Of course, God was not dead then, and is not dead now, nor will God ever be dead.
The same cannot be said for the Constitution of the United States of America. That document, and all it stands for, is in imminent danger of demise.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have done their utmost to kill the precepts of that august document. But those two outlaws alone are not treacherous enough to succeed.
Bush and Cheney are but two of a host of outlaws currently conspiring to kill the Constitution.
Others in the current administration share the death-eater moniker, among them are Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Myers.
Several justices of the U. S. Supreme Court also are candidates for distain for their actions in whittling away at the Constitution.
These outlaws, and hundreds of others are guilty of acts of commission in helping kill the Constitution. However, they are not the only culprits in the ebbing death of that hallowed document.
Members of congress, including the leadership, are party to the Constitution’s slide to oblivion through acts of omission. So are many, many average citizens.
Here is the point: failure to enforce the provisions of the Constitution by one branch of government that curb the excesses of another branch is is simply allowing the Constitutional to die. It is the old bromide of “use it or lose it,” in reference to one’s power.
I submit that no administration in the history of this country has abused and misused the authority granted the executive branch of government by the Constitution as grievously as the Bush-Cheney administration.
They have committed war crimes. They have trampled individuals’ rights. They have condoned torture. They have ignored the often-expressed will of the people. They have lied to congress and the American people. They are, collectively, an outlaw regime.
I furthermore submit that no group of justices have so abused the Constitution as have several in the past seven years.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas subverted the Constitution with their decision (along with Sandra Day O’Connor and the late William Rehnquist) to short-circuit the Constitutional provisions for electing a president and thereby interfering with the Florida election count in 2000.
Justice Samuel Alito conceived the theory of a “unitary executive” when he was a Justice Department lawyer a few years ago. The “unitary executive” theory essentially allows the president to proclaim that he is a law unto himself and not subject to question by congress, the courts or even the citizenry.
Anyone who advocates such an anti-Constitutional theory, or is capable of dreaming up such a scheme, is unqualified to serve in government, let alone be a justice of the Supreme Court.
1 | 2
