|
|
Treason to Speak Against the President!
The President has come under an increasing level of
attack over his courageous use of Presidential Powers to defend us. These attacks border on treason and must be stopped!
As Patrick Henry wrote in The Federalist Papers:
"The President shapes the collective will of the people
within himself and he enjoys the political unity and entirety of the people in opposition to individual interests. The President
unites in himself all the sovereign authority of the Government; all public authority in the state as well as in the movement
is derived from the authority of the President .... The authority of the President is complete and all encompassing; it unites
in itself all the means of political direction; it extends into all fields of national life; it embraces the entire people,
which are bound to the President in loyalty and obedience. The authority of the President is not limited by checks and controls
... but it is free and independent, all inclusive and unlimited... He is responsible only to his conscience and the people".
Indeed, Thomas Jefferson, while serving as ambassador to Russia, wrote in a letter to James Madison that "The scientific concept
of Presidential authority is nothing else than this - power without limit [to protect the people and the State], restrained
by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules".
So, we see that under the principles set forth by our
Nation's Founding Fathers, our President has the power, the authority, and yes, the obligation to make changes, by force if
necessary, in the leadership of other countries which may threaten the United States and to implement whatever "security measures"
he considers necessary to protect us from our enemies, particularly in times of war. Our function, as a people, is to support
him.
Oops - it appears as if I might have made a couple of mistakes! It wasn't Patrick Henry which wrote
that paragraph; its a paraphrase from the "Organization Book" of the old German National Socialist (Nazi) Party. Thomas Jefferson
was never the ambassador to Russia - it was France! But, the quote (paraphrase) attributed to him did come from Russia - from
Comrade Vladimir Lenin.
Actually, Patrick Henry argued in favor of remaining with the much milder
national government from the original Articles of Confederation. He wrote: "You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased,
nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the
direct end of your government." ... "Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for
your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest
of all earthly blessing — give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!" ... "Guard with jealous attention
the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." It does not seem that he was arguing for the power of a President
to involve us in invading foreign countries, of detaining and torturing without access to the courts anybody the President
designates a "terrorist" or whatever, or secretly (or not so secretly) searching our property and "papers" (to include E-Mails
& WEB site visits) without a proper warrant from the courts.
What would Thomas Jefferson have actually
said regarding President Bush's designating selected individuals (US citizens) as "enemy combatants" and holding them without
access to the courts or trial by jury? He did actually write the following to James Madison: "Why suspend the habeas corpus
in insurrections and rebellions? The parties who may be arrested may be charged instantly with a well defined crime; of course,
the judge will remand them. If the public safety requires that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable
testimony in those than in other emergencies, let him be taken and tried, retaken and retried, while the necessity continues,
only giving him redress against the government for damages. Examine the history of England. See how few of the cases of the
suspension of the habeas corpus law have been worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treasons, wherein the
parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots, where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected.
Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the habeas corpus has done real good, that operation is now become habitual
and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension."
Indeed, Jefferson
further wrote, in condemning the "Alien and Sedition Acts" of his time as an assault on constitutional liberty and the assumption
of a Presidential dictatorship. Under their provisions, he warned, the executive branch "may place any act they think proper
on the list of crimes, and punish it themselves"; the president, or any of his subordinates, could "himself be the accuser,
counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his
breast the sole record of the transaction." Under this doctrine of executive power, Jefferson continued, all American citizens
would be "reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution [would be] swept away."
It was reported a couple of weeks back that George Bush, when the Constitutionality of various provisions of the misnamed
"Patriot Act" was questioned, retorted "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a g*******d piece of paper".
Perhaps it would be best to remember the words of Jefferson again, who rather that endorsing unquestioning "confidence" in
a President, stated "confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and
not in confidence.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief
by the chains of the Constitution."
It may be only a piece of paper, but hopefully our President will
have cause to become intimately familiar with Article II Section 4 in the very near future.
So much for the 4th Amendment! More to come!
These articles were contributed by Rich Beecher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fighting Terrorism
The threat of "terrorism" is so great that our Federal Government's
agents must be free to seize and torture "suspects" anywhere in the world. It is so great that American citizens may be seized
and imprisoned indefinately by the military without being charged and without access to legal counsel or the courts. It is
so great that the "Law" under which our Federal Government is to operate, The Constitution, and in this case in particular,
the Fourth Amendment, must be blatently and knowingly violated, despite being able to get "warrants" from a secret rubber-stamp
court a couple of days after the fact. The threat is so great that Federal Air Marshalls must be free to shoot down unarmed
individuals who have a panic attack and run off a plane into the terminal. The threat of terrorism is so great that we have
to go half the way around the globe to invade a country who's secular (but admittedly autocratic and cruel) government had
nothing to do with the group who flew the planes into the skyscrapers and Pentagon here in the US. The threat of terrorism
is so great that the "whistleblowers" who report the deliberate and illegal acts of those in our Federal Government, as well
as their gross incompetence, must be tracked down, silenced, & imprisoned.
However,
the threat of terrorism is not so great that our Federal Government has any need to secure our borders against those who casually
walk across. It's not as if a small but noteworthy portion of those crossing are not our "neighbors", but rather come
from the Middle East! The threat of terrorism is not so great that our illustrious Federal Executive has any reason not to
give control of six of our nation's six largest ports, in which fewer than 5% of the containers passing through are actually
opened and inspected, to a "Company" which is in fact owned by the government of the country through which terrorist funds
have been known to pass and from which came a couple of the 9/11 hijackers. After all, there is no way that a foreign employee
of that company would ever turn a blind eye or help deceive American security to ..... (Plus, why are Chinese "Companies",
which are little more than creatures of their military, managing some of are ports.)
Our
Constitution tells us that the "Executive" is just that; an Executive charged to execute the laws passed by Congress. He is
"Commander in Chief" only of the military. He is not my "Commander in Chief" or that of Congress either. It is time for Congress
to stop confusing "Party Loyalty" and "Loyalty to our Dear Leader" with Patriotism and no longer accord him the powers of
a King, Caesar, Dictator, or Emperor.
James Madison warned us about how the "Executive"
would use war to expand its powers. It is time for Congress to take action to bring the troops home, to stop the violation
of our Bill of Rights, to secure our borders, and to make sure that control of our ports are in the hands of those who have
the best interest of these United States at heart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Line Item Veto
President Bush recently requested that Congress
grant him the "Line Item Veto". This would be intended to give the President the power to strike specific spending items from
spending legislation passed by Congress. With our Federal Government's debt now approaching the previously enacted debt ceiling
(approximately $8.2 TRILLION), Congress will not only be called upon to raise the debt ceiling, but also to enact the "Line
Item Veto". It is claimed that it is necessary to "Control Spending". The reasoning given for approving a Line Item Veto is
that the President would use it to remove "pork" from spending bills. Yet, when has President Bush called on Congress to give
him spending bills to sign where the "spending" was held in check to match government "income"? In fact, President Bush has
been extremely successful in getting Congress to enact and finance programs which has sent Federal Spending through the roof,
making Bill Clinton look stingy (with taxpayer money) by comparison.
Would it really work? First,
a study done in the past by Burton A. Abrams and William R. Dougan, “The Effect of Constitutional Restraints on Governmental
Spending”, showed that State Governors who had the Line Item Veto did not lower spending. Rather, the state's spending
was realigned to more closely match the priorities of the governor, rather than the legislature.
There have been several bills which have passed Congress during the Bush years only by a combination of Congressional threats
& bribery (Rep. Tom Delay will be missed from his "leadership position", won't he!). "No Child Left Behind", the "Prescription
Drug Plan", & "CAFTA" are prime examples. Giving the President the Line Item Veto is giving him the power to say to any
Congressman or Senator "If you don't vote the way that I want you to, the good citizens of you district or state will not
see a penny returned of all that money which they were forced to send to us here in Washington D.C."!
Line Item Veto legislation was enacted during the Clinton years, but was struck down by the Courts as being "Unconstitutional",
as the Constitution grants the President the power only to veto an entire bill, not parts of it. Sadly, a Court packed with
Bush appointees might not strike down such a bill again. However, as citizens, we can read the Constitution for ourselves
and determine what it means. The Court should indeed overturn any Line Item Veto not enacted with a two thirds majority in
each chamber of Congress, and approval by three quarters of the states; in other words, a Constitutional Amendment. However,
Congress must be discouraged from giving the President the Line Item Veto; regardless if its granting is "Unconstitutional"
via simple legislation, or "Constitutionally" via an amendment.
President Bush, or any president,
should not be given the Line Item Veto. It would excessively empower the President at the expense of the Legislature. It would
not reduce spending; only redirect it to the President's priorities. It would also provides the President with a weapon to
browbeat Congressmen and Senators to conform to his dictates. What Congressmen or Senator would then be able to stand up to
the Executive? Let's keep the Constitution's Separation of Powers intact.
|
|
|