Bury Me Broken

A Very Important Article

As reported by most in the left blogosphere, an article in the widely read and respected business magazine Barron's is discussing what heretofore has been discussed only by us, the impeachment of George W. Bush. I will quote extensively:

"[W]e picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers."

The article goes on to say that it was not surprising that the government would intercept international calls after 9-11, that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Survrillance Act allows warrantless intercepting in emergencies for 72 hours, that the USA Patriot Act makes allowances for warrantless wiretaps for up to 15 days and that even the authority given the president by Congressional reolution on 9-14-2001 to pursue terrorists may have also given the president latitude but not for the president to allow this four years later.

He also says that in the four years since 9-11 and since the enacting of this program, Congress has debated this issue and that administration officials have been before committees seeking to extend the president's authority and the law has been written and set. But now, the White House is claiming to be bound neither by FISA or USA Patriot Act and that Congress has no power to restrict the president.

"Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of. whether actual force is involved.

Surely the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary eventually will point out what a stretch this is. The most important presidential responsibility under Article II is that he must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That includes following the requirements of laws that limit executive power. There's not much fidelity in an executive who debates and lobbies Congress to shape a law to his liking and then goes beyond its writ.

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment."

The article continues with the declaration that an impeachment case would not be about wiretapping, it would be about Congress enacting law and the president refusing to follow the law.

The article then takes to task those congressmen who were informed, although inadequately, about the wiretapping and that their reticence to do anything because they were

"scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: 'It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.'

Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror"

A must read.
Until you acknowledge and develop the ability to be self-supportive, you cannot alter your reality in the world.
Iyanla Vanzant

posted by niteskolar @ 1:24 AM