was signed by Mr. Bush, both Congress and the commander in chief were on record as agreeing habeas corpus was another quaint and expendable formality. That was rather convenient and timely for the White House because it was becoming increasingly apparent by that time the administration had been sanctioning, even directing, illegal detentions for at least three years before Congress obliged them by providing after-the-fact, retroactive legal cover.

Congress's decision to pass the Military Commissions Act is, on its face, difficult to understand. To better grasp the rationale that drove this patently unconstitutional legislation through both houses of Congress to the desk of the very man who had broken the laws it invalidated, it is important to consider the fundamental inconsistency between law enforcement and electioneering. Those who must be reelected must be popular. Putting people in jail, or even attempting to, can make you very unpopular. Just ask Patrick Fitzgerald. No one did more to challenge illegality at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than Mr. Fitzgerald and his hand-picked group of investigators. They ended up hated by everyone. But their efforts pulled back, if only for a moment, the steel curtain of secrecy behind which those who now assume the nation's highest offices had, up until that investigation, operated with absolute impunity.

Mounting a serious legal challenge to the executive branch is a daunting task for Congress under any circumstances. However, as the breadth and scope of this White House's transgressions are totally unprecedented, so too is the challenge Congress faces. Never in its history has America been confronted with an executive branch so determined to break every law designed to regulate its conduct. In the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "The American people don't know the half of it."

During the same interview, Pelosi was asked about impeachment as a remedy for illegal conduct by Messrs. Bush, Cheney and other administration officials. Pelosi replied, "It's not worth it."

If the price of inaction is the forfeiture of our constitutional democracy, then the worth of action needs to be reexamined - quickly, and in earnest.

This Congress has been saddled with an unenviable task: They are asked, scripted by the nation's founding fathers, to undertake a rather monumental stand in defense of the republic. The Constitution is clear. What will prevail, law or lawlessness?

medicineman · #2 08-08-2007, 12:19 PM

No matter the difficulty (As preached by 420) The congress (House) needs to proceed with the impeachment hearings immediately. First against Cheney, Then against Bush, or both together as we sure as hell know we don't want Cheney for president, (although one would wonder if he is not already).

420worshipper · #3 08-08-2007, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by medicineman

No matter the difficulty (As preached by 420) The congress (House) needs to proceed with the impeachment hearings immediately. First against Cheney, Then against Bush, or both together as we sure as hell know we don't want Cheney for president, (although one would wonder if he is not already).

So, with 16 months left until they are out of office, you would want to waste an enormous amount of tax payers dollars starting the impeachment process. How about reading what Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says about it here on this link...
Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President

<QUOTE>
Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A06

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.

The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations
</QUOTE>

Now if she and other Democrats wouldn't want to do it, why do you think that we should now. There is 16 months left and neither he nor Cheney will ever be able to have a politically elected job again. The impeachment process for Bill Clinton took 2 years and cost the taxpayers over 200 million dollars to complete and he didn't get impeached. Besides, if he had Gore would have pardoned him. And if the Democrats in Congress wouldn't allow it, I bet Bush would have under pressure to get Democrats on his side. And if they impeach Bush and Cheney, I bet the next person in line (Nancy Pelosi) would step up and pardon Bush but not Cheney. Look at the time they tried to impeach Nixon. Johnson was ready to pardon him quick of any crimes. And that is what you do as President. You make sure to pardon all Presidents, Senators, Representatives and Governors especially if they are in the other party. That way it gives you political favors with them later on.

medicineman · #4 08-08-2007, 01:11 PM

In a word, fuck that ignorant bitch. She came right out and said Impeachment was off the table. that was when she lost credibility in my view. Look, there will be no meaningful legislation passed as long as Bush is president and the dems dont have 60 votes in the senate anyway, so they should do something meaningful. I'D MUCH RATHER SPEND A FEW MILLION BUCKS ON IMPEACHMENT THAN THE WAR.

420worshipper · #5 08-08-2007, 01:20 PM

Yeah and she said that back when the Republicans were the majority and the Democrats were the minority. And people still voted to give the Democrats the majority. Maybe if more people would have read that, she and others that went on record would have lost.

medicineman · #6 08-08-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420worshipper

Yeah and she said that back when the Republicans were the majority and the Democrats were the minority. And people still voted to give the Democrats the majority. Maybe if more people would have read that, she and others that went on record would have lost.

In case you haven't figured it out Mr. genious, The people voted against the Republicans, not for the Democrats.

420worshipper · #7 08-08-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by medicineman

In case you haven't figured it out Mr. genious, The people voted against the Republicans, not for the Democrats.

In case you didn't know this. In order to vote against Republicans, you have to vote for Democrats. And most that went on the record, were up for re-election in their states.

medicineman · #8 08-08-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420worshipper

In case you didn't know this. In order to vote against Republicans, you have to vote for Democrats. And most that went on the record, were up for re-election in their states.

Duhhh, read my last post. They voted Democratic as they hated the repukes. even repukes changed their votes.

420worshipper · #9 08-08-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by medicineman

Duhhh, read my last post. They voted Democratic as they hated the repukes. even repukes changed their votes.

But this was your last post......

<QUOTE>
The people voted against the Republicans, not for the Democrats.
</QUOTE>

Funny but the post you just made said they voted Democrat. And reading your last post quoted above. You said they voted against Republicans, "not for the Democrats".

ViRedd · #10 08-08-2007, 02:10 PM

Too funny~~~