April 1st, 2006
We are living in interesting times. Very Interesting times. History will judge us by our conduct and the causes we align with during such a tumultuous and challenging period. And, while many of our politicians will barely register as a blip in the pages of history, some of them will be long written of and made to account by future generations; that is, if such politicians are lucky enough — or crooked enough, as it were — to evade the judgment of their contemporaries.
Today the US Senate held a hearing on a motion to censure President Bush for his illegal domestic wiretapping program. The censure motion was introduced by Senator Feingold, after much consideration and after concluding that he and his colleagues would be neglecting their duties as legislators, if they simply allowed this President — or any President — to ignore the law because he found it inconvenient to abide by it. Even Bush concedes that he authorized the domestic wiretapping program multiple times, in direct violation of FISA.
It’s clear that, given Bush’s admission to breaking the law, Congress cannot simply ignore such blatant disregard for our system of checks and balances. However, Senator Feingold has managed to get this far only through skillful maneuvering and by stopping short of calling for Bush’s impeachment (which he clearly deserves); because, even at this point, Senate Republicans are vowing to “crush the measure if it reaches the floor.”
That Senator Feingold has managed to get his censure motion this far is a great testament to his political skill, courage and conviction — all of which were in clear display during his openings remarks at the start of the hearing:
(Video credit goes to David Edwards, of Veredictum.com.)
John Dean, Nixon’s counsel during the Watergate break-in scandal, attended today’s hearings:
At 67, Dean remains immediately identifiable as the young White House counsel who warned Nixon that the Watergate coverup was becoming "a cancer" on the presidency, and who eventually testified against his former boss at riveting televised hearings. He served time in a minimum-security facility for obstructing justice.
[...]
Dean said he has "more expertise than anyone might wish" on how "presidents can get themselves on the wrong side of the law." He told Hatch that there is "lots of evidence" that Bush violated the FISA law. "I don’t think you have any," Hatch retorted.
Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) rejected the call for censure but said the surveillance program should come under the FISA court’s auspices. He noted that Feingold’s censure resolution did not accuse Bush of "bad faith," prompting Feingold to respond:
"If you want the words ‘bad faith’ in there, let’s put them right in, because that’s exactly what we have here. . . . The lawbreaking is shocking in itself, but the defiant way that the president has persisted in defending his actions with specious legal arguments and misleading statements is part of what led me to conclude that censure is a necessary step."
[...]
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) did not stick around for questions and answers but dismissed Dean as someone who is trying to sell books and "is a convicted felon."
Dean may have the last word, however. "The book I am going to be publishing soon that mentions the senator from Texas will not be out until this summer," Dean told the committee. Later, someone asked about the book’s title. "Conservatives Without Conscience," Dean said with a smile.
Interesting times, indeed.
March 28th, 2006
This is truly remarkable: now bills can become law without going through the constitutionally mandated process. Incredible! Don’t republicans have any respect for anything that the constitution stands for? Are they so contemptuous of what our founding fathers fought for that, it seems, at every turn republicans wantonly disregard and trash the principles enshrined in our constitution? The truth is that, in spite of what they claim, of course republicans don’t value nor respect the constitution, since it reminds them of everything that their party stands against. Habeas Corpus, who needs that? republicans ask. Privacy? Pluuuze, republicans respond. First Amendment? What’s that!? Separation of church and state? Come on, that’s so post Enlightenment, we don’t need that. On and on republicans go on trashing the very core of our democracy.
And now we have the latest from the anti-constitution republicans: a bill no longer needs to pass the House for it to become law.
For anyone who took fifth-grade social studies or sang "I’m Just a Bill," how legislation turns to law always seemed pretty simple: The House passes a bill, the Senate passes the same bill, the president signs it.
"He signed ya, Bill — now you’re a law," shouts the cartoon lawmaker on "Schoolhouse Rock" as Bill acknowledges the cheers.
But last month, Washington threw all that old-fashioned civics stuff into a tizzy, when President Bush signed into law a bill that actually never passed the House. Bill — in this case, a major budget-cutting measure that will affect millions of Americans — became a law because it was "certified" by the leaders of the House and Senate. [Washington Post, Wednesday, March 22, 2006]
That’s right, under these anti-constitution republicans the supreme law of the land can be ignored in place of political expediency. Since this bill was signed by Bush, pro-constitution and other concerned groups have come forward to defend our founding document from the onslaught of republican attacks.
Public Citizen, a legislative watchdog group, sued yesterday to block the budget-cutting law, charging that Bush and Republican leaders of Congress flagrantly violated the Constitution when the president signed it into law knowing that the version that cleared the House was substantively different from the Senate’s version.
Keep in mind that, as anti-constitution republicans have done in the past, for example when Bush admitted to breaking the FISA law, republicans don’t dispute that they have chosen to ignore the constitution; they simply argue that, for reasons of convenience, that it is simply easier to skirt the constitution (and any law that stands in their way):
No one disputes the central facts of the lawsuit: Last December, Vice President Cheney broke a tie vote in the Senate to win passage of a bill that would cut nearly $40 billion over five years by reducing Medicaid rolls, raising work requirements for welfare, and trimming the student loan program, among other changes.
[...]
As the measure was being sent to the House last month, a Senate clerk inadvertently changed that 13-month restriction to 36 months, a $2 billion alteration. With the mistaken change, the measure squeaked through the House, 216 to 214.
Once the mistake was revealed, Republican leaders were loath to fight the battle again by having another vote, so White House officials simply deemed the Senate version to be the law.
How convenient, a Senate clerk inadvertently made a mistake. Please, if the immediate past serves as any lesson, at all, then it is this: republicans don’t simply make mistakes; in stead, republicans believe that they can get away with anything, so they ignore procedure and the law, knowing full well that in all likely hood they’ll get away with their law breaking or misdeed. Just think of it, midterm redistricting in Texas, a stolen election in Florida, collaborating with ENRON to create an energy crisis in California that lead to the recall of a Democratic governor, and, of course, there’s their war of choice, and on, and on, and on. Anti-constitution republicans believe that they are above the law and that they can get away with anything — this was no mistake, no way. They simply were too careless in their eventual cover up, that’s all.
As this case makes its way through the courts it’ll be curious to see where it ends up. If it ends up before an anti-constitution republican appointed judge we may see a new precedent being set, wherein a bill need not be approved by Congress as long as it’s signed by a quasi-monarchial president. However, if the judge that hears this case has any integrity, the only conclusion should be obvious:
"The Constitution is broad and vague on a number of things; this is not one of them," Zeigler said. "The same bill must be passed by House and Senate and signed by the president. Otherwise it’s not law. Case over."
March 21st, 2006
Since Senator Feingold proposed censuring President Bush, the Senator has rightfully garnered some much deserved praise and attention. On CNN Senator Feingold was awarded the "Spine Award," for his "political play on the week;" and, of course, the Liberal grassroots and blogsphere have been rejoicing that, finally, an elected Dem is willing to take it strong to the hole against the Bush White House. To be fair, though, the Congressional Black Caucus has always been a strong critic of the Bush White House, though their efforts hardly ever garnered as much attention as what Feingold’s censure call is getting.
On The Charile Rose Show Senator Feingold said out loud what the grassroots has been shouting to the top of their lungs for the past couple of years:
Shades of October 2002. These are the same pundits, consultants, and spin miesters who said you’ve gotta vote for the Iraq war or George Bush is going to hang you out to dry and he’s gonna show that you don’t care about the troops and you don’t care about the fight against terrorism.
They pull it every time. And the Democratic insiders in Washington and the consultants fall for it every time. They don’t realize that the thing that bugs people about the Democratic party right now is that we don’t seem to stand strongly enough for what we believe in.
How can we be afraid at this point, of standing up to a president who has clearly mismanaged this Iraq war, who clearly made one of the largest blunders in American foreign policy history? How can it be that this party wants to stand back and allow this kind of thing to happen?
And then add to that the idea that the president has clearly broken the law — and a number of Republican senators have effectively admitted that, by saying "you know, we need this program so let’s make it legal," — so they are admitting it’s illegal.
The idea that Democrats don’t think it’s a winning thing to say that we will stand up for the rule of law and for checking abuse of power by the executive — I just can’t believe that Democrats don’t think that isn’t something, not only that we can win on, but it does, in fact, make the base of our party, which is so important, feel much better about the Democrats. The Republicans care deeply about making the base of their party feels energized. What about the people of our party who believe in the Democratic Party especially because they fight for the American values of standing up for our rights and civil liberties?
You can check out the interview over at Google Videos, courtesy of Crooks and Liars.
