Saturday January 11, 2025
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com

 

Jun-27-2008 23:45printcomments

Op Ed: OUR Constitution:
Defend it TODAY
OR Lose It Tomorrow

Bush sabotage sets precedent For imperial Presidency to replace the rule of law.


Image courtesy: suddenlyeverythingsucks.com

(EUGENE, Ore.) - OUR Constitution and its accompanying Bill of Rights is the organizing foundation-structure on which all else has been built in this nation ever since 1776. Countless pages of our history proclaim, without question, that immutable truth for any freedom and for ALL rights: “USE It or LOSE IT!”

Did you know that “precedent set by Presidential action and negligence of Congress” can change the Constitutional freedoms you now enjoy?

Non-action amounting to negligence --even indicating acquiescence for substitution OR seeming-new/solution-- has in the past created subtle changes-over-time.

Precisely that kind of questionable legislation is now a top issue in D.C.: FISA, it is called, for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, ostensibly to continue and “perfect” Constitutionally-demanded caution and court control for wire-tapping communications of American citizens, purportedly and perhaps relating to intelligence.

Unfortunately, FISA as House-passed last week, contains far from perfect means to guarantee full-level Constitutional freedom to those Americans inadvertently or intentionally impacted.

Current law already allows warrantless-listening to permit rapid access but demands court-issued warrant within a defined short period.

By complicit design on both sides of the aisle, this second-shot, more-slippery, new “law” --adjusting reality already encouraged and allowed by Presidential false prerogative-- grants retroactive escape to conspirators; including those whose obvious public record now shows completely clear violation of already-established American law; under the protective guise of “the imperial presidency”.

The theory is that the President -- empowered by self-declared “state of emergency”, itself in question now because of how it was obtained-- can demand of Congress action to excuse, forgive, protect from consequences --including punishments already established-- any action he so chooses to designate; by anyone, at any time, during such a self-declared “emergency”.

In effect it magnifies and multiplies his Presidential powers from Commander in Chief --oF the ARMED FORCES solely for any REAL emergency-- to Commander in Chief of the WHOLE NATION; at any time he chooses to initiate “preemptive war”.

That’s on his own terms, against any nation, without full-and-probing prior Congressional approval and formal Declaration of War, Constitutionally reserved solely for Congress.

Remember, we “went to war” in Iraq via “perverted intel now generally recognized as ‘sold to a quiescent nation’ via an incredibly unprecedented commercial-market/based sales campaign.”

Here you have the inevitable consequence of any neglect from Congress in defending and preserving those powers potently first portrayed for them by our Founders in our Constitution.

Our first President Washington warned specifically against any such seducing situation, in his famous last address to the foundling nation.

Presciently, so did General, then President-later, Ike Eisenhower, specifically warning against the “undue influence and drive for power at any cost” of the military-industrial complex.

Eisenhower clearly declared a continuing danger arisen from necessities-demanded of modern nations caught in the complexities of world-empire competition and confrontation.

Tested in the past by preceding Presidential actions, the basic concept has been denied and defeated on several occasions, tellingly by Supreme Court decision reflecting precisely that “checks-and-balances” principle embedded presciently by those same Founders. within and throughout our Constitution.

Long ago Americans learned that freedom itself is what guarantees the very “right-to-have ‘rights’” --as reflected clearly and convincingly in The Bill of Rights.

Paramount and precisely the heart-and-very/soul of all freedoms --since it is what creates them and then protects them from any potential destruction-- is the sensitive and very sensible single principle:ALL are equal under the law.

That requires source and sensibilities to “make the law” which can and must carry out, strengthen and support the principle; from whence cometh our shaping American concept that “governance requires consent of the governed”; in turn demanding participation “of the people, for the people, BY the people.”

(It is no coincidence that the most-mirroring of Constitutional definition, support and protection for all our rights is now famously seen by millions in that Civil War phrase, uttered in desperation but with deadly determination by great President Lincoln.)

Common-sense courageous concern then creates our Congress and “representative government”; allowing US to select-and-ELECT those we trust first, last-and-always to “protect and preserve the Constitution.

That simple, single concept has served us well over all those years since 1776 and our Revolution; “reversing the rule of royalties across the world”; and based first and foremost on that single principle of “equality for all under law.”

That clearly-then and just as clearly-NOW, includes the chief of the Executive Branch, as initially determined and developed by the Founders; then supported with the unique concept of “three branches, all in cooperation”; but “each one serving as ‘checks and balances’ on each other” --when competition for power and decision inevitably arises.

That “defiance-of-imperialism” is the WHY of our Revolution, exemplified by mirroring action in other nations ever since.

Nowhere in this system --defined as “democracy” by common understanding everywhere-- is there any place, nor even any mention, of a “single unitary executive” with the supreme powers accorded to Himself by George W. Bush and his cohorts.

Nowhere in this system --now under constant, repetitive, remorseless and lawless attack from the Bush cabal-- is there any possible empowerment for his too-simple “signing letter”: seducing and then sabotaging the concerted cooperative will-of-Congress, in the bill he is about to sign.

Each “letter” denies, then defies, any provision or the whole law sent to him by Congress, reflecting representative choice-and-will, overwhelmed and frustrated by simple imperious “decision” -- HIS alone for responsibility and accountability under our famed Constitutional democracy.

Nowhere in this system --despite all claims-to-the contrary by his surrounding co-perpetrators-- is there any possible pretense providing and protecting his simple defiance and denial of his premier, overshadowing Constitutional duty: To act only “within existing law”, nor ever to seek or allow “retroactive immunity”; for himself or co-perpetrators -- no matter whether persons or incorporated private-interests.

Never before in the history of our nation --and our Constitution-- has there been perpetrated the insidious, then direct, always-determined (and now brutal) attack on the original principles and concepts of our Constitution like the Bush-assault.

One must conclude, on probing examination of the public record, that there has now occurred a unique attack; led by a conscienceless cabal of co-conspirators, out to destroy our Constitution for their own malign purposes.

They would --if they could-- take us back to times before our Revolution, reducing our freedoms once again to the whim and wild caprice of “royalty”: “The Imperial Presidency”

Assumed additional-empowerment in times of “national emergency” has forever been the cover of those seeking to renew, expand and install the “unitary executive”; replacing that essential “three-Branch and effective checks/balances” concept, conceived and conscientiously then achieved as our American governance system, by our Founders.

If we as Americans truly preferred to live our lives under imperialism -- “one/person/rule by whim and presumed wisdom”-- we need never have fought our American Revolution; nor succeeding struggles, including the Civil War; surely the world example of “equality under law”.

But we DID “fight the Revolution”, and we continue to fight it today, when we directly confront the same forces --and the same personality/twists-- we first encountered in the universal, unavoidable, inevitable ongoing struggle for freedom and liberty.

When will we ever learn?
Why not return, once again, as for our entire national history, to those same prescient principles bequeathed to us by our Founders?

Surely that includes the impeachment process, forcefully built-in for us by those same then-leaders, who knew freedom and liberty when encountered’ and how to protect it, at all costs.


Reader’s Note:
Quotes condensed, summarized, shortened for space reasons; verbatim record available on request with ID. Some fifty separate references were utilized in preparation for this Op Ed; complete list available on request with ID.

Among key books consulted were:

1. The Imperial Presidency:; Arthur M. Schlesinger; (1973 !); ISBN 0-395-177713-8

2. Why Americans Hate Politics; E.J. Dionne,Jr.; (1991 !); ISBN: 0-671077877-3.

3. WHAT HAPPENED: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception; Scott McClellan; (2008 !); ISBN: 978-1-58648-556-6

4. THE CREATION OF THE MEDIA: Political Origins of Modern Communications; Paul Starr; 2004; ISBN: 0-465-08193-2

5. Democracy in America; Alexis de Tocqueville; (George Lawrence translator);ISBN 0-06-091522-6

6. Several varying editions summarizing The Fedeeralist Papers, the great dialog-conversation among the principal Founders.




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



Henry Ruark July 2, 2008 12:35 pm (Pacific time)

Josh et al: No disagreement on most of yours, esp. right for self-defense. BUT overriding value is of Supremes legislating from bench and thus perverting the Constitutional provisions for protection via "checks and balances" built in so carefully and presciently by the Founders. As in all-else in democracy, decision should come from full process, which the Supremes distort --not necessarily always in one direction, as FDR-era surely proves. Question here is NOT decision-direction itself, but process-distortion by which it was reached --rather than by Congressional action via our elected representatives, in full consensus to create the correct law. Your well-stated cogent full participation "richly appreciated" in full meaning of that phrase: Thank you for opportunity to clarify and extend both sides, which is purpose of honest, open, democratic dialog-here.


Josh July 2, 2008 8:30 am (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark I appreciate your input, but I am left with a major concern and that is after reading the minority members (Supreme Court) opinions, I just can't believe how close we came to having our 2nd Amendment rights removed. This vote clearly should have been 9 to 0. Regardless of all the emotionalism that centers around guns, it still is a "natural right" to be able to defend yourself. There is copious amounts of data that shows when law abiding citizens are armed, the crime rate is low. In Oregon, over 100,000 people have concealed gun permits, they literally have a lower crime rate than sworn police officers. Needless to say criminals will always have guns, laws mean nothing to them. That is why these gun bans have no effect on gun crime. Look at the gun restrictions in DC and Chicago coupled with their gun crime rates. You think the four dissenting justices did not have this information? There is a strong movement to disarm us, and it is something all voter's need to keep in mind when they cast their ballot. This awareness should not just include presidential candidates, but for all those running for elective office right on down to the local level.


Henry Ruark July 1, 2008 7:20 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Do NOT miss implications in this dialog vs "the imperial presidency" first shaping the Constitution to own-ends, then destroying the balance and the functions intended by the Founders, when they set up "checks and balances" purposed to force process for potential security against precisely that imperial seduction. That's WHY they fought, for us, the American Revolution; that's WHY they, via the Federalist Papers, pursued the insights of philosophers for centuries-back; and that's WHY we must NOW continue to seek ways to follow those solid principles they so established --proven over all the painful years-since !!


Henry Ruark July 1, 2008 8:33 am (Pacific time)

Josh et al: Here's another "see with own eyes" excerpt re complexity of understandings on Supremes decision: "Court shows it wants whats right"; E.J. Dionne: R/G 6/29: "In knocking down the District of Columbia's 32-year ban on handgun possession, the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court have shown again their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to futher the agenda of the contemporary political right. "The court's five most conservative members have demonstrated that for all of Justice Antonin Scalia's talk about "originalism" as a coherent constitutional doctrine, the judicial right regularly succumbs to the temptation to legislate from the bench, They fall in line behind whatever fashions political conservatism is preaching." (And more, very pertinent as view from worldfamed, reliable reporter noted for accuracy and accountability to fact.) This intended ONLY to point out complexity of any issue re interpreting the Constitution, and the necessity for very careful decision by Supremes, beyond level now possible with this partially-packed court. The Founders might well be dismayed at distortion now built-in by those seeking the Imperial Presidency to overwhelm what the Founders clearly intended for us all. (Link unavailable but date and title will access content from WPost or Register Guard websites.)


Henry Ruark June 30, 2008 4:36 pm (Pacific time)

Josh et al: Here's "see with own eyes" link for very insightful statement re our two views on this issue: www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/061208.html The Republic on a Knife's Edge By Robert Parry "There are two ways of looking at the landmark 5-4 Supreme Court decision recognizing the habeas corpus rights of detainees at Gantanamo Bay, Cuba: As a stirring victory for individual liberty over collective fear --or as a reminder that the one more right-wing justice could make George W. Bush's imperial presidency "constitutional". (That's only lead pgh; see rest for detailed explanation of real dangers we face. Parry is noted for breaking Iran-Contra story, with links to Iraq situation today.) This may helps us all to learn, solid purpose of S-N open, honest, democratic dialog channel.


Henry Ruark June 30, 2008 3:06 pm (Pacific time)

Josh et al: Your interpretation of the Founders interpretation may well be open to question. Your interpretation of Obama's interpretation, as reported in distorted and perverted channels, may also be open to different understandings by many. Your interpretation of how many times and the importance of flip/flops by both McCain and Obama also open to deep question, esp. as to which is most evident and damaging, on which essential issues. As noted once-neocon leader put it: ""Everyone is entitled to his own opinion; but not his own facts." --Daniel Patrick Moynihan But yours re who will cut off Supreme legislation via activist judges probably right on; McCain's pledge is to continue what Supremes just did, with sure denigration of Constitution if continued. Your intense feeling really appreciated, which is why I include this: "So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men" : Voltaire.


Josh June 30, 2008 1:45 pm (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark the four justices that "voted against the 2nd Amendment" as put forth by the Founding Fathers, would certainly not want them on that court. So anyone who would appoint those of similar anti-Constitution and Bill of Rights needs to be kept out of office by all legal means nessesary. Since McCain said he would appoint those of similar philosophy as the majority who recently upheld the 2nd Amendment, that is people that interpret the Constitution as written (in contrast to those who make up new interprtations, like the 9th Circuit, even the California Supreme Court) will be getting my vote. I have been voting democrat for decades, but now I clearly see that too often judges are creating new laws, and that is not their role. Obama simply does not represent the best interests of America, so he will be defeated. As you know he stated that he was for the DC and Chicago gun ban, then as the political winds change he is against it. He simply has no legal experience to understand what's going on to begin with. Have you ever seen any legal writings by him? How about on a senate bill that he authored himself? There is nothing out there that displays any working experience, nothing. I would love to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the cupboard is bare.


Henry Ruark June 30, 2008 11:37 am (Pacific time)

Josh et al: Right on, Josh ! Scary-part is that with one more judge appointed by McCain we might lose real strengths of our famed Constitution.


Josh June 30, 2008 7:52 am (Pacific time)

I sure was glad to see the Supreme Courts ruling on the 2nd Amendment. But what is really scary is why wasn't it a 9 to 0 vote? It appears that the court has become quite political, so this upcoming election is probably the most important one in the history of America.

[Return to Top]
©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.


Articles for June 26, 2008 | Articles for June 27, 2008 | Articles for June 28, 2008
Sean Flynn was a photojournalist in Vietnam, taken captive in 1970 in Cambodia and never seen again.



Tribute to Palestine and to the incredible courage, determination and struggle of the Palestinian People. ~Dom Martin


Click here for all of William's articles and letters.

The NAACP of the Willamette Valley