Letters to the Editor
What Constitution?
Published Letters: 156
-
This Country is Not at War Under the Constitution and Scalia Knows Better than to Lie About It
[Read the article: Supreme Court restores habeas corpus, strikes down key part of Military Commissions Act]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is welcome indeed to see a majority of the Supreme Court ground today's ruling in the assertion that "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." Does anyone fail to recognize what a decisive repudiation that statement is to the neocons who would and do argue that the Constitution can be ignored at the President's whim? It's an obvious proposition, to be sure, but it is nonetheless refreshing to see it written out and applied. We do have a Constitution and it does endure, at least for five of our Justices. That's a plus.
On the other hand, Justice Scalia's rabid dissent, predicated upon the hysterical ranting that we are "at war with Islamofascists" is, from the perspective of the United States Constitution, so utterly false as to be nearly insane. There is absolutely no way any self-respecting Federal jurist interpret the United States Constitution to allow "war powers" to the President unless and until "war" is in fact declared by Congress, which is what the Constitution demands and which we all understand has never been done.
This country is at "war" in a colloquial sense at best, analytically no different than being at "war on drugs" or at "war on poverty". It's a tagline and it's descriptive -- but has anyone ever seriously contended that the Constitution could be suspended or ignored because of drugs or poverty? We are in a dire situation, perhaps, because there are people out there who want to kill us -- when has that not been true in the history of the United States? There are references in the Koran that some might use to incite violence against America -- how long has the Koran been out there? and what of references in the Bible that urge violence? Scalia wants a Crusade, the world has been there and done that and we wrote a Constitution here after that subsided, well aware of the existence of other cultures, groups or even disgruntled lunatics that might not like us for various reasons.
Congress has not declared "War" on any country (could Congress declare "War" on a religion? or "War" on an individual?). Without a congressionally declared war, Scalia should shut the hell up rather than tell us -- in his official capacity as a Supreme Court Justice who is supposedly sworn to defend our Constitution -- that the United States Constitution can be disregarded because these are dangerous times.
Scalia's own dissent provides a compelling display of fear-based propaganda which bodes only in support of, not opposition to, today's pronouncement of the United States Supreme Court that "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
-
Allocation of Resources
[Read the article: British debate highlights the cravenness and complicity of congressional Democratic "leaders"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG is too busy to tilt at what he perceives to be the "Impeach Bush" windmill, as I read his response. So be it, there are only so many hours in the day and GG's campaigns are overwhelmingly important in the grand scheme of things. I'd like to see him weigh in analytically, but I'll settle for hanging on his every word in other matters he chooses to approach.
But I certainly don't presume GG's declining to devote column inches to represent any type of fundamental disagreement with the premise that Bush's actions merit impeachment. His assessment is that the culture of servility is not going to change any time soon enough to make it likely that impeachment will succeed; hard to argue that point, really.
So GG will defer to others willing to carry this torch. If for no other reason than to be able to show our posterity that there really were people, lots of people, who were appalled by the lawlessness of the Bush Administration, the more who will keep mentioning it the better, it seems to me.
Sorry, but not angry or crestfallen, that GG is prioritizing in this particular fashion on this issue. But since the FISA "retroactive immunity" debacle itself, and the torture debacle, and the Yoo debacle, and the Media Enabling debacle, and the Military Analyst Propaganda debacle, and the Destroyed Electronic Evidence debacle, and all the other Bush debacles so well dissected by GG periodically are but subsets of the Impeachment remedy prescribed by the Constitution, I'll thank GG for the contributions of his individual analyses to what could be a greater whole.
Professor Turley made a wonderfully colorful observation about the Supreme Court's recent habeas decision, noting that the structure erected by the Constitution actually won out: "Just because you have an idiot-proof system doesn't mean you don't have idiots." In the Bush Administration's America, it's just a big game of Whack A Mole to smack the serial Bush idiocies as they appear. GG is the best in that game. Have at! There is more than one way to win: impeach Bush is a good end game and might stop the stream of moles, but stopping individual moles works too, and even maybe even with some useful immediacy and effectiveness.
-
Carry On, GG
[Read the article: British debate highlights the cravenness and complicity of congressional Democratic "leaders"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow. I've been responded to by GG. Honestly, I'm honored.
My post wasn't meant to denigrate what you're doing, of course, and I both acknowledged and you have now reinforced that you're not saying you don't believe impeachment is justified....
For what it's worth, though, some could certainly argue that what is considered "realistic" also implies at least some framework of relative importance, too -- if your only guidepost is whether you believe your posting will have a "realistic" impact on some issue, I have to say I'd rather hope to advance the cause of protecting the United States Constitution by impeaching Bush than expect to obtain some behavior modification or apology from the likes of Brian Williams and Joe Klein. I'm just sayin', if neither's gonna happen, how does one decide which cause to advance more conscientiously?
This has no one ready solution. I appreciate your views on any issue you choose to address. Thanks!