>>"The word 'affirms' is crucial, for it states that at no time was the Constitution legally 'in suspension,' and thus any legislation or acts by the Bush administration in violation thereof were at all times illegal and invalid. Accordingly, the word 'restoration' must be avoided in such a resolution.
>>"The Democrats should bring this resolution to a vote, and dare the Republicans to vote against it. The GOP would doubtless resist by calling it a 'meaningless political stunt,' and would struggle to prevent an open vote. But if it were to be brought to a vote, who would dare go on record with a denial that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?
The point is that the Democrats, all of us, need to be more creative in figuring a way out of this mess, rather than simply relying on the tried-and-true ways of political interaction in Washington, D.C., which ways have at least partially brought us to this awful point.
3. FILE WRITS OF MANDAMUS
For instance, here's yet another inventive proposal, sent our way by Barbara G. Ellis of the progressive-activist Democracy for America chapter in Portland, Oregon:
>>Because the Congressional Democrats in the first half of the 110th Session have paid no attention to voters giving them a House majority and a mandate to end the Iraq occupation and the Bush administration -- but all attention to Pelosi/Emanuel's frets about the 2008 election - a method exists to get their attention now, quickly, and easily that each impeachment group in all corners of this country can do.
>>It's to have a Writ of Mandamus arrive in each of their local offices on Monday, July 16, charging each with breaking their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution and permitting the Bush Administration to overthrow the Constitution and our democratic form of three branches of government. And failing to apply the stipulated remedy - impeachment - designed by the Framers to prevent these high crimes.
>>They can prevent a court finding them in contempt by: Signing on ASAP to co-sponsor Rep. Dennis Kucinich's HR 333 to impeach Cheney; 2) Authoring a bill to impeach both Bush and Cheney and dropping it into the hopper; Compelling Rep. John Conyers, as chair of the House Judiciary committee, to bring HR 333 to a committee vote and, thence, to the House floor for a vote.
>>Mandamus is a tactic that can be used as quickly on a spineless representative just as quickly as a group in her/his district can get an attorney to file this action in the federal court. A court may quash it, but in the last two years several favorable rulings have been issued in 6 states (Texas, among them, on Houston city corruption).
>>The thrust here, however, is more to get the rep's attention that they are complicit in destroying the Constitution. If the courts grant mandamus, it's a big bonus. If Karl Rove terrifies them and the thoughts of losing big campaign funds terrifies them even more, let's terrify them with this 700-year-old (Edward II, 1311 AD) court order compelling public officials to do their sworn duties. [For more info on how to file the writ, write us here and we'll pass on your inquiries to the Oregon DFA chapter, whose website is not yet activated.]
DEMS NEED TO FEEL THE HEAT, TOO
But what to do if the Democrats continue their scaredy-cat ways, being unwilling to frontally attack the Bushista forces, and thus wind up permitting, enabling, the worst of the CheneyBush policies to continue? More soldiers and civilians lost, more billions wasted, more elections stolen, more corruption encouraged, more degradation of the culture, more political illegalities inside the Administration, more wars of aggression, etc. etc.?
The Republicans in Congress are feeling the electoral heat, more than a year ahead of the November 2008 election, trying desperately to walk the fine line of supporting their party leader (Bush) at the same time they distance themselves from his most egregious policies, the major one being the war in Iraq. Maybe it's time the Democrats started to feel the electoral heat as well.
The liberal/progressive base of the party could make it plain to wavering, wimpy Democratic legislators that support for their re-election is not automatic, and that they might face determined opposition candidates in the primaries (see: Lamont, Ned). Indeed, if they don't change and act like a true opposition party should, they will face loss of financial support from the base, and a distinct shortage of volunteers walking precincts and making phone calls before the election, etc.
Or, an even more radical consequence might be a mass desertion from the Democratic Party in the presidential election, and support for a courageous third-party candidate. Who that might be is unclear. In addition to Ralph Nader, who would enjoy virtually nil support among Democrats, the names I've heard fantasized about include Bill Moyers, Chuck Hagel, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel. Any others?)
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
Dr. Weiner you column has not fallen on deaf ears. There has been nothing more disheartening than the decorum exuded by the newly elected majority in Congress. As you state, they have become "enablers" of this war by not doing what they were elected to do.
Of course, it looks like a Democrat will win the White House in 2008. But that is just supposition. During the last few national elections, a swing of 2 percent or so would have changed the outcome. Well, what if the Democrats win the popular vote AGAIN but don't win the Electoral vote in 2008. Therein lies the reason the Dems are blowing their best chance - not only to show defiance, independence and leadership - but to stop the illegal machinery of the GOP, which you rightly point out.
The reality is the Dems control the Congress and the State Houses across our nation. To modify this success to parlay these wins into 2008 could turn out to be a grave mistake. Even if it does produce a presidential win in 2008, the stakes are the billions of dollars and massive war deaths that continue to mount daily, weekly and annually.
Dusty Nathan
by
Dusty Nathan (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 51 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 7:28:43 AM
When only millionaires run for office, only millionaires will be represented.
When machines count the votes, the people’s votes don’t count.
The Dempublicans are dangling another carrot with the investigation of election fraud (caging). Like Lucy with the football and us as poor Linus, we’re suppose to believe they’ll actually do anything about a crime that obviously involves millions of dollars and hundreds of people.
This coming from the same Dempublicans that throw the will of a vast majority of the people in a ditch by refunding and increasing an illegal occupation. The same Dempublicans who as of yet done next to nothing to have even one major crime figure in this criminal, ass-clown act we call our government even break a sweat! After six-years of being able to gather evidence of the blatant crimes committed they STILL need more time.
Well pardon me if I’m not getting excited.
Dempublican: Any Democratic Party Member that ignores the will of the people. Also see: liar, hypocrite, back-stabbing soulless whores
You can forget the 08' election. Enough people will abandon the Dempublicans because of their dismal performance to date to give the Republicans the White House. I absolutely believe this is by design. Both parties suck of the same MIC tit. The will of the people, the government by the people has long past been dead and buried. As long as there is no public funding of the elections, as long as there is no uniform verifiable voting system, as long as corporations are given the same rights as people, as long as 1% controls 98% of the wealth we'll never have the democratic/republic our Founding Fathers envisioned.
And you can forget about any Third Party. There is no way the entrenched powers will allow the system they have forged for the past 150 years to be changed without violent revolution, and the people of this country are too fragmented, too cowardly and too lazy for any action of that nature.
I don't really see anything good coming our way. Factions beyond just political are clashing with a collapsing environment, fading natural resources, mass extinction and population explosion that only divine intervention could stop. It is certain that no current political solution can stop it. They have about as much effect as a boxcar full of drunk monkeys.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1237 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 8:14:47 AM
Perhaps the Bushites and the Dems are having a battle of long range strategic positioning?
The Bushite junta wants to string their failed war out just long enough so they can hand the whole bloody stinking mess they've created over to the next administration to solve and therefore "share the blame" - the Neocons will then be able to say: "See? The Dems couldn't fix it either!"
Meanwhile (perhaps) the Dems WANT to let the Bushite's war continue and of course continue to fail, because the longer it continues and the MORE it fails - it drives more and more voters OUT of the Republican camp.
That of course is a cynical POV because it means both parties are willing to sacrifice US troops and large chunks of the budget to maneuver their party into a 'better' postion sometime in the near future. However the cynical view is about the ONLY view that makes any sense in D.C. anymore.
AND - perhaps "failure in Iraq" is not really failure from the POV of Bushite strategists. Their desire was/is to create an unstable powder keg in the middle east to act as fuel and reason for their wet dream of a 30-50 years of warfare in that region. Remember the Bushites are THE folks who profit massively from war - they are the makers of weapons and weapons systems, the are the private military contractors. The Bushites ARE the blood-drenched WAR PROFITEERS of myth and fable who see dollar signs everytime another conflict is ignited somewhere on the globe. They thrive on death and wholesale destruction. The Bushite agenda IS to drive disenfranchised youth of the Islamic world to become Jihadis because they will then furnish the raw material which will eventually equate to a better "return on investment" for the industries owned and operated by Bushites. Their real agenda is to transfer huge chunks of the US Treasury into their own bank accounts by selling what the US public will demand: protection from and terror and "terrorists".
by
mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 296 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 11:27:48 AM
Well, I don't know if you and I qualify as "great minds," but I was putting the finishing touches on what turns out to be a somewhat parallel article this AM. When I saw and read yours, I decided to put mine aside for a while. I will put if up later today. Nice job on yours!
Hey mrk glad to see you and so many others using the name I coined for the Bush group in early 2002, the Bushites. I may already have mentioned that. Kind of welcome fun to see it elsewhere used by others.
How truly far we have fallen from that dream of our forefathers and even from the days of FDR. You know the great Phsyicist Gödel, a good friend of Einstein's, when he was preparing to take his Citizenship exam in 1947, said and obsessed over what he says he found in our Constitution, "A fatal flaw" that could easily be exploited to destroy our freedoms and bring a Dictatorship into power. He was right on target, and it makes you wonder why anyone would want to destroy such a treasure. Or why it was never fixed.
I agree with you all, that there now is little hope for an end to the MCA of 2006 or the Patriot Act.
A sad time. Glad I am not a kid just starting out.
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1293 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 1:36:44 PM
I knew there was a very good reason to read this article. The writ idea is one that needs to happen. There has been a total failure of the vast majority of Congress, not just Democrats, to fulfill their constitutional duties. Lets "writ" the a letter, sending them a message.
It's not just Iraq, although that's more than enough, it's everything else - the dissolution of the Constitution; the failure to investigate stolen elections (e.g., 2004) and secure future elections; the dishonest budget tactics that defraud tax payers.
Ellis' idea is brilliant. Lets "do."
by
Michael Collins (87 articles, 13 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 327 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 2:05:08 PM
If I was a republican running for the white house I would sure be pointing out this fact to the voters. You voted these folks in and they did not have the guts to stand up for the ideals of their voters. Can you really expect them to to stand up if we need them say in a real war or real emergency ? I would have to say no.
by
mike (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 2:52:22 PM
She, along with the other Dems that don't have the courage to do their job, need to be reminded that by letting George Bush, Dick Cheney et al get away with what they have done....they are just as culpable.
If they REALLY want to win in 2008....then Impeach.
All it takes is a SIMPLE majority in the House to take it to the Senate and the Dems have that. Everyone knows that there aren't enough votes in the Senate to remove them from office, but neverthless, they will be branded with the "I" word forever in history.
by
patricia anderson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 8:04:38 PM
A Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is a Motion to a Court of competent jurisdiction requesting an order from that court to a civil servant to perform a non-discretionary act or be held in contempt. The issue on appeal in almost all mandamus cases is whether the act in question is discretionary. If there is any room whatsoever for judgment on the civil servant's part, then the act is discretionary and mandamus is not a proper remedy. Mandamus is usually seen in such matters as where the property appraiser refuses to issue a tax deed although the statutory requirements for issuance have been met, or the jail refuses to release a defendant although his bail has been posted.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 273 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 9:50:00 PM
... although as I think someone already pointed out, a writ of Mandamous cannot be used the way you propose, but that is incidental.
You have composed a very thoughtful critique of the Democrats first 6 months or so back in power. Someone better read this or something like it to them and they better get with the program.
In one of my recent articles on similar themes, I noted that I had no idea how to articulate the Democratic Party position on Iraq. Howard Dean and his folks need to come up with one. It is fine if individual senators or representatives have alternative viewpoints and plans, but the party should put one out there.
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1291 comments)
on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 10:00:56 PM
