serum114

Refitting the Presidency to the Constitution
by David W. Orr
The 44th president will assume office with powers greatly enlarged by his or her predecessor. Drawing on recent precedents, the next president could launch preemptive wars with only minor interference from Congress, ignore the ancient right of habeas corpus and imprison political enemies, spy on American citizens without serious legal restraint, use practically any federal agency for political purposes, manipulate the press in ways inconceivable prior to 2000, corrupt the federal justice system for political gain, destroy evidence in criminal cases, use the Justice Department to prosecute members of the opposing party, offer lucrative no-bid government contracts to friends, expand the creation of private security armies, use torture, create secret prisons, assassinate inconvenient foreign leaders, circumvent laws with signing statements, and a great deal more. Such things are now possible because the system of checks and balances carefully written into the Constitution and explained in great detail in the Federalist Papers were weakened as a result of historical circumstances of the 20th century, but systematically and with great forethought by the administration of George W. Bush.

Said to be necessary in order to protect the country from terrorism, the expansion of presidential authority in truth was carried out by neo-conservatives who in the smoke and ashes of 9-11 smelled opportunity. The result is James Madison’s worst nightmare: the unification of once carefully separated powers of governance — executive, judicial, legislative — in the hands of a single faction along with substantial control over the press, radio, and television and an extensive police and surveillance apparatus he would have loathed.

The surreptitious and perhaps fraudulent manner by which presidential powers were recently expanded has greatly diminished trust and respect for the office at home and abroad. But unless explicitly repudiated by the next president and prohibited by law, the precedents of the Bush presidency will stand. The expanded powers of one president typically are carefully guarded by their successors. Republican or Democrat the next president will be advised to distance the office from the more controversial actions of George W. Bush, but only as a matter of expediency, not for reasons inherent in the Constitution or the law. If so, we will have crossed the line into executive tyranny.

Acquiescence in the unlawful enlargement of presidential power is neither right nor necessary. The next president would be well advised to support the appointment of a special prosecutor to thoroughly investigate the possible illegalities involved in the recent expansion of presidential power not to exact political revenge, but as the first step toward recalibrating the presidency to the Constitution. Second, he or she should appoint a Blue Ribbon panel of experts in Constitutional Law and the presidency to make recommendations to Congress about the restoration of the office.

Many will disagree, saying that learning the truth would be unnecessarily divisive and a waste of time in the face of more pressing business. To the contrary, we the people, Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike, will need to know the truth in order to reestablish the rule of law in the highest levels of government and restore trust, credibility, and respect for the office of the president now tarnished by the systematic abuse of power and excessive secrecy. Otherwise, we invite worse abuses of power in difficult times ahead.

A restored presidency is a prerequisite to successfully meet the challenges of the emergencies posed by climate change, the end of cheap oil, and the effort to build a sustainable global civilization. In coming decades a great deal will be required of the American people. If we are to respond with renewed patriotism and vigor we will need to know that we are being told the truth and that we are being led by a president who is both enabled and constrained by the law.

__________________

The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
Hunter S. Thompson

"The bad news is, the aliens have landed. The good news is, they eat Mormons and piss gasoline!"
Utah Phillips

Ptech

If Obama makes it, he should follow the lead of another young black man recently elected to public office.

That would be Mr. Watkins in Dallas, the new District Attorney there. He has pursued justice and several wrongly incarcerated persons have walked out of jail since.

Obama should lobby hard to repeal the Unfuckingpatriot Act, MCA, and all the other assaults on the US Constitution perpetrated by the neocons. If he did that, he would demonstrate honesty and principle.

serum114

I hope thats what happens. McCain certainly won't change anything. If Obama wants to change things it's probably in his best interest not to say anything until after the election.

__________________

The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
Hunter S. Thompson

"The bad news is, the aliens have landed. The good news is, they eat Mormons and piss gasoline!"
Utah Phillips

Ptech

Yes, you're probably right about that. It's a shame politics is so disgusting.

Rigged

I don't know much about the patriot act except that it's not just a bill encompassing "one" issue and it will not be repealed.

That act was passed in order to give the power to certain org to ramp up domestic security after 9/11. In case you forgot about that unprovoked attack, where thousands of innocent people were killed.

Now I couldn't care less if they are listening to me (cause chances are they aren't, and anyone who believes they are being "watched" either has 1. over inflated sense of self worth, 2. crazy). Even if the government doesn't have my "info" they can still buy it from private security companies so there is a loop hole, internet conversations are also another way to monitor (ISPs do it all the time). So repealing the act won't do any good. There is one point of contention i do not agree with though, and that is the warrentless wiretaps. However, that is being dealt with accordingly by the Justice Department. That is just another major problem with Bush & Co.

People talk about the Constitution like it's this static document. It's not. The only way it will survive is if it is carried into the future by adapting it, and looking at it as a foundation or framework rather than contextually. Sometimes, we are forced to fill in the substantive gaps where either something wasn't anticipated, (like the internet) or there is a vaguery. So we interpret the document, cause there is no "literal" way to read it, despite the many people who may disagree with that school of thought. It was left open, and sometimes purposefully ambiguous, and that is it's genus. Not the fact it is all-inclusive but the fact it is an elastic set of rules and guidelines. That every citizen gets XYZ, but what about W? Well we can add W by amendment, albeit rare, but it has happened.

Ok, I don't really want to go to a strict textualist view, its not always the best decision in the circumstances and we should always look for the most reasonable choice first, rather than worrying about the exact wording of the constitution.

__________________
Click here for further confusion

ibex

Here's the giant hole in your argument. We were equpipped with all the laws we needed in order to prevent 9/11, they simply were not enforced. In fact, the President was warned about a strike on US soil a little less than a month prior to the attacks on the WTC, the Pentagon and the flight downed just outside of Pittsburgh. Bush and Co. have used the attacks almost exclusively to strengthen the hand of the Executive Branch at the expense of the other two branches of government. Cheney and the other scumbags have bitched and moaned about the so called weakening of the Presidency since Nixon. There is nothing malleable about Habeus Corpeus or the Fourth Amendment, read the Constitution and you'll see. And there's nothing reasonable about a militaristic approach to a problem that was clearly the result of a failure of law enforcement. Just as Ron Paul stated, we were not attacked by an invading army, but by a band of 19 thugs carrynig box cutters. There are many reasons for the 9/11 disaster, none of them was the result of a Presidency that needed more power than was set forth in the Constitution.

Ptech

Rigged

What you are advocating sir, in case you don't know it, is the elimination of the judicial review of search warrants requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Ibex is right--we had all the tools necessary prior to 11 September.

This does not even address the fact that the WTC attacks were an inside job, but that's a statement that will probably blow your mind.

My guess is you are not familiar with the history of the act. Most of it was rejected by congress in April '01 as being unconstitutional, which it is. Amazing what some staged attacks at WTC will do, eh? And you may recall that the anthrax attacks on various opposition congressmen, happened just as the bill was being considered.

It was never debated, and was passed in the middle of the night.

It's bullshit and unconstitutional.

Jonesy

You are obviously missing the history and reasoning behind the 4th amendment. Please study before you speak.

PursuitOfHappinessParty

First off, let's get the names correct.
NeoCons profited and financed thru corporate and MIC inroads into Washington that have culminated, but not limited to, the White House.

UNILATERALISTs, like Cheney, are the midnight oil burners who use 'out of session' and other underhanded techniques to seize power. They are the ones trying to unsurp the balance of power and garner majority power in the office of the President.

It's been happening since day one of this country, it's just magnified and enlarged by the Bush Admin.

As to the Patriot Act, I haven't figured out how suppressing American Citizen rights helps us against terrorist. Suppressing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabian citizens rights might do it, but nobody waving weapons on those planes were American, nor were they helped by Americans.

Prevented 9/11? Not possible. All the terrorists had to do was have the will and the money to harm us. Then all they need to do is spend as much time and money as they need to wait and look for any weakness to exploit. You can't cover everything, and we had stopped many other attempted attacks over the years. This one simply got thru. Instead of spending Trillions of dollars perpetually on the illusion of security, how about accepting the fact that it can, did, and can again happen and we must adjust our foreign policy in order to bring international oppinion on our side. This will smooth away retallatory capabilities and thus allow us M.A.D. protecting policies.

__________________
" Tie two birds together and though they have four wings they cannot fly " Blind Master in 'Circle Of Iron'

Ptech

It's a myth, Dave, manufactured and scripted from the start. Brilliant execution. An awesome training exercise.