"Somebody has to step up here."
Wisdom in a small-town newspaper, and, I would argue, the best editorial I've read this week. From the Port Townsend (WA) Leader.
It took common people - farmers, brewers, printers, silversmiths - to write the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights some 218 years ago. And it looks as if it's up to the common people to try to defend those principles.
Somebody has to step up here.
The Bush administration mocks each provision of the Bill of Rights that protects private citizens from their government, and likewise pushes past constitutional constraints that protect other branches of government from the presidency.
One must thank God - or Madison, Adams and Jefferson - that the judgment of common people was written into our Constitution and basic legal codes. It was done for times like these, when almost every branch of officialdom gets stampeded into dangerous over-reaction.
Just blame Bush.And the rest of the C&L vermin go scot free. What is lacking in the constitution ---any politician or newsmedia hunchos that knowingly lies [Deleted-Sitemonitor]
We all have to step up here.
I'm glad somebody's pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
As Bob Seger might say: I LIKE THOSE OLD TIME BILL OF RIGHTS
Maverick will fix it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFq3wcLvPqs
The article is dead right. And good on C&L for giving this issue publicity in this way. However, I am puzzled that C&L seems to ignore the only presidential candidate that you can be sure will step up and address this issue.
Correct Ray. The shortest candidate withe the bigest cajones. Met the missus last week. Gave her a box of candy for her B-day. I hope she likes Belgian chocolate. No meat!
Bush doesn't obey laws (FISA) that were written in the 1970's. Why would he give an eighteenth century document any consideration. The Bill o Riley he understands... heh...
One person did step up:
On October 15, 2007, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 (H.R. 3835). This important piece of legislation would reverse many of the Constitutional abuses that have occurred over the past six years.
The American Freedom Agenda Act would bar the use of evidence obtained through torture; require that federal intelligence gathering is conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements; repeal the Military Commissions Act, which, among other things, denies habeas corpus to certain detainees; prohibit kidnapping, detentions, and torture abroad; protect journalists who publish information received from the executive branch; and ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists.
Well, surprise surprise surprise! America, it was a nice dream?
Anyone figured out how many billions (or trillions) of dollars have vanished since Team Bush rode into town?
I suppose we'll get the bill soon or later.
A good piece of writing. Seems like common sense is prevailing outside the beltway.
Well the Dem congressional "leaders" certainly won't step up here. They are too busy burying their heads in their concern-troll political consultants' asses. "Can't take a stand against this because then you would not be nice and bipartisan and "strong on terror". You have to reach out to those American centrists, the 30%ers."
Doesn't surprise me that this editorial originated in Pt. Townsend, one of the finest towns in my neck of the woods. I've often wished my state, or even the whole left coast, could secede from the rest of this sick country. While, of course, not everything is perfect in my state, far from it, I am proud of most of our Congresscritters(two of the most progressive Senators, Murray and Cantwell), and a truly tolerant attitude that pervades here.
If martial law is ever declared by Shrub, it will be fought tooth and nail by our friends and neighbors, true patriots indeed.
I hate to break it to you but the leader is the worst piece of shit newspaper ever. I live in PT and I wouldnt line my catbox with that garbage.
Also, politicians here are the last people in the world you would want writing a constitution. This is a "if the mill workers need money why don't they take it from their trust funds?" kinda town. Im quite liberal but the leader really sucks.
woodguy @ 13:
Excuse me ..........
Your "whole left coast's truly tolerant attitude" of Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships only includes 3 states : your own , California and Oregon ; whereas the NorthEast has Connecticut , DC , Maine , New Jersey , Vermont , and New Hampshire , along with THE ONLY STATE in the US that recognizes gay marriage by law in Massachusetts.
So don't get carried away with talks of secession from the "rest of this sick country" ; your whole coast isn't anywhere near as progressive as you're trying to claim it is.......
Let's focus on some REAL crooks and liars, like the Clintons and thier buds, the Democratic congress for the last 40 years, Mayor Marion Berry, and that dem with the $90-something K in his freezer. Get it fair and balanced, please.
tomk @ 14:
And what is your point?
Are you saying that because the newspaper isn't to your liking, that the words we just read are shit?
I think there is a lot of shit to go around, and a lot of it is stuffed in some peoples' heads.
Debra Donham-Barr @ 16:
We will ........As soon as FAUX Comedy Channel removes that slogan for false advertising and you grow a brain stem , you dope..........
Common people? That's 3rd Grade social studies propaganda. People keep going back to the founding fathers as if they were some higher form of life. They were slave owners. (I'm generalizing, but it fits here) The Constitution was framed in order to keep a certain class in charge after they were snubbed by the British ruling class. It's a pretty good document, especially after the amendments added on, but take it easy on the founding fathers as common people.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you have to put it in perspective of the times. Not really. There were abolitionists then as well, they just didn't rule. Kind of like real progressives - we believe in not solving our differences by bullying, but we're not in power. Scott Ritter may have a point.
Debra Donham-Barr @ 16:
I am sure you will also be checking up on the BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars that have gone missing that were supposed to help Iraq rebuild the infrastructure that your fucking asshole of a non-elected, treasonous president is responsible for.
Hey, check out the article published on C&L a little earlier in the day than this one, about ice-lady rice (our totally useless SoS) tapping Clinton and Carter for help concerning the Middle East. Bet that blew out your few remaining brain cells!! Eh?!
The Bush administration mocks each provision of the Bill of Rights
Entirely consistent. During the publicly-documented portion of his miserable life, bush made a mockery of, at the very least, the Ivy League, the Selective Service System, military duty, major league baseball, the governorship of Texas, the word "compassionate," the federal election system, ... and that was before he became President.
Debra Donham-Barr @ 16:
So why don't you start a 100's of millions of dollars investigation over this $90,000, similar to the way you folks spent 65 million dollars investigating the $15,000 dollar impropriety Hillary Clinton was absolved of?
You guys know how to waste a lot of money trying to recover a little. And not only money, but lives etc.
Like spending nearly 1 million Iraqi lives in punishment for the several thousand of American lives the Iraqis were absolved of.
There can only be one King in America: Elvis. The current decider must settle for reviled dictatorship status.
Sorry, but the Constitution was specifically designed by members of the colonial upper class and merchant class to protect themselves -- land owners, slave owners, property owners -- from the vagaries of "the common people." The "common people" were variously known as "rabble" or "mob" and those who represented their interests at the Constitutional Convention, such as Patrick Henry, refused to have anything to do with the new Constitution. Once its nature began to unfold, they left.
Edmund Randolph opened the convention with a speech denouncing the Confederation as having allowed "too much" democracy and proclaiming the need to install a strong national government that could control "the mob."
While the sentiment expressed in the newspaper may be admirable, the history is complete bunkum.
Thanks.
mp
Scott had better get ready for his own IRS audit. Not to mention the sneak and peek searches that will likely happen while he is at work.
Scott Wilson, Editor of the Port Townsend, WA, LEADER, has it right.
In a nation of laws, the laws are there to represent and protect WE, THE PEOPLE.
When officialdom tramples the law, they are trampling WE, THE PEOPLE.
Corporate perversion of law tramples WE, THE PEOPLE.
MSM's indifference to law is indifference to WE, THE PEOPLE.
There comes a time when WE, THE PEOPLE, must recover our rights under law.
Now is the time.
MCMetal @ 15:
You're excused. While I realize that the east coast has many fine progressives, such as Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Rudy Guiliani of New York and Susan Collins and Oympia Snowe of Maine, I think I'd just as soon take my chances against oppression where I choose to live now rather than where I was born, on the east coast, where people tend to be as surley as you appear to be. Next time you want to have a nice relaxing vacation, go to New Jersey.
From the comments you've posted above, I find it incongruous for you to feign concern about a progressive agenda.
Yep, And idiots like Pelosi force truth tellers like Stark to apologize for speaking the truth.
Time for the pitchforks and torches folks.
MC Metal,
By the way, last time I checked the map, the West Coast has only California, Oregon and Washington. If you have any inside info about any other states that have been added, I am anxious to hear about them.
Scott Wilson did a great job with the editorial
The Constitution was written for what w is doing today.
We have come full circle in our democracy and it is back to king george.
The Constitution said we can disband this form of government in case another king returns.
That time has come.
The authors of these documents were neither common, nor devoted to the principle of rule by the common. Voting was restricted to white men of means, by white men of means.
I cannot bear such foolish rhetoric.
Regardless of its historical accuracy, or which coast it came from, or even whether Port Townsend is a shit-kicking redneck town...it is still a fine piece of rhetoric. If things are going to change, that change won't start at Fox or MSNBC. The only way that things in this country will change is by the actions of the little people...and god bless the smaller, still independent newspapers willing to run editorials like this one.
Our whole history has been mythologized, and the founders were--in fact--human with foibles and flaws. None-the-less, they established a system of government based on laws and reason. And for all of their failings, their system was able to adapt to changes in who could vote without changing the system.
I hardly think that any of the founding fathers would approve of what we've become...then again, Jefferson assumed that revolution would be needed now and again.
Stuart Bedasso @ 19:
Generalize after you read a history book about the era. Some were slave holders, some were not. There were abolitionist but they were a very, very small minority. Even the Quakers didn't believe in freedom for the slaves. The best they wanted for slaves was good treatment. With the exception of the slaves, maybe about 5% of everyone in the world believed that slavery was wrong. (In some parts of the world, even slaves owned slaves.) Of the founders who were slaveholders, some never came to the conclusion that it was wrong and some did. The ones who did tried hard to find a way stop it. When it couldn't be stopped, some found a way to free the slaves that they held.
Everything the founders wanted for the country is in the preamble. Read it, each sentence,and then look at what was happening at the time.
The 13 states were falling apart. New York was about ready to declare war on New Hampshire due to arguments over import duties. Each state had its own currency. There was a huge foreign war debt. England had forces in Canada and forts within the states. The Cherokee nation in the south was threatening the southern colonies. Spain held FL and the Louisania area. There was a huge number of widows and orphans from the Revolutionary War. The Articles of Confederation could do nothing to solve the problems this country faced.
In a few more years, if nothing had been done, there would have been no country. The "Founding Fathers" gathered to sort through the mess and try to bring about a better government. They argued, they compromised, and they yelled. The states with the larger populations wanted representation by population. The smaller states (ie Rhode Island, etc) wanted representation by state. So they argued and yelled and compromised some more.
And so they wrote the Constitution and also allowed a way to amend anything that needing changing.
As for the Founding Fathers (and Mothers), they were our first great generation. Most of them lived through the horror of the French and Indian War. Then when Great Britain (through some truly stupid moves) forced them into a corner, they came out fighting and against the greatest power on earth, beat Great Britain and won independence. Then when the country was falling apart, they formed a new nation based on representative government. In the last part of the century, when both Great Britain and France (along with Austria, Spain and several of the German states) decided that they wanted us to fight in their wars, President Washington used every power, cunning, and skill he had to keep us out of war.
If you truly you could do better in the circumstances, have at it.
Also, nice article, but Jefferson and Adams had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. Adams was our ambassador in England and Jefferson was our ambassador in France
Bar @ 32:
I suppose you dont own an automobile, because a long time ago...driving was restricted to white men of means, by white men of means...
It may be imperfect but you need to love it...learn it... know it!
Charles Beard's revisionist history, published in the first decade of the 20th century and entitled "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution", was careful to point out that the 'common folk' who wrote the constitution were almost all large landowners and merchants, and the addition of a bill of rights was an afterthought to gain support from the masses. When Lincoln replaced con-federalism with federalism, and a strong central government, he made possible the state of affairs that has led to bellicosity unprecedented in scale and duration, through the creation of a warrior and military-industrialist class. The bill of rights is no longer relevant.
woodguy @ 28:
I wish I could say you're excused for your idiocy , but alas , it is not to be .......
And I see your "progressive agenda" soaring mightily , pointing out those that aren't progressives , just stupidly naming names ; want me to mention Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden ?
And how about Nancy Pelosi , Barbara Boxer , Patty Murray , Dianne Feinstein , and Maria Cantwell , nitwit ?
Is impeachment still off the table ?
Have any of them done a damn thing to restrict the Chimpy administration ?
Get over yourself and your non-existent "superiority" and continue living out on the West Coast ; no one needs nor wants another delusionally arrogant imbecile that's trying to claim where they live as being inherently "better" , on the East Coast.
The simple fact that you live out there makes the West Coast irreparably damaged.....
I may be "surly" , but I'm not arrogant nor anywhere near as stupid as your dopey ass is........
Maybe you can go "tour" South Central LA while on vacation and think that over , dipshit.
woodguy @ 30:
How about I add that all you have is 3 states , that were amongst the last to become states in the US ..........And that was part of my point , turdburglar.
Easier to be 3-for-3 than 10-for-10 and/or 15-for-15 ; get it, Woody ?
First of all, whether or not The Leader is a good newspaper, whether or not the framers of the Constitution had nefarious motives ... those are beside the point that it helps to hear yet another call for We, the People to step up and rabble rouse. Thanks, BG.
Second, arguing about which is more progressive, the west coast or the east seems plain silly. Progressive politics ebb and flow -- look at Wisconsin, which gave birth to both the Progressive Movement and McCarthyism. What? You forgot about Wisconsin? You sure did, that and the other states that lay between California and Massachusetts!! It's not a contest, my friends. It is a call for ALL of us, no matter where we live, to work for change. Now go to your rooms, and come out again when you can get along. Sheesh!
MCMetal @ 39:
Oh my. I must have been mistaken . Surly? No, your last few posts have changed my mind--you are the epitome of good breeding and civility. So sorry.
woodguy @ 41:
And can you point where I was ever trying to change your mind , you sorry little flea ?
2 posts ago ?
Hell no .........I admitted I may be be surly ; figures that you would try to harp on something so relatively insignificant and try to prattle on incessantly and stupidly about my so-called "behavior".
I'd rather be surly than ignorant and stupid ; unfortunately , you can't choose to be surly ........If you could , you'd be a triple-threat guy.
I live on the west coast, but I'm not proud, considering my group of idiots voted in Pelosi, Feinstein, etc. But if I were on the East Coast I wouldn't be much prouder, with Romney, Giuliani, Lieberputz, Shays, etc.
So we have idiotic voters in every state, in both parties. So what. Just reminds me that America is becoming universally idiotic.
Very eloquently stated, MC.
What is America's obsession with it's flag and constitution? Hell, most nations have both. Even we cold blooded Canadians have a constitution but we don't ramble on and on about it or how great the people were that wrote it. Why? Because they weren't great people, and the Constitution is just as Bush said, a piece of paper. It is meaningless. It lists your rights? Do you really need a piece of paper telling you what your rights are? I don't. Are Americans that insecure that you have to repeatedly beat people over the head with this stuff? I don't get it.
ConcernedCanuck @ 45:
The constitution is like a legal contract: if just verbally stated, it's meaningless, but if written down, it's binding. Unfortunately, our congress and administration can't read, so I guess from that perspective, it may as well be just a piece of paper...
Otay @ 46:
I understand what you are saying, I just don't understand the necessity of it, or the constant rambling about it. Are American politicians that vile, that corrupt, that pathetic, that Americans have to constantly drag passages off of a piece of paper to get their rights granted to them? And yet you still claim to be a democracy?
ConcernedCanuck:
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.
woodguy @ 44:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Now you're trying critique word usage ?
Listen Woody , there are phonies , good things and bad things on both sides of the country . To attempt to claim any type of supposed superiority reveals your insecurity and delusional arrogance ; nothing more , nothing less ............
What this newspaper just described is a Fascist regime.
MC,
I'm well aware there is good and bad in all parts of our country, since I've lived in a dozen states and found things I've liked and loathed in all of them. For instance, I've found people who overreact and call others names where ever I've lived. Then there are others who take a calmer approach and try to understand various viewpoints rather than call people names.
I'm sure you understand. All Red Bull and no valium makes one a bit strident.
Michael Powe @ 25:
Actually, and more completely, you are correct that the constitution alone is an upper class, property owners document, but you fail to be fair and honest in respect to the required packaged inclusion of the bill of rights, which is the liberal balancing aspect of the constitution I adore. I question your ethics and not your knowledge, for I'm sure you knew the disproof of your own argument but ignored it because it wasn't consistent with your political fetishes.
FARMERS wrote the Constitution? You've got to be shitting me. The intelligentsia wrote the Constitution. They were the only ones capable of doing it.
I'm the writer of the editorial. I was introduced to the Crooks & Liars blog a few days when I started getting email responses. I don't know who posted the editorial but have been interested in the discussion since.
Those who found fault with historical accuracy -- whether common people helped write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- are correct in a narrow sense but should consider the broader point. The editorial is about this Administration's ability to resist or shed the checks and balances on executive power from other branches of government, and to ignore checks on the State's ability to invade the privacy of citizens. Those checks were not only written into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights but are woven through the entire American Revolutionary experience from its earliest days -- the days when its leaders were truly brewers and silversmiths. America would not replace one king with another. No man would be above the law. The ambitions of a powerful executive would be checked by Congress and the courts. Common citizens would not be deprived of liberty, property and life without open, due process.
The elites had control over the drafting of the Constitution in 1789, and yes people like Jefferson and Adams weren't there. But they, like earlier revolutionaries, contributed to this bedrock principle of separation of powers and constraints on executive power. Despite elitist drafters of the Constitution, that principle has translated through the generations to a system in which common people retain a powerful voice from time to time. This is so in trial juries and grand juries, in elections, in the ability to bring legal action, to request documents, to speak freely, to demonstrate and to organize grass-roots movements. Since it's clear the other institutions that might check the Executive Branch have been largely compromised or cowed, it seems that the voice of the common people is our last check and balance. As it should be.
It's also interesting that Canadian commentators think we make too much of the Constitutional parchment, now brittle and yellow after 218 years. But it gives us a touchstone for principles which seem worthy of preserving, and the legal means -- should the courts gather up their courage -- to do so.
getalife @ 9
"The American Freedom Agenda Act would bar the use of evidence obtained through torture;"
Already the law.
"require that federal intelligence gathering is conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)"
Already the law.
"create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements"
Unnecessary under the law.
"repeal the Military Commissions Act, which, among other things, denies habeas corpus to certain detainees;
Arguably still the law.
"prohibit kidnapping, detentions, and torture abroad"
Already the law.
"protect journalists who publish information received from the executive branch"
Already the law.
"and ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists."
Already the law.
The one thing the diminutive doctor from Texas WILL NOT DO is to file the impeachment that he says is required. Why is that?
And, as is typical of Rep. Paul, whose legislative record is just about empty of any success -- after
NO co-sponsors.
Wow, that's just going to sail through the Congress, eh?
Rep. Paul: Anti gun control, anti United Nations, anti woman's right to choose. Believes in absolute sovereignty, the concept underlying the pre-Geneva Convention worldview. Sponsored and got passed a House bill (sponsored by Senator Helms in the Senate) to block the International Criminal Court from having jurisdiction over the US citizens. Want to know why Rumsfeld isn't before the Hague? Ask Ron Paul.
(I don't know how the 'after' got placed after the dash, sorry).
"Sponsored and got passed a House bill (sponsored by Senator Helms in the Senate) to block the International Criminal Court from having jurisdiction over the US citizens."
Sorry, this was his amendment to the military appropriations bill of 2002, and in its original language sought to bar any mil assistance to countries who did not sign away their rights to refer cases to the ICC. Included in his amendment is a clause that allows the US to use foce to remove US citizens accused of international crimes from ICC custody. Our HERO.
Scott Wilson @ 54 "The elites had control over the drafting of the Constitution in 1789"
You consider Madison (aka the Father of the Constitution) an elite?
ConcernedCanuck @ 47 "Are American politicians that vile, that corrupt, that pathetic, that Americans have to constantly drag passages off of a piece of paper to get their rights granted to them?"
When you say, 'granted to them,' you are restating Jefferson's complaint about a Bill of Rights.
Madison was quite a bit LESS of a farmer than Jefferson, and knew that a basic set of rights HAD to be stated, or else they would disappear on a regular basis. Those established rights are not the full list, but they are established, and history shows that this great organizing principle has led judicial decisions for 220 years. In other words, it has been a success. Won't deter a would-be Decider with a party full of bootlickers to support him (along with a crooked press). But that's not the fault of the Constitution, or its continued validity.
Comments are closed on this entry