April 07, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

MANAGING THE WAR

George W. Bush has claimed that Congressional goals of withdrawing troops from Iraq are "micromanaging" the war. Bush and his cohorts like to parade around with the "commander in chief" title, as though that gives Bush carte blanche to do anything and everything he wants. Even if this war were justified, which it clearly is not, Bush and his gang messed it up from the start. They lied to get justification for starting the war. They didn't send enough troops. They had no strategy for occupying, or leaving, Iraq. The Constitution, contrary to Bush's assertions, makes Congress a major presence in matters of war. This column by Rosa Brooks is at www.latimes.com:

Contrary to the administration's claim, the Constitution (which makes a good read for detail-oriented citizens) in no way prohibits congressional restrictions on the use of the military. On the contrary. Having had unpleasant experiences with monarchical government, the framers were determined to prevent precisely the sort of situation we now have, in which an unaccountable executive endangers the nation through a foolish and self-destructive war.

Thus, while the president's war-related powers are dealt with in a single clause ("the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy"), the Constitution outlines expansive congressional wartime powers, a view that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Congress is expressly empowered to declare war (and, implicitly, to declare an end to a particular war). Congress also has the power to "raise and support Armies" (with the proviso that "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years," which was intended to ensure precisely the accountability the administration seeks to evade). Congress also is given the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." With its Iraq bills, Congress isn't micromanaging; it's just fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities.

It's about time, too.

ONE MAN, ONE VOTE?

Thomas Jefferson famously wrote that all men are created equal. In the United States each vote is supposed to be equal, but the vast inequality in wealth has changed that dynamic. As this author points out, the richest people in the United States make 440 times the income of the average person. The rich are heavy contributors to political campaigns. It's like saying that a rich person gets 440 votes to every one from you and I. This commentary by Nicholas von Hoffman is at www.thenation.com:

You cannot successfully make public policy on the basis of fairness. The criterion must be justice, but let's leave how we decide what is just for another time and cut to one, very important form of justice: the equal distribution of power and our conviction that elections should be conducted on a one-man-one-vote basis.

You will not find many people who will defend the idea that a few people should be accorded 440 votes and the rest of the electorate only one vote each. That is an idea to be found in the original, unamended version of the Constitution in which some people (the black ones) were considered to be worth only 60 percent of a white man's vote.

Naturally the slaves did not get to cast their depreciated 60 percent vote. Their masters did. Under the modern system we are allowed to cast our own vote, which is worth about 1/440th of a rich person's vote, since money is political power in America.

March 03, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

"SPINELESS DEMOCRATS"

There are occasional letters to The Fresno Bee that provoke mixed feelings. Today there is a letter from a Nader supporter. The writer said he voted for Nader twice. He charges the Democrats with being "spineless." We should point out that charge is not true for all Democrats. John Murtha stood up against the Iraq war when it wasn't politically popular. People like Russ Feingold have stood up against the Republican machine.

I have been disappointed in the past failures to contest the Bush administration. Democrats didn't stand up against some of Bush's despicable nominees such as John Ashcroft for Attorney General. They didn't stop rotten Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. They've gone along with heinous legislation such as the bankruptcy bill that was a gift to credit card companies.

And yet you have to acknowledge some realities about the American political system too. The media are a major part of American politics now. The media are now owned lock, stock, and barrel by people who essentially support reactionary policies. They cheerlead war, they support globalization, they resist doing anything about climate change, they get on board with low wages and job outsourcing, and they contribute to unmercifully smearing opponents.

Our system of government was designed in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified. For the most part, it has been a very good system. Checks and balances is a wonderful concept. But the Founders couldn't foresee nuclear weapons or the alliance of big religion, big corporations, and government. We have the dilemma of needing the president and military to act rapidly to deal with military threats, even though funding and authorization for war is supposed to come from the Congress. So that "check" of the executive branch has been eroded by the pace of modern times. It has allowed presidents like Bush to commit troops and put Congress into a bind of "supporting the troops" or leaving them in imminent danger. If you're under the shadow of a nuclear attack, you don't have time to examine all the nuances. For the system to work, the executive branch, the military, and the intelligence communities have to have integrity and competence.

The Democrats also faced the problem of being in the minority for most of this administration. You can't do much as a minority party. I believe Democrats who voted for this war did so based on lies told to them by the administration. But even if they had voted against the war, it would have gone on because the Republicans in power rubber stamped everything the administration wanted.

The past few years have revealed major weaknesses in our system of government. We need a better way to check executive power, while giving presidents enough leeway to respond to genuine emergencies. We need to get the power of corporations and big donors out of government. We need people in power who truly represent all of their constituents, not just the big donors.

We need to do what works for the majority of us, even if there are those who would call it "socialistic." There is a crying need, for example, for universal health care. We need to break away from dependence on fossil fuels. We need for Americans to be as educated as our economic competitors around the world. We need more of a sense of community, not just the individualistic looking out for number one ethos that has come to dominate our society.

February 01, 2007

IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY


HOUSE INVESTIGATING SIGNING STATEMENTS

I hadn't heard of signing statements until the hideous administration of George W. Bush. Signing statements have been used by other presidents, but not so abusively and extensively as by Bush. Signing statements are, in essence, a statement by the president of how he interprets a law he has just signed. It appears Bush has used signing statements as a legal pretext to ignore laws he doesn't like. Rather than go through a veto fight, he signs a bill and then uses the signing statement to thumb his nose at it. This article by Charlie Savage is at www.commondreams.org:

The new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, said yesterday that he is launching an aggressive investigation into whether the Bush administration has violated any of the laws it claimed a right to ignore in presidential "signing statements."

Bush has claimed that his executive powers allow him to bypass more than 1,100 laws enacted since he took office. But administration officials insist that Bush's signing statements merely question the laws' constitutionality, and do not necessarily mean that the president also authorized his subordinates to violate them.

Conyers said the president has no power " to ignore duly enacted laws he has negotiated with Congress and signed." And he vowed to find out whether the administration has followed each law it challenged -- including laws touching on classified national security matters, such as the tactics used to interrogate suspected terrorists and the FBI's use of the Patriot Act.

"This is a constitutional issue that no self-respecting federal legislature should tolerate," Conyers said, and he added that the committee was determined to "get to the bottom of this matter, and to be blunt, we are not going to take no for an answer."