 |
|
Add to My Group
|
December 25, 2008 at 16:36:21
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 12/26/08: by Gene Cappa Page 1 of 1 page(s) 
|
|
 
|
Cheney hints that one more vote was needed on the Supreme Court to fully implement the absolute powers of his unitary executive George W. Bush. Cheney also argued that the President's wartime powers trump laws passed by Congress. "The Congress has -- clearly has the ability to write statutes and has certain constitutional authorities granted in the Constitution," Cheney said. "But I would argue that they do not have the right by statute to alter presidential constitutional power. In other words, you can't override his constitutional authorities and responsibilities with a statute." Cheney's chief regret appeared to be that the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly rejected the administration's argument that these presidential powers allowed Bush to ignore fundamental individual rights incorporated in the Constitution, such as the writ of habeas corpus, an ancient legal principle requiring a government to show cause for imprisoning a person.
"I think that, frankly, the basic decision they (the Supreme Court justices) made was wrong," Cheney said. "But it's their authority. The vote was 5-4."
In other words, Cheney was suggesting that the replacement of one more justice from the court's moderate wing by the likes of John Roberts or Samuel Alito – Bush's two appointees – would have swung the Supreme Court into a historic reinterpretation of the Constitution.
Essentially, such a Supreme Court would have made the President all powerful and eliminated the founding U.S. principle of "unalienable rights" for individuals, protected by a government based on checks and balances.
Under that new paradigm – of an endless "war on terror" and an Executive who decides whether someone is or is not an "enemy combatant" – the key pillars of the American Republic would have been in ruins.
Instead of a Republic in which citizens possessed fundamental liberties enshrined in the Constitution – as the Founders envisioned – Americans would become, in effect, subjects to a monarchical President, who would apportion – or deny – freedoms as he would see fit, click here http://www.commondreams.org/print/35776
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Support Immediate Impeachment Proceedings
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
| 5 comments |
|
Scary!
Cheney, along with Karl Rove came so close to totally ruining this nation. Even now, it will take us a long time to fix the damage they have done. The thought that they came so close to establishing a virtual totalitarian rule is completely frightening. by Ginger Hastings Chapman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 76 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:04:57 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reversal?
Anybody think an Obama Administration is going to reverse any of the Cheney/Rove executive powers? Anybody? crickets, crickets, crickets by FAITHCARR (22 articles, 4 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 81 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:43:46 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Devo
Well Faith....Lol If history is any example (anybody remember Santayana?), an executive coming to certain powers is most unlikely to undercut them by their own cognizance. With the cabinet choices as any indication, I see little chance of "reversal". by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 26, 2008 at 11:11:15 AM (0+)
|
|
Habeas barely survives the vote
In a too-close-for-comfort 5-4 ruling, the Court reminded the American people — indeed, the world — that arbitrary power destroys individual liberty. Where government can lock people up and throw away the key — answerable to no one at all — there liberty does not dwell. That is what the Bush administration has aspired to, but in June the Court drew a line, In invoking the cherished principle of habeas corpus, the Court was emphatic: [Protection] for the privilege of habeas corpus was one of the few safeguards of liberty specified in a Constitution that, at the outset, had no Bill of Rights.... The Constitution does not distinguish between citizens and noncitizens when it talks about “privileges.” To be sure, the Constitution permits Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” But the Court said that the Suspension Clause was not satisfied by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), Section 7, which forbade any court from considering a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for “an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States [i.e., the Bush administration] to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” (John McCain was a key mover behind the MCA.) Yes, the now-stricken Section 7 applied only to aliens. But given this administration’s horrifying civil-liberties record — national-security letters, signing statements, extraordinary rendition, warrantless eavesdropping, mass data gathering, torture — could we really be confident that U.S. citizens wouldn’t be next to lose habeas corpus privileges? by Gene Cappa (43 articles, 28 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 348 comments [33 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 27, 2008 at 11:27:39 AM (0+)
|
|
Thanks,
Gene, for this well-focused report (& for the link to the R Parry article). This is indeed scary stuff. Particularly since we can't just blame the Bush-Cheney neocon crowd. All those Democrats willing to go along with all this - what IS this?? Although I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It has been obvious for some time that the bulk of our Congresspersons, of both parties, have been bought off, by the corporate controllers of America. So what's the answer? I think we must hold Obama to his promise, of Change, and agitate like there's no tomorrow for a rolling-back of the measures put in place since 9/11 for an imperial presidency - including untold Executive Orders. Fortunately the Supreme Court should support him in this (just). They won't want to go down in history as the judicial oligarchs who put the seal of destruction on the American Republic by buying the judicial nonsense of a constitutional right to unlimited and open-ended war powers of the presidency. The American revolution was all about overthrowing such monarchical powers, for heaven's sake. History would judge them much more harshly than some Congresspersons who owed their seats to monetary masters. But ultimately, We the People must elect representatives who will turn the tide, and keep totalitarianism - from either the right OR the left - from ignobly destroying the American dream. Letter writers, man your machines. Obama needs a message; loud and clear. And we need people like Gene Cappa, and Rob Kall, helping us keep up with the info needed to act on. And 'act on' is the key. There are no bystanders in this war. But then, if we are the people we have been waiting for, we never thought it would be a walk in the rose garden. As it were. :-) by kibitzer2 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments) on Saturday, Dec 27, 2008 at 4:05:30 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
