Obama is an example of something called a "junior senator."

Ponder that awhile, and you may get an answer to your questions.

There are too many "experts" and ivory tower law professors who fail to view events through the scope of time as opposed to the scope of "now".

You wish to talk about those who fail to view events through the scope of time? How about the events in the past which demonstrate that a powerful executive will lead to inevitable abuse of that power? From the Kings of England to Richard Nixon, the scope of time will show you that power concentrated in one man will be abused.

The scope of time also tells us that torture is cruel, inhuman, and degrading, as well as useless for gaining actionable intelligence.

I like experts, and contrary to your statement they usually cite historic precedents. I usually listen to experts in a field, as opposed to people who think poorly of those experts. Especially when it comes to something like my doctor, my dentist, my accountant, my lawyer, or my President. I wouldn't want someone who wasn't an educated dental professional doing my root canal.

The Supreme Court decison on photo ID was a hideous miscarriage of justice. The legistlature of Indiana chose to impose a poll tax . . . long since outlawed . . . with the sole purpose to be to unnecessarily harass poor voters . . . by requiring photo ID's. The example of nuns being denied the right to vote in the Indiana primary shows exactly where that right wing law was coming from.

The job of the Court is to reign in pinheaded legislators when in their ignoranc they overstep and violate constitutinoal rights.

Crawl back in your hole, jerk.

The document only "works" if all sides agree to follow it and work within its parameters.

That would be a house of cards. The Constitution actually provides mechanisms for when "all side" do not play along. "Checks and balances" are some of these. Enforcement of laws is another, and also impeachment and recall.

I know you know this, IOW. But I think it's an important point. The Constitution is not a house of cards.

Perhaps not, but it is bearing a strong resemblance to bumf these days.

McCain's speech was masterful as an exercise in "diversionary patriotism" -- say nice things about "the Constitution", get the nice things reported, and maybe nobody will notice you're not the least bit interested in actually respecting the Constitution except to the minimum extent of attacking those with whom you disagree.

Did anyone see the "statement" released on behalf of George W. Bush on "Law Day"? Same thing: "Gee, sure love that Constitution. The 'Rule of Law', pretty great idea, huh? Never mind asking what I've done with that concept during this administration."

Thank you, GG, for pointing out difference between a speech "revering the Constitution" and actions actually respecting it. One is for show, the other would, if implemented, allow our country to prosper and be a beacon of hope for the world. I would prefer the latter -- and I agree with the sentiments of those who want Bush & Co. to answer for their wilful assault on the Constitution. Impeachment first, then tried for war crimes and treason. A patriot can dream....

Who will posit "the list" of specific questions of Constitutional dimension to be asked of the Democratic and the Republican candidates in their first presidential debate?

By not voting for Gore/Kerry/Obama because he is the "lesser of two evils", one enables the greater of two evils to assume power.

I don't see the strawman you claim, because you are again blaming the voter (the enabler of evil) in the line above.

Let me try another way. A customer wants a new car, and he is allowed to buy anything he can afford, anything at all--so long as it's either a Hummer or a Ford Expedition.

When he buys neither, for his own perfectly good reasons, the two dealers shrug and say--"hey, we gave you a choice."

The only thing is that most of them were appointed by Bush 1 and 2. The Supreme Court has gone so far over that it appears they are now legislating from the bench in favor of unchecked executive and corporate powers.

that's not a very good metaphor. It would apply if you were forced to purchase one of the cars and make payments for years.

I think rights are like muscles---they need to be exercised regularly. If we threw out our presidents---I mean, on their asses, sometimes with jail time---once every 20 or 30 years, we might actually get enough practice at it to be good at it. And you wouldn't get the eye-roll from the MSM every time you mention mere impeachment.

The last good chance we had was with Nixon. Somebody go spit on Ford's grave for me, please. -- Baldie McEagle

Which is why I included Ford on my list. Most people would say "Hey, wait a minute! Ford didn't do anything to warrant impeachment." Hell yes he did. He should have been impeached for the pardon.

Also, just to revisit part of naschbac's post that I wanted to comment earlier on but didn't...

The consensus attitude becomes one of a waiting game. If we ignore the problem long enough it will go away on its own, because we can eventually elect someone else.

You can get all the supposed benefits of forced removal, an opportunity to democratically select a replacement, and all you have to do is hold your nose for a while. -- naschbac

Though I think naschbac is right on target wrt the way some people think, this is, to me, the most disgusting aspect of it all. The fact that by "holding our noses" and not forcibly removing a murderous thug like George Bush, we show our true contempt for representative forms of government and our fellow man located "out there" in the rest of the world. I mean it isn't as though BushCo is only shitting on the constitution and the American people after all. There is the little matter of an illegal and immoral war, based on lies, where there have been possibly 1,000,000+ people killed for oil. This is what happens when we "hold our nose" and wait for the likes of Obama. It is just sickening.