Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHarriet Miers's Contempt of Congress: Are Conservatives About To Neuter Congress, While Claiming Full Legal Justification for this Separation-of-Powers Violation?
President George Bush has issued an instruction to his former White House counsel Harriet Miers to defy the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena. The Committee had sought to ask her about her role - and that of others in the White House - in firing a covey of United States Attorneys who were apparently not toeing the political line. Bush's instruction sent a very clear signal: As I wrote earlier, and as has been clear from the outset, he is looking for a fight.
By not responding to the subpoena, the President and Ms. Miers all but invited the House Judiciary Committee and, in turn, the House of Representatives to vote to deem her in contempt of Congress. It was a defiant, in-your-face insult to Congress. No president would do this unless he was quite confident of the outcome. Clearly, Bush's White House and Justice Department lawyers believe that the solidly conservative federal judiciary will grant them a favorable ruling, and that, in the process, they will greatly weaken congressional oversight powers, to the advantage of the White House.
In short, the Bush White House is not bluffing with this act of defiance. Rather, the White House truly wants to test, and attempt to expand, presidential power. Bush's White House is ready, willing, and able to play hardball. Indeed, the White House may actually be trying to bait the House Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives into voting to deem Ms. Miers in contempt of congress.
The Initial Consequences of Harriet Miers's "No Show"
It was on Thursday, July 12, that Miers was asked to testify before the subcommittee investigating the removal of U.S. Attorneys by the Bush Administration, and did not show. That same day, the subcommittee's Chair, Linda Sanchez (D.CA), undertook the preliminary steps necessary to declare Miers in contempt. By a party line vote of seven Democrats to five Republicans, the subcommittee ruled that there was no legal justification for Miers's failing to appear pursuant to the subpoena.
Notwithstanding this blatant affront to the House Judiciary Committee, Republicans members played their familiar role -- allowing party affiliation to trump institutional responsibility, just as it had when they controlled Congress. Republicans made lame (if not ridiculous) excuses for the Bush Administration's defiance, and proved themselves more than willing to let the President insult the subcommittee by instructing Miers to not show up. (The transcript of the proceeding is not available as I write but the information available from Firedoglake and Talking Points Memo indicates that Republicans embarrassed themselves as badly as did former White House aide Sara Taylor -- who kept telling the Senate Judiciary Committee, when she did honor a similar subpoena, that she had taken an oath to uphold the President, rather than the Constitution. House Republicans appear to have taken the same oath.)
As a result of Miers's "no show," the full House Judiciary Committee will no doubt support the subcommittee, and vote to deem Miers in contempt. One can only hope - but probably this hope is in vain -- that Republicans may realize this is not a partisan issue, but an institutional matter, and thus will either abstain or vote to support the dignity of the committee on which they serve. Republicans should remember that they will one day be back in control, and may then be confronted by a Democratic president defying their subpoenas - and relying on this very precedent to do so. Realistically, however, there is zero chance that Republicans will place their constitutional interest ahead of their partisan interests.
The House Judiciary Committee itself cannot hold Miers in contempt; rather, the Committee can only report its request that this be done to the full House, which must then vote to deem her in contempt. Before the full House turns to this question, however, its members should not only carefully consider what they are doing, but also consider what they are not doing. At this stage, it is unclear how far this conflict will progress. The White House appears to have given this matter much more thought than Congressional leaders have thus far.
Long ago, Congress should have oiled up its most powerful tool to require Executive cooperation. No one who follows these matters is surprised that Bush is again pushing the envelope of presidential powers. But it continues to mystify me why Congress does not get its act together, and remind the White House that they are constitutional co-equals.
Column continues below ↓ The Emboldened Position of the Bush White House, Backed by Its Attorneys
Keep in mind that, as I have previously written, conservatives now believe that a strong president is one who protects his prerogatives. This point of view counsels, too, that a president need not worry at all about low approval ratings; indeed, high approval ratings would signal a weak president, who had not used his or her powers effectively. In short, to Republicans, the fact that Bush's public support is sub-par means nothing with respect to the White House's fight with Congress.
Moreover, the Bush White House clearly believes the law is on its side. The Los Angeles Times reports that the Justice Department has provided the White House with a "broadly worded legal opinion" advising that "senior White House officials" can "ignore subpoenas from Congress to testify about the U.S. attorneys affair." This "three-page opinion," the L.A. Times says, "raises questions about whether the Justice Department would prosecute senior administration officials if Congress voted to hold them in contempt." The L.A. Times's article also notes that, under the law, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columba decides whether or not to pursue such cases when they are referred by the House or Senate for prosecution.
Needless to say, this is an extraordinary legal opinion, but not a surprising one. It is consistent with Bush's embrace of the "unitary executive theory."
Could this opinion be endorsed by a court if challenged? House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers - who was surprised that Miers was not going to appear - told the L.A. Times that his committee was "aware of absolutely no court decision that supports the notion that a former White House official has the option of refusing to even appear in response to a Congressional subpoena." Chairman Conyers is correct. There is no such law or precedent - yet.
I have not seen the Justice Department's memorandum, but the only basis they can possibly have to assure officials involved is that they enjoy, in the words of White House counsel Fred Fielding, "absolute immunity from compelled Congressional testimony" must be advice from the Department of Justice to this effect. The Justice Department, then, must be assuring the White House that it will make this, in effect, the law, by refusing to prosecute such defiant officials under the criminal contempt statute if Congress refers the matter to them.
This is a very aggressive position. While it does not reflect the current state of the law, given the pro-presidential bias among so many of the conservative jurists who now dominate the federal judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court, Bush may well succeed in defending this position if this matter goes to court.
Congress Needs To Protect Its Powers: Only One Way It Can Do So
Marty Lederman has prepared a nice overview analysis of what happens when officials defy a congressional subpoena.
Let's suppose that the House votes Miers in contempt, and the matter is sent to the U.S. Attorney. One can expect that no prosecution will be brought. During the Reagan years, the Justice Department ruled that even though the referral statute makes it the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to take the matter to the grand jury, Congress cannot enforce that duty on the Executive Branch if the Executive Branch refuses to honor it. As noted, it would appear that under the most recent Justice memo on the subject, the White House will not permit the U.S. Attorney to prosecute the matter, and Congress has no power to overrule that by forcing the U.S. Attorney to go forward.
If the U.S. Attorney did go forward could criminal sanctions be imposed on a witness such as Harriet Miers who is (albeit willingly) following the orders of the president by refusing to honor a congressional subpoena? The issue raises serious Constitutional questions that have not been resolved by the Supreme Court. If the issue did reach the Court, how would the Court rule? Given its current conservative majority, the Justice Department and White House may be right if they have concluded that they can win before the Court, convincing at least five Justices to declare such criminal sanctions unconstitutional.
If the House votes Miers in contempt, they can also institute a civil legal action by seeking declaratory judgment from a federal court to compel enforcement of their subpoena. However, there is a growing body of law, coming from conservative jurists, calling for conflicts like this between the executive and legislative branch to be considered "political questions" that are improper for the federal courts to resolve. Thus, it seems likely that the Court might - citing the political-question doctrine - decline to take jurisdiction over this clash, thereby leaving the White House's status quo untouched. For the Bush Administration, the worse case scenario, as Lederman suggests, is simply that the courts will seek to force a political settlement.
Finally, if Miers is found in contempt, the House itself can take action against her at the bar of the House. (The Senate can similarly hold such proceedings.) Congress has the power to prosecute contumacious witnesses to require them to comply, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this power. For example, in 1987, in Young v. U.S., Justice Antonin Scalia recognized "the narrow principle of necessity" or "self-defense" of the Congress in protecting its institutional prerogatives. Scalia said "the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches must each possess those powers necessary to protect the functioning of its own processes, although those implicit powers may take a form that appears to be nonlegislative, nonexecutive, or nonjudicial, respectively."
When all is said and done the only way Congress can protect its prerogatives is to undertake its own contempt proceedings. The parliamentary precedents of the House provide such procedures, by which Congress can effectively protect itself. There is no shortage of past instances where the Congress has held such trials. Readers may want to consult, for example, Hinds' Precedents and Canon's Precedents. Unfortunately, however, this machinery has become a bit rusty, for these procedures have not been used since 1934.
Congress Must Avail Itself of Traditional Procedures to Compel Testimony and/or Punish Contempt
Given the clear attitude of conservative presidents, who are doing all within their power to make Congress irrelevant, Congress should turn to these underemployed precedents and put them back to work. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should take the lead in reviving these procedures, and the Democrats' leadership should announce that they are embracing them.
If they do not, Fred Fielding has it right: Officials are absolutely immune from compelled Congressional testimony. Bush can simply tell Congress to stop sending subpoenas to his appointees. However, if Congress does engage in a little self-help at this crucial juncture, it can be sure that not only Harriet Miers, but also George Bush, will be forced to pay attention to congressional subpoenas - for the bottom line is that Congress will not need the cooperation of the other branches to enable it to conduct proper oversight.
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
© 2007 FindLaw.com
71 Comments so far
Show AllThe breakdown of democratic institutions and processes continues without end with our abominable President Bush, his pliable attorney general, the irresponsible Supreme Court, and his compliant Republican party.
The only aspect of this whole disastrous affair that gives me any hope is that even the current Supreme Court must realize that giving the executive branch so much power will also empower future Democratic presidents.
Of course, if some of the posters here are correct, there will be no election in the fall of 2008 and no Democrats elected to the presidency. If things in this country go that far wrong, then we are surely and totally doomed. I just can't bring myself to face that possibility quite yet. The past two presidential elections have been stolen, but the last congressional election was not.
Everyone who understands the political ramifications of the Bush junta's ascent to power must continue to broadcast it loudly and clearly. There are still 28% of the adults in this country who haven't gotten the message. (As someone on another blog said (paraphrased) "Who are these people? Do they take a stupid pill with a little booster every morning?"
Although America is not yet Nazi Germany, and Bush is not Hitler, the parallels are still disturbing. Germany was a Democracy, too, Hitler was very unpopular with the citizens of Germany, and few people believed the country could be taken over by the extremists. During the Nazi's rise to power, the concentration camps and death squads were not evident. I have no confidence in the current administration to behave morally, and little confidence in the legislative or judiciary branches to curb the power grabs.
It's not a good time for America. We the People must be vigilant.
wait for the signal
revolution is near
also got 12 million hispanics, ready to rock and roll,they also know of the many massacres in Mexico, etc.
when it comes get ready
**52
Remember "The Madness of King George?" I think we are living with the evil as well as the madness. This administration thinks they can do no wrong, however, if Congress would work together instead of standing fast with what is dead wrong, we might see a decent future. As it is now, the average citizen now has every prerequisite for becoming depressed. Not only does he want complete submission, but he wants us to suffer, too, so the rich become richer and more powerful.
This represents a Constitutional Crisis. In any other country (except, possibly, Canada) but by all means including all our Latin brothers, this contemptuous treatment of our Consitution, under whatever guise, would bring thousands into the streets. For us, it should be millions but, guess what, the MSM will see to it that we will remain ignorant and undecided of what to do. The next move in this facade will be to bring on a fake national emergency or concoct one and declare 2008 as being unnecessary until the emergency is over -- never. The only answer I see is for Congress to at once impeach the true evil genious behind this cabal, one Dick Cheney. That the MSM cannot ignore and although it will obtain the same Constitutional Crisis, Congress will be on the offensive and the administration will be playing defense.
IMPEACH BUSH IMMDIATELY AND STOP ALL THE USELESS MANEUVERING. IT'S YOUR ONLY OPTION.
Now do you see just how sleezy attorneys can manipulate and annul former legalities carved in stone in our Constitution? The issue is clear, this lady lawyer of Bush's should appear before the Congressional committee. But what we see now is a lot of legal mumbo jumbo. Bush and his cronies and influential ties to brainy lawyers are always ten steps ahead and it takes a law degree to hack through their intangled and deceiving ways.
Here ya go, Crackerjack:
http://www.hannity.com/
There's a forum there. You will be much more comfortable there.
Shoo, wingnut, shoo.
Government of the people, for the people and by the people apparently is null and void. Sort of just imploded on itself like the towers on 9/11. Place a few conservatives in all the strategic corners and ignite at just the right time and it all blows to smitherines. What a swell tragedy. We do not need to be attacked by terrorists from other places. We have our very own home grown terrorists. They don't use IEDs to blow up stuff, they use twisted laws to blow up democracy.
No Worries
Both of our political parties are backing the scam to steal Iraq oil. The Almighty Republican Establishment is behind it, and everyone else has fallen into line. Those who rule America have "No Worries" about this action because they never have any worries. They live in a world so protected by walls of money, they can't see disaster coming. They see nothing ahead but opportunity for increased profits.
But nothing is more likely to spread "terrorism" than stealing Iraq's oil, and Iran has already been selected as our next victim.
It seems this ever expanding global war on terrorism is going to last for a long, long time.
Buckle up Americans, we're in for bumpy ride.
.
"about" to neuter Congress?
Surely you jest.
John, thank you for your dedication and patriotism, both thirty-four years ago last week and today.
Spot on, John. Inherent contempt is the only way to go. Congress has the responsibility to conduct oversight and, inherently, the authority to do so. A failure to exercise its authority to fulfill its responsibility would amount to a failure of each and every congressman to uphold his oath to protect our Constitution.
The matter has clearly progressed beyond simple executive impropriety. We have a serious Constitutional crisis on our hands, as a result of executive contempt, impunity, and quite likely criminality, combined with the legislature's failure to keep it in check.
We all know that passing this matter to a US Attorney would result in the Department of Justice clearing the executive branch, of which it is a part, of all wrong-doing, and justice would not be served. At the heart of this particular investigation is the fact that the highest members of the administration have corrupted the DOJ itself, and placed partisanship where none should be.
Passing the matter to the judicial branch, too, would be an abdication of Congress's responsibility. A long, drawn-out, judicial decision who show oversight to be the waiting game that it has been throughout the Bush administration.
We're at a crossroads, and we need to decide whether we're going to descend into authoritarian fascism or ascend back into constitutionally protected, balanced, representative democracy.
Two hundred twenty years ago, our Founding Fathers took the high road. We need to follow in their foot-steps.
The Democratic institutions set up by the founders are clearly tottering and the Unitary Executive (aka dictator) is looming large. The combination of a Unitary Executive and a Supreme Court supporting this concept is overturning any semblance of a balance of powers. The Republicans actually have as much to lose is this fight as the Democrats. Recall the Democrats may actually win the presidency with these new dictatorial powers and run amoke over them.
But they are taking the Pledge to Support the President over the constitution and the country.
Last night on Bill Moyers Journal a conservative named Bruce Fein made a great statement about what it would be like, verbally, if Congress were to stand up to the illegitimate power grab by the Bush administration. (John Nichols was great in the interview too.) Here is the quote, source below:
BRUCE FEIN: "There is no longer any statesmanship. I go back to the real vulnerability and weakness of Congress, that they don't have anybody who can, as a chairman or even asking a question like John or me say, "Mr. Attorney General, you answer that question. This is the United States of America. Transparency is the rule here. We don't have secret government. That's what Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about in the Gulag. That's not the United States of America. We pay your salary. We have a right to know 'cause it's our duty to decide whether what you're doing is legal and wise, not yours. Answer that question or you're held in contempt right now." And that's-- and all you need is that tone of voice. But what happens up there? "Well, would you please answer?" Well, are you sure? When-- could you get John Ashcroft? I mean, it's just staggering."
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript4.html?print
Wouldn't it be nice to see and hear that?
"When all is said and done the only way Congress can protect its prerogatives is to undertake its own contempt proceedings."
Another tactic might be to start impeachment proceedings against Gonzales. There is no question that Congress has the power to impeach lower officials, and they wouldn't have to wait on any Supreme Court ruling.
Besides, is there a single Republican legislator willing to stick his neck out to defend Gonzales?
Do write to Conyers in the House (Google him to get his site). There is an email link on his site.
"Inherent contempt" is the message to him. While he is already aware of it and what it means, he needs prodding.
Inherent contempt means that with a simple majority, the House can try Harriet Miers on the spot and imprison her immediately. No Senate approval, no judicial review, nothing.
It's the great equalizer response to George Bush, and it has teeth.
Yes, CrackerJack, do sit back, wait for others to do something, and just whine. Don't forget to come back here and say "Ha ha" later on. Surely there is a radical conservative blog you can go to, isn't there? Maybe Hannity?
Big Bucks & Big Media
It takes Big Bucks and Big Media to be a contender. Sometimes the People choose who they want for president, but not often. Truman and Dewey, come to mind. Our electoral process is tilted in favor of Big Bucks because Big Media pre-selects the "contenders" based primarily on their campaign donations. Candidates who don't have Big Bucks don't get press coverage, and Candidates who don't get press coverage, don't get Big Bucks from corporations.
So, Big Buck's determine who's politically "acceptable," who gets press coverage, and who gets to be president. They have so much money, the hedge their bets by bestowing money on "acceptable" candidates in both parties, like insurance in Blackjack.
Do you know who's choosing the next president? Here's a hint: The Almighty Republican Establishment that owns the Monopoly Media. Plus, they also have all three branches of government, in the bag.
.
Maybe the Dems better hire John Dean to help orchestrate proceedings. He seems to be the only one speaking clearly and with understanding. Surely, a constitutional crisis is coming to a head. What little we have left of a democracy (or Republic to be more exact) hangs in the balance. The Dems better give it its best fight, otherwise history will show this the moment when all was lost.
is it possible there is a silver lining in this rather dark cloud??to wit the breakup of the us of a..I have always thought honest abe made a mistake by trying to hold onto the south..the political geography makes no sense these days (probably never did)..i would choose breakup over civil war!!
ken
A bloodless coup,(as, for instance, Bolivia has famously had so many times before, but this time with a long-range plan), may be the only rational way out of this mess. I know, it don't sound very Amerikun, but hey it has done the job in many areas, at many times. Our fighting boys keeping the peace while we re-organize ourselves! Talk it over.
cruxpuppy,
Chalmers Johnson is right, except the Republic was lost a long time ago.
I am not any kind of legal expert but I say call their bluff with impeachment proceeding. Quit worrying about the contempt charges. We know they hold us and our laws in contempt .Show them what is the result of this attitude. This is what the public wants and it they want to fight, let's fight them where it counts. Out in the open where they will have difficulty hiding. Start impeachment proceeding against Cheney first and go after George as the cover ups progress. They can not help themselves . They think that they can not be touched. Let the Constitution touch them. The power and the process is spelled out in the Constitution. Use It!!!
Some have mentiomed a possible civil war in this country as all normal avenues seem to have been blocked. Stop and think which group (progressives or liberals) have the lions share of assualt weapons and concealed weapons ready for use. How do you suppose that war will come out? Also the trained hired thugs we are using in Iraq would be involved. Not a great scenario there. Better just rely on our timid Dems to keep the country going.
I love how the line at the bottom of the article says that Dean is a "former counsel to the president," but doesn't say which president (hint: he was a crook). Not that I disagree with his points here. I'm just sayin'.
"Finally, if Miers is found in contempt, the House itself can take action against her at the bar of the House. (The Senate can similarly hold such proceedings.) Congress has the power to prosecute contumacious witnesses to require them to comply, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this power."
To cowed to impeach, one can only hope Congress will defend itself, at least.
There may be no equivalent concept of a "unitary executive" available to the congress, but there should be a strong sense of identity just the same.
If it can't do even this much because partisanship has fractured that identity, then Chalmers Johnson is right. The Republic is lost.
I think most of the discussion here has key flaws, including Dean's presumption that Congress is a monolithic entity and should want to preserve its power and deny new, excess powers to the Executive branch.
Dean states:
"However, if Congress does engage in a little self-help at this crucial juncture, it . . . will not need the cooperation of the other branches to enable it to conduct proper oversight."
He presumes a monolithic Congress that *wants to* conduct proper oversight.
He and those commenting on this article are missing the concept of the corporate regime that has siezed the government.
Most members of Congress in both parties support the corporate regime that arose in the 1970s and has overthrown much of the the progressive New Deal regime of 1932-1975. Charles Derber has written about this in Regime Change Begins at Home and in a newer book: Hidden Power.
This idea boils down to this: the corporate regime has two competing branches: corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats. They both want one thing: power to control and extend the corporate regime. Progressives like Gravel and Kucinich are their true adversaries--thus the conspiracy by Clinton and Edwards to eliminate Gravel and Kucinich from the debates.
The corporate Democrats in power think it likely that they will win the presidency in 2008.
So they won't confront Bush's power grab. THEY WANT TO INHERIT IT.
Old style conservatives like Dean and true progressives like Lee, Woolsey, Lewis, Kucinich, Watson, Sanders, and several others actually have the Constitution and the well-being of the nation as a higher priority than power. But the corporate regime supporters don't--just power.
So the task is not to help the corporate Democrats win. It is to overthrow the corporate regime supported by most of both parties and bring forth a new progressive regime with an improved electoral system so the will of the people becomes the law of the land. How to do that is another matter, but without getting our own goals formulated clearly, we will just be misunderstanding the motives of the current regime by making mistakes such as Dean's presumption that Congress even wants oversight over power. My own view is that we can do this inside of the Democratic Party with help from a strengthened Green Party. Progressives have key allies in the Democratic Party, starting with many of the 71 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus such as Lee and Kucinich, for they have the goal of a new progressive regime.
claudius July 13th, 2007 8:32 pm
Had Enough,
"I will supply the pizza and beer. Party at my house! It should be fun watching Harriet get her jurassic ass thrown in jail! Better than the Superbowl!"
Claudius: I drink Sam Adams.....any pizza will do. See you soon!
Had Enough,
Yes, John Dean rocks!!
claudius: I just wrote to Conyers, but after hearing Randi again tonight speaking to the Florida Rep...oh golly, so exciting!
John Dean: Hero!!
George Bush is our President. We elected him (yeah I know he was selected) but millions voted for him twice. We wanted him. He charmed us. His boyish smirk and his twinkly squinty eyes. We created a nation that worhips wealth and ignorance. We deserve him. Tragic but just.
Had Enough,
I will supply the pizza and beer. Party at my house! It should be fun watching Harriet get her jurassic ass thrown in jail! Better than the Superbowl!
"By not responding to the subpoena, the President and Ms. Miers all but invited the House Judiciary Committee and, in turn, the House of Representatives to vote to deem her in contempt of Congress. It was a defiant, in-your-face insult to Congress. No president would do this unless he was quite confident of the outcome. Clearly, Bush's White House and Justice Department lawyers believe that the solidly conservative federal judiciary will grant them a favorable ruling, and that, in the process, they will greatly weaken congressional oversight powers..."
AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHY THIS "ENTIRE" ADMINISTRATION MUST BE IMPEACHED!
IMPEACH - IMPEACH - IMPEACH - IMPEACH - IMPEACH!
WTF is Congress waiting for....another blow-job?
Thank you, John Dean, for your well-placed announcement on Randi Rhodes. You are THE BEST. I salute you!
Harriet Miers could find her big fat ass in jail as early as next week.
As much as the wingnuts here like to condition y'all to think that the Democrats have no power, there is one poisonous arrow they're gittin' ready to shoot.
It's called:
Inherent contempt. Hasn't been used since the '30s, but did pass muster in the Supreme Court.
So, Ms. Miers (and other Bush liars and cons who are thumbing their noses at us), by now you know what "inherent contempt" means. I hope you're scared.
I can't wait. Really.
Fairy Tale
If this stands we need the next Democratic president
to push to at least these same limits. Watch the
dogs howl then.
But of course that's a fairy tale since the Democrats
actually like the idea.
Seems like Congress, without really understanding where everything was leading, has about given up the farm and nuetered themselves. Bush and Co. have played their cards well and we've been had.
Maybe the only answer is for the people out here in the streets to make so much noise that both the Executive and the Legislative Branches of governement are forced to pay attention. As it is now, what the poeople want has become insignificant. It's now all about how the politicains want to play the game and we are the peons outside the walls of their sacred domain.
Congress needs to fight for its life on this one because nothing less than Democracy is in the balance. Unfortunately, in the past, Democrats have given Bush everything he has asked for--conservative supreme court justices, war powers, money, tax breaks for the rich, etc. The majority of Democrats have just caved in. They had no idea that this guy wasn't playing by the same old rule book anymore. It may be too late for them to grow a spine.
"Darling, do need another drink? I think you meant SOOOO 2004, didn't you?"
"Oh darling, I'm just so tired of everthing! 2000, 2004, 2006. Oh, what does it matter when I'm so BORED?! Why isn't there a WAR or something somewhere. I just need some excitement!"
"Shopping, darling?"
"OH LET'S DO!!!"
There can't possibly be a single poster on this site who actually thinks that they will have the opportunity to vote in an election 17 months from now, can there?
Corporate control of your country is nearly complete. Two elections were stolen and they won't pull that trick again - it's too easy now.
"Darling, are we going steal another election?"
"Oh darling," tsk, tsk, tsk, "that is SOOO 2006. I am just SO over it."
Now martial law on the other hand ... there hasn't been that much fun for the military / industrial control addicts for a long time. Something new, something different. God, just thinking about is probably giving them a huge rush.
Note to mother nature: There's not many of the human species that are worthy of your gifts because too few of the human species understand that the state of the world doesn't have to be this way. You will remove your cancerous tumour - therein lies the joy.
Helix,
The solution for appeasing the rednecks is easy: give them a six-pack of Bud Light, a Playboy magazine, and tell them Jeff Gordon is your favorite NASCAR driver. They will follow you whevever you go.
BrokenTop,
Re: Remember, they have a private army called Blackwater!
Actually, they also have a huge cadre of militant supporters often called "rednecks" -- the "Love It Or Leave It" crowd. The rebellion, whan it comes, may not resemble a revolution as much as it does a civil war.
If presidential advisors thought they might be publicly questioned, it would have a chilling effect on their willingness to advise the president to do something immoral, illegal, or downright insane.
Contract Telephone # 202-456-1111 and take a moment to ask that President George W. Bush resign the office of the President of the United States effective immediately
Of course the fix is in. What will happen is that this matter will eventually go to the Supreme Ct, which will rule 5 to 4 in Bush's favor, killing the power to subpoena anyone in the executive branch, effectively overruling the precedent set when the court struck down Nixon's claim of executive privilege. Of course, that new precident will be reversed again should a democrat gain the white house and get in a tiff with a republican congress. We saw that when the court allowed civil suits to procede against Clinton in the Paula Jones case. What has happened folks is that the Right Wing has achieved its defacto goal: control of the federal judiciary. It will get to the point that the only way to restore oversight is to impeach both the president and a few fascist supreme court justices. The Constitution, thank god, gives no power to the judiciary on impeachment matters. It may come to that.
Well folks, the 11th hour of our Constitutional Republic has arrived. It's absolutely certain that Bush and his cronies on the Supreme Court have connived to create a crises in the Congress so they can render it irrelevant. From Mr. Dean's comments, the strategies to counter this are very, very limited and I doubt the Dems have the stomach for any of it. They are afraid of impeachment; afraid to create any issue. They are so pitiful.
Then, I'm not sure impeachment and a vote to remove Bush and Cheney would work. Remember, they have a private army called Blackwater!
I knew in the 1990's watching the R's attack Clinton relentlessly and impeach him for foolish behavior Republicans were a Fascist party. In fact, I was so alarmed I read again the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" just to confirm that I was not imagining things. Forget about an election in 2008. A "terrorist" attack (actually a false flag operation) will take place, Bush will declare martial law and cancel the election.
It's time for torches and pitchforks folks. We are not going to be able to vote or legalize our way out of this takeover.
Just wait . . . If what is said here holds up we could see the 2008 election "delayed in the time of war." If you think this is to far out remember you saw it here on Friday The 13th.
I do so love a Conspiracy . . . .
I know . . . Not funny . . . But with what is happening here what can you do but laugh and hope for the best. No matter what happens the Progressive Movement will not get what it wants . . . 'Nuff Said
Ah yes, the Bush family's far, far right judges. Everyone is still paying three cents a stamp to cleanup after the bioterror WMD assault on the senators who were in the way. Leahy et al. Then there is the lethal outing of a CIA agent - old treason?
It's obvious that we are suffering under a dictatorship. All this is right out of Machiavelli's description of power politics.
Saddam was a dictator and the Republicans have shown the American people how to deal with dictators. Perhaps that will be the real Bush legacy. Interesting times...
-wf
having said that, first things first:
IMPEACH & PROSECUTE
read johann hari's article on the "national review" cruise today on C-D for insight into who these rethuglicans are on the house judiciary committee who refuse to compel meiers to testify.
taking a somewhat contrarian position here, the issue is not fundamentally constitutional/legal/political, but economic. the ideals and practices of US democracy, flawed as they were, are more rapidly reflecting the economic realities of our country: stratification, disempowerment and impoverishment of the overwhelming majority, the triumph of money & thuggery over law. impeachment (and criminal prosecution), while absolutely necessary, will not alter the long term declining trajectory of american political democracy if some measure of economic democracy is not restored. otherwise, we'll find ourselves back in exactly the same position politically in a very short time.
Osama and Ayman are laughing uproariously over there in Pakistan. After 9/11 they figured on this type of meltdown. America, wake up. March, strike, agitate, do something! Take back your country from the corporate mafia.
Anyone else ever notice Cheneybush rarely actually say the word "Constitution?" The other day, for example, the Loonitary Decider said for the umpteenth time that "the President's most important job is to protect the American people," when, in fact, he took an oath that said his most important duty was to defend the Constitution. Search back and you'll see that they hate Democracy so much, they cannot even get themselves to say Constitution or Bill of Rights unless forced, and then it's strictly Orwellian, like "the Constitution implies the President is also a Diktator who is beyond all laws, checks and balances..."
southern nevada boys were always kind of wimpy
a native from northern nevada
ken
So when does civil disobedience take over?
The only cure for our current sickness is impeachment. Since Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the reactionary Republicans have been packing the federal judiciary. That is the only reason that George W. Bush was able to seize power in the first place. If our elected representatives do not act fairly soon, we will cease to be a republic and the Constitution will be null and void.
Could we really expect anything different in this era of partisan politics? Now a days it doesn't matter what is good for the American people or not, its about your next election. There are very few real politicians left in this day and age. Most all others are party politicians. I applaud the few that remain that have the balls to stand up and fight for what is right.
Note to Harry Reid:
Coming from Nevada and having known how you were as a local politician, what happened?
Here's a short cut. Impeach and solve a whole bunch of problems in one blow.
Façade in politics is more important than substance. The façade of the French Revolution, long betrayed by Jacobins, finally came crumbling down after Napoleon crowned himself an Emperor at the peak of his military power. After decade of agony, France was never to be the same country.
The façade of the Russian Revolution, long betrayed by Lenin himself, finally came crumbling down after Stalin crowned himself a Generalissimo at the peak of his military power. After 4 decades of agony, Soviet Union was no more.
So it give me sort of consolation that façade of the American Revolution, long betrayed by first John Adams, institutions of slavery, plutocracy, Manifest Destiny and open imperialism in disguise of defense of liberty, finally came crumbling down after Bush crowned himself a Decider at the BOTTOM of American military power. What was once the high style tragedies, degenerated in our hip-hope era into lowest style of roadside pandemonium, theater of absurd without borders.
I hope that new Emporium has no life time to consolidate. Our street smart Camarilla mortgaged everything including US armed forces to the Market. And markets tend to collapse.
Is this at last an impeachable offense?
"The only way this Congress can protect itself against the king is to initiate impeachment..." Of whom, Saila? Of itself? The real remedy is to impeach all those American people who pledged their allegiance to one country and everything that comes with that: Constitution in the first place. This is why I called Bush junta Busheviks – they accepted Leninist tactic of legally winning elections in order to subvert existing order. Basically, there is nothing wrong with that; the body politic was completely corrupt in this country, especially after Reagan came into White House.
What pains me is total lack of reaction from those mostly affected. Lenin came to power with high calls to build better society far toiling majority in the middle of the Great War and collapse of all authority. Hitler did the same thing after humiliation of Versailles.
Unlike Lenin and Hitler, Bush appeared at the era of plenty amidst the greatest boom and prosperity ever seen on this planet, may be never to be repeated again. He directly appeal to haves and have-mores, he promised openly to abolish that very Union, however imperfect, which was protected by the Constitution and pledged to give it back to the highest bidder.
No ambiguity, no false promises. His job is done, right and square. Who are we to go against Will of the People?
Yup! We have reached that stage to which historians and mythologists have long referred. Whatever the issue with our founders -- they knew the nature of power -- and its relentless, abusive quest for absolute control -- hence, the clear and direct constitutional regard for a "balance of powers." Like cancer that has matastasized, these sick elements (the cabal in the White House, the two-party enablers in Congress -- and some of the nodding, robed politicized priests in our courts) seek to overtake all the divserse organs of government and democracy's immune system which will ultimately devour and kill the body politic.
Impeachment is clearly prescribed and sadly, more extensive treatments will need to be applied down the line if we wish to save the life and vision of democracy. It's up to us!
In July of 2005, "We, the People" of the May Arkwright Hutton Chapter of the WA State Federation of Democratic Women, held a convention. Our theme was "Democracy or Fascism: A Critical Choice." There was a great deal of opposition to even using the word, "fascism." However, some of us have known since 2000 that "the corporate state" (fascism) was inching its way to total control of our government. Now many more people are beginning to realize that it's true: we are on the cusp of a fascist regime. All of the 14 features of fascism are well demonstrated by the link to "14 Points of Fascism" at www.OldAmericanCentury.org, managed by TJ Templeton of Mars, Iowa. Brilliant work. I urge everyone to go there and study it and then work for election reform and media reform, in support of two of the pillars of democracy -- our vote and a free press.
I was sort of surprised in 2000, when We were given practical lessons civic about difference between Republic and Democracy. What a progress for short six years. John Dean's revelations are sickening - 545 representatives of We, the People, are hapless in the face of one individual with no brains but guts.
I would not have in my nightmares that that might ever happen; and yet it did.
Remember Bush saying " I would like to be a dictator, things would be much simpler then. Everybody heard these word over 100 million TV sets. Yet, he was voted back into office instead of being immediately prosecuted.
And who is to ultimately rule on Bush's right to not have staff cooperate with congressional subpoenas? The Supreme Court? Reading this article raises the concern that Bush has seriously compromised an "independent" judicial branch with conservative appointments. That is the ultimate executive power grap, Bush appointees supporting Bush into a throne of non accountability, no checks and balances.
Not being a legal expert, but, just being a plain old citizen I can say that currently there is definitely not anywhere near a balance of powers, and that all citizens, ALL citizens, should be very concerned about this - one of the things that many Americans have died fighting for. Kings have no place in the government that was initiated in 1776.
Sen. Joe Biden paved the way for Clarence Thomas to sit on the court by blocking testimony that would have shown him to be a pervert -- and while telling Anita Hill and her lawyers that the testimony would be heard!!!
What's shaping up is clear evidence that we have criminal mentality running our White House and a great deal of our agencies -- including Justice Department.
When we did not STAND UP against the Supreme Court ruling to put George Bush in the White House we helped pave the way for what is happening now!!!!
Of course . . . neither did Al Gore stand up against Bush and his cult either during the recounts nor when given a final opportunity to protest.
And of Miers and Taylor . . . ?
Jail????
Members of the United States Congress are the representatives of the American people. By showing contempt for the Congress, Bush is effectively telling the American people to go to hell. It is high time that he be made to understand that he is the servant of the people and not the other way around.
OK everybody, time to listen to me. NULLIFY everything boy bush ever did. He was NEVER president, just a rich punk playing with a toy globe.
Start by holding Miers hostage. Big time charges. She's guilty of buggering us on behalf of the brat-AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT, god damn it.
Congress willingly handed over its balls a long time ago.
Those corrupt phonies will not do ANYTHING that may result in their not getting their usual dose of pork.
On Crackerjack69:
Maybe I am missing something but I did not read anything by Crackerjack69 to warrent any criticism.
Crackerjack69 appears to be criticizing the Democrats for not impeaching Reagan over Iran-Contra, and appears to want impeachment now, and thinks that the invasion of Iraq was criminal. Aren't those the views of a true progressive?
Crackerjack69, you appear to be quite progressive to me and I don't get the critical comments towards you by Had Enough.
Had Enough, what am I missing? Why are you saying Crackerjack69 is out of place here? I don't get it.
In the final analysis, the blame for making the Congress irrelevant lies with Congress itself. If it didn't give Bush so much rope earlier, Bush would not have been able to hang them with the same rope. We may complain that Bush has stacked the Justice Department and the Supreme Court with his cronies, but they all went through Congressional hearings and were approved by the Congress.
When Congress unleashes a rabid pit bull by giving it unrestricted and unlimited war powers with no strings attached, why then is it surprised if the pit bull chooses to attack any country?
Bush has probably already talked the matter over with his buddies on the Supreme Court and is sure of winning. That's why he's standing his position rock solid. The only way this Congress can protect itself against the king is to initiate impeachment forthwith. And that means right NOW!
And to think the dems approved all these conservative judges, and Roberts and Alito, giving little Caligula his ace up his sleeve.
And the repigs shouted about having to reel in "activist judges", making law from the bench... and how these LIBERAL judges were making a mockery of law.
Who mocks our laws now? Who mocks our Constitution?
Dems - see that rope, with a noose at the end? Good.
Now, go slide it over your head,,,, goooood, now, pull it tight,,,,,