We live in troubled times. Times in which the Constitution is spit upon by our President. He is not a conservative, but a radical that is unsurprisingly (radicals usually are) quite sure of himself and his use of power, while dismissive (and deep down, afraid of) dissent. The national security -- how symbolic -- warrant issue is just a symbol. The nomination and pending confirmation of Judge Alito just an important constitutional moment ... even for those who fail to respect the fact ... that takes special meaning at this specific moment. But, the truth is clear. It is hard to avoid, especially when those involved almost smack you in the face with it. But, some still deny it. You can about as easily deny the wind.
President* Bush had a press conference today. He reaffirmed that he denies that he broke the law. "The law" being what he thinks it is. The state, it is him. FISA? Well, that was an old law ... almost twenty years old. We live in different times. Yeah, unfortunately, we have a tyrant as our President not just a well meaning one that had some problems. As I said ... a radical. Someone who radically disrespects the law and the fundamental law as well, the Constitution for "the present" ... this is no conservative move. This is a so-called "neo-conservative," which means in this context a fake one. Conservatives like Bob Barr know just what is going on and are willing to voice dissent.
[I reaffirm the literal pain that comes when I actually hear this guy talk. That little sneering laugh especially is hard to take. Some people respect this guy. I do not even know how one can even listen to him.]
The President says the times are different. This does not mean a lick. FISA was amended ... not to include what he is claiming the power to do ... but it was amended. Ah, what about AUMF ... the authorization of force. Under his reasoning, as applied to al-Qaeda and their possible assistants (remember, those who oppose Bush in an "unreasonable" way give "aid and comfort" to the enemy ... his words, not mine), the Patriot Act was unnecessary. Anyway, a Republican (one of the so-called Gang of 14 ... who announced his support for Judge Alito ... another Republican bootlicker) senator proposed a limited amendment. Again, less than suggested here.
The President's point person did not just say that it was unnecessary, but it was deemed possibly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In other words, they lied. It is wartime ... telling the truth is so like yesterday. Clearly, they lied -- they thought it clearly constitutional, in fact were and continue to do more. The reasoning, though they do not trust the people enough to clearly and honestly say so, is that actually debating the point and giving the President clear authority would aid the enemy. This is so even if Congress was in close session as was quite possible. It was true even if the actual contours of the spying (though one announcement -- for what it is worth -- suggested it was nothing special) was not publicly directly addressed. After all, FISA is a SECRET court.
We live in a democratic republic. President Bush said that FISA is obsolete in these times. The Constitution was not obsolete in the days when Germans blew up shipping in the sight of our shores. It was not obsolete when rebels, now glorified by many Bush supporters, were at the outskirts of D.C. and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. alleged told President Lincoln to get down you damn fool or you will be shot. In fact, Lincoln knew it too. He made some emergency moves, especially early on before the Congress was in session, but ex post facto got authority. Just as FISA allows within three days or Sen. DeWine wanted to officially give him after 9/11, not in 1978. He too claimed some independent authority. But, Lincoln actually directly asked Congress to do things like suspend habeas corpus.
But, our tyrant president does not want to go to by nature subservient secret courts or to a by inclination subservient Republican Congress. The Republican Congress of Lincoln's day was not quite so, but than Lincoln was more true conservative than radical as some congressional leaders of the day. Times change, threats require new methods (though deep down, not so new at all) of attack, but our system does not give the power to respond to one man alone. It gives it to the people, surely their representatives with courts in place to safeguard their rights, including the proper balance of power. Such is why the Federalist Society, Alito's other organization along with CAP wants the courts to give more power to the states vis-à-vis the federal government. The alternative, per the Declaration of Independence, is tyranny.
Some are "concerned." Meanwhile, Republicans in Senate en masse voiced their decision to confirm as justice someone who clearly supports the mentality they are so concerned about. Harriet Miers, though her lack of judicial experience (darn if Rehnquist had none) helped their cause, was not deemed conservative enough. The House of Representatives rejected -- per usual -- to have any oversight hearing. The Senate did schedule such a hearing and the likes of Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced his "concern" while spitting at Democrats who opposed the nomination of Alito. You know as if somehow these two things are independent. If Republicans, including the few that still care, do not know that, they are pathetic. And, yeah, I think a few continue to lie to themselves about such matters.
The current issue seems to some on some level not worth our concern. But, this ignores the basic misuse of power and the rule of law that we are supposed to give a shit about. Take religion. Some people believe stupid things that in various cases are actually dangerous. In some extreme cases, lives clearly are at stake, and I am not talking about embryos. But, we have religious freedom in this country. It is not a matter of actually agreeing with all creeds. It is a fundamental right, to some a natural right of human kind. It surely is not a harm-free right though many are wary about admitting this fact. But, freedom is not harm-free. And, we do not trust daddy president -- who will not always be this asshole -- to decide when something is harmful.
So, maybe you actually agree with the acts of the President in specific cases involving matters of war or national security. We are not officially at "war," but you think we are de facto (without using the term). But, one might agree with specific acts of a king or tyrant. That is not only our system, it is a basic reality. And, the President and his supporters do not want to admit the fact. Others do not want to forcibly oppose what amounts to a rejection of "the republic for what we stand."
And, surely, a major reason why we do not allow this is because it leads to error and abuse as well as threats to our liberty. Heck, it also leads to some hysteria from the anti-Bush left, but the ilk of Bush ask for it -- secrecy, abuse of power, and rejection of any balance of power will lead to hysteria. Some will not trust Bushies when they say the sky is blue. The result is scary, even for those against Bush.
President Bush will soon give his latest State of the Union. Democratic members of Congress (Stevens should stay in his condo in Florida) and all liberty loving people should not go or turn their back when it is given. Actually respecting the President is so pre-9/11 ... or until we have one that actually takes his or her oath seriously.
Oh, Sen. Kerry came out in support of a filibuster.** Good for you John ... where was your guts in 2004? Where was your guts when your own running mate said not to call the election less than 24 hours after the polls closed? Where is the united and loud front against presidential abuse, not just "concern?" They still play nice --- Leahy speaking nice to Specter as the senators gave speeches on the Alito nomination. The Republicans support a leader who call many of the Democrats and their constituents akin to traitors, they ala Clinton (good anti-Alito speech) treat Congress as a plantation, but the Democrats continue to play nice.
Such is the path not only to losing but losing badly.
[The Daily Kos is in "well, we just do not have the numbers now" mode ... thanks a lot. Again and again this is said. Sometimes, you have to make a stand, and lose. The Republicans gained back power that way. The Dems do not make a stand, since they do not have the votes. Well, they do for a filibuster, but keeping them together even now is akin to a "no-hitter," unlike the Republicans who are totally united. What a pathetic post, days before the final vote. DK supports "fighting Dems," in other words vets running in '06. This post, I am sorry, is a sad surrender. The comments leaned toward "thanks for being realistic." Sad.]
---
* Sadly, he is "President." Some point to Ohio -- the victory was over one hundred thousand, not a few hundred. So, even cutting the victory there by a hundred thousand, Bush would have won by over ten thousand votes. Furthermore, nationwide, it was a few million. Given we have nearly 300 million, less than half actually voting (not much more than half of the electorate voted), that does not amount to that much.
But, it was enough: even if he lost in Ohio, he won the popular vote. This might not be what the Constitution requires, but it is telling all the same. Yeah, it is sad, and it is an ill-gotten gain after the 2000 fraud. I do think he won in 2004. Anyway, it is the reality in practice. George III was the king, fair and square. Still was declared a tyrant. Such is the ultimate matter.
** Thus far, three Dems -- including Byrd -- voted for Alito. But, I truly doubt that Byrd would vote for cloture, if it came to that. He is one of the few that actually would vote for Alito but against cloture. Byrd is Mr. Unlimited Debate. And, clearly a hypocrite here. Mr. Constitution indeed.
Anyway, a procedural measure -- scheduling a cloture vote on Monday (1/30) -- was passed without dissent. Like James Buchanan in 1857, the Senate Republicans want Bush to go give his speech with knowledge the Supreme Court is in his pocket. As O'Connor might say "this is horrible."