Fw: Constitutional Crises

[Guest guest]

worthwhile read...NG

-

J

n

Thursday, July 15, 2004 6:48 PM

Constitutional Crises

 

 

July 16, 2004

 

Constitutional Crises

 

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION

by Matt Carmody

 

Take a look at the title of this piece. Think about that phrase.

 

Do you remember the most recent constitutional crisis? Was it the way that the

presidency was given to George W. Bush by five ultra-conservative members of the

Supreme Court in 2000, a decision which usurped the rights of the voters in

Florida who didn't get a chanced to get their votes counted? Or the way the

conduct of the election was totally removed from the state legislature in

Florida, a function specifically given to the individual states by the

constitution?

 

Most people don't learn too much about the constitution is school anymore, so

they probably are unaware that the Supreme Court stuck its nose in where the

constitution decidedly made clear that it shouldn't. When there is a dispute

over an election for the president of the United States, the matter is supposed

to be settled in the House of Representatives, the " people's house, " by the

elected representatives of the people. It most certainly shouldn't be settled by

political appointees, the majority of whom hid their radical views in plain

sight at their confirmation hearings, but who were confirmed and appointed

anyway, with the acquiescence of the Congress.

 

Or was the most recent constitutional crisis for you the way that both houses of

Congress ceded their responsibility to declare war, again by their 2002

acquiescence, in this case, to this administration's demand that the president,

and the president alone, would decide when and where to carry out military

operations in the latest military adventure of the United States. This is

another clear-cut area where the framers and founders of the republic decided

that the people, represented by the congress, should be the ones to decide major

issues.

 

How about the 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton, over a dubious perjury claim?

Did his accuser stand to lose very much if the Republican-controlled House of

Representatives, in the grip of right-wing ideologues, had been forced to

abandon its dangerous, and ultimately unsuccessful, witch hunt? A witch hunt, by

the way, which not only embarrassed the president personally, but which weakened

the United States internationally, just so a handful of lunatic fringe religious

conservatives and GOP operatives, could get their digs in at someone who was on

the other side of the cultural divide from them? What ever happened to the

principle of overriding interests? Was Clinton's lawyer such an amateur that he

argued the wrong point to the courts? Or, better yet, for you conspiracy

theorists, was his lawyer, Robert Bennett, the brother of William " Mr. Virtues "

Bennett (himself a GOP nut job), part of the grand plan? Argue a point that you

have no chance of winning, while ignoring a relevant argument that the

overriding interests of the United States demand that this CIVIL lawsuit be

postponed until the target, and Clinton was a target, is safely out of office.

 

That one doesn't do it for you? Okay, how about the 1995 shutdown of the United

States government when the GOP-controlled congress refused to pass a budget,

blaming the delay on Clinton? Granted, parts of Clinton's budget proposals were

later deemed to be unconstitutional (Clinton v NY, in which the line item veto

was thrown out), but it was Republican obstinacy and a firm desire to embarrass

the President and gridlock the legislative process that caused this shutdown.

 

Here's a good example that resonates today just as it did back then: The 1991

invasion of Iraq by a U.S.-led coalition of forces to force the great demon,

Saddam Hussein, to relinquish his hold on Bush's friends in Kuwait and to

prevent him from threatening his even better friends in Saudi Arabia, home of

Osama bin Laden's family and the nation which spawned of 15 of 19 9/11

hijackers. Once again, a roll me over and be gentle, Democratic Congress

acquiesced and let its war-making prerogative be usurped by a Bush.

 

Oh, that doesn't qualify as a constitutional crisis for you, yet? Let's see. Oh,

yeah. There was a nasty little military adventure in Panama that resulted in the

needless deaths of numerous Panamanian civilians so that George H. W. Bush could

look presidential while silencing one of his long-time partners in crime, Manuel

Noriega. This was a dry run for the little adventure cited above which,

supposedly kicked the " Vietnam Syndrome. "

 

Still not there? Well, there was the covert and illegal sale of chemical and

biological weapons to the regime of Saddam Hussein by the United States

government, represented by Donald Rumsfeld,, at the behest of William " Mumbles "

Casey and the CIA, under the direction of George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Or, the arming of Iran with missiles a scant two years after that country had

seized the U.S. embassy and imprisoned its occupants. Surely, that must qualify

as a constitutional crisis.

 

See where I'm going with this? Anytime in the past thirty years that there has

been a constitutional crisis, starting with Nixon's secret dealings with the

Viet Cong through Anna Chennault prior to the 1968 presidential elections, it

has been precipitated by members of the party that claims to be staunch

defenders of the constitution against liberal attack. Think about it - Nixon's

dealings at the Paris peace talks were unlawful; the October Surprise engineered

by George H. W. Bush and Mumbles Casey, which followed that illegitimacy by 12

years, was unlawful, but in keeping with their belief that the will of the

American people should never stand in the way of what they and their minority of

supporters want to see happen.

 

Did I hear Iran-contra? Funding the Contras by letting their representatives

bring massive amounts of cocaine into this country, was carried out by Oliver

North, through the office of the Vice President of the United States, George H.

W. Bush. The Congress doesn't want to allocate funds for the Contras? As Dick

Cheney would say, " Fuck them! " And a resounding, " Fuck off! " to the American

people. As George W. Bush said recently, to a reporter who questioned his policy

decisions, " Who cares what you think? "

 

Oh, why was that a crisis? Well, there were U. S. laws in place, at the time,

laws that made any dealings with the Contra regime by supplying it with arms,

unlawful. That, of course didn't matter, because the people in charge of U. S.

policy then, and now, do not give one iota what the will of the American happens

to be. As in the Hebrew National commercial, they answer to a higher power.

 

Of course, so do some of the Americans in whose name these crimes were carried

out. Some of the millions of Americans who don't go around with hymns running

through their heads, who wonder, quite legitimately, where the hell we took that

right turn back there and where is the real road we, as a country, are supposed

to be on.

 

For Ronald Reagan's supernumeraries and his army of true believers, it was

" Morning in America. " Unfortunately, the path down which he and his cronies have

led this country has produced much more " Mourning in America. "

 

I want the time that I spent in Vietnam to not have been in vain, wasted so that

little tin dictators can float ideas of unconstitutionally canceling our

elections, while the American people just let it happen.

 

I want my country back.

 

Matt Carmody

Washingtonville, NY