The Administration of George Bush has, in effect, suspended the Constitution of the United States. At Guantánamo in Cuba, in military prisons in the United States, and in secret detention facilities abroad, American citizens and non-citizens are being held without charge, without counsel, without prospect of a jury trial, in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth articles of the Bill of Rights. These rights apply to all persons under United States jurisdiction. The word "citizen" appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights.
The same Administration has conducted warrantless surveillance of American citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and despite an explicit order of the Supreme Court to cease and desist.
And the Administration, in violation of ratified treaties which have the force of law (Article Six of the Constitution), is engaged in an undeclared war against a non-threatening nation, and is torturing prisoners. The treaties are, respectively, the Nuremberg Accords and the Geneva Conventions.
The President, upon signing Congressional legislation, issues "signing statements" which state, in effect, that he can, at his discretion, ignore the legislation above his signature. And he has issued a "directive" that, in event of some unspecified "emergency" so designated by himself, he can assume dictatorial powers.
Nor is this the end of it. As most readers are well aware, there have been numerous additional illegal acts by the Bush Administration, including the "outing" of a covert intelligence officer, obstruction of justice, and lying to the Congress and the American people.
The institution best situated to put an end to these crimes and to hold the criminals accountable to the rule of law is the Congress of the United States, each member of which has taken an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Five months into its new term, the Congress now in control of the Democratic party has done essentially nothing to restore the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. The initial decisive act leading to that end might be as simple as the passage of this two sentence resolution:
"The Congress of the United States hereby affirms that the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. Accordingly, any and all legislation and executive orders in violation of the Constitution are null and void."
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?
And if such a resolution were to pass both houses of Congress, it should be immediately followed by other resolutions specifying the implications of that first resolution. Namely,
** It is affirmed that all US citizens and other individuals under US jurisdiction enjoy the protection of Habeas Corpus, as specified in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.
**Therefore, all persons in custody at Guantánamo and other prisons must either be charged with a crime and given a fair trial, or released. Following that, the Guantánamo facility must be closed and all "renditions" of prisoners to other countries cease.
**All torture of so-called "enemy combatants" must cease immediately.
**All provisions of the Patriot Act and the Military Provisions Act in violation of the protections of the Constitution must be declared null and void.
**Acts of Congress signed by the President have the status of law, and signing statements have no legal status whatever.
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. Partridge has taught philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" (www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers" (www.crisispapers.org). His book in progress, "Conscience of a Progressive," can be seen at www.igc.org/gadfly/progressive/^toc.htm .
The question, "should we punish the Republicans or the Democrats," is inappropriate. We should ignore which party any elected official belongs to and simply vote any person out of office who did not honor his or her oath of office. And we should put into office individuals, who during this period of government negligence and malfeasance, did what they could as citizens or officials to actively preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Of course among those who were actively patriotic--those who took steps to defend the Constitution--we should elect those to office who in addition to that, also possess attitudes and philosophies that are in alignment with our own, and at the same time are willing and able to serve. To find such people will be no easy task. If you thought getting out of this mess was going to be an easy task, then you really haven't been paying attention. If you want to preserve your freedom, you're going to have to care enough to do what it takes.
by
Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments)
on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 9:47:51 AM
While much Dr. Ernest Patridge states is undoubtedly true, and his suggested Resolution therefore stands on its own merits, please remember that the Democrats do not have a sufficient majority in either house (but especially in the Senate) to prevent either a filibuster or a procedural blocking of a vote on the Resolution itself. Moreover, the Democratic leadership, that is Pelosi and Reid, have a very clear understanding that the public is fed up with excessively acrimonious partisanship in Washington, and therefore they are (perhaps naively) atempting bipartisan negotiation to achieve an agenda. In other words, without a bigger majority of progressive Democrats in Congress, any such Resolution will never come to a vote. Too bad.
by
TeddyG (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 10:37:21 AM
If representatives would offer complete and legitimate articles of impeachment, they could then go out into the world and argue for the defense of the Constitution. Leadership implies that you are having an impact on the consciousness so that people who do not understand what is happening and what is at stake, can begin to come awake. It's not about winning. It's about fighting for your country. People who give up and see themselves as losers before they even begin to fight are not what this country needs right now holding positions of leadership and representing The People.
One of the most blatant violations of the Constitution by ALL members of Congress is their failure to give we the people what we have a constitutional right to: an Article V convention:
Campaign Begins to Stop Congress’ Brazen Violation of the ConstitutionIn letters to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the newly formed national organization Friends of the Article V Convention declared its challenge to Congress.“The time has come to stop playing games with the U.S. Constitution and respect the rights of Americans,” said FOAVC founder and National Press Secretary Joel S. Hirschhorn, a former senior congressional staffer.FOAVC told Pelosi and Reid that Congress has a legal obligation to call a convention and that it is initiating a national campaign to build public pressure on Congress for a convention."The one and only requirement specified in Article V for a convention is that two-thirds of state legislatures apply for a convention.With over 500 applications from all 50 states on record with the Congress that sole requirement has been more than met.Congress has never passed any law to expand or further specify requirements for an Article V convention, meaning the language in Article V prevails,” said FOAVC.“Congress has cheated Americans by not obeying Article V of the Constitution.Members of Congress are violating their oath of office to faithfully obey the Constitution,” said Hirschhorn, “and we must hold them accountable.”“Members of Congress seem more effective as lawbreakers than lawmakers,” added California congressional candidate Byron De Lear and an FOAVC founder.“If Congress can silently and unilaterally ignore or veto one part of the Constitution, then it can disobey any part of it,” said De Lear.Thomas E. Brennan, former Chief Justice, State of Michigan, and an FOAVC founder has said publicly that a convention “is necessary, desirable, and feasible.”The convention option “is to be taken seriously…it is not a joke, nor an illusion.It would bring a new, responsible dimension to American politics,” said Brennan.“Operating outside the control of the federal government convention delegates could, like members of Congress, consider any constitutional amendments they deem necessary to address unresolved national problems – and that’s what frightens politicians,” noted Hirschhorn.De Lear said, “Congress can’t have it both ways.Give Americans its first Article V convention or propose a constitutional amendment to remove the convention option.”FOAVC reminded Pelosi and Reid that Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D. Eisenhower supported use of the convention option.“Sadly, no current Democratic or Republican presidential candidate has done likewise, especially mavericks like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and ‘champion of the Constitution’ Ron Paul,” noted De Lear.
The non-partisan FOAVC at www.foavc.org urges Americans and state legislatures to demand that Congress obey the Constitution, respect states’ rights, and announce the first Article V convention.FOAVC does not support any specific constitutional amendment, though it invites groups advocating specific reforms that might be achieved through amendments to become Affiliate Members.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (126 articles, 31 quicklinks, 58 diaries, 509 comments)
on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 2:42:44 PM
5 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
