Brownback: "Constitutional Hearing" Sounds Like Bush Did Something Wrong
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Sep 17, 2008 1:40pm
While Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and a panel of distinguished legal and historical experts pondered what Feingold called "the wreckage that this President will leave" on Constitutional issues, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) took umbrage primarily with the title of the hearing, "Restoring the Rule of Law."
Amazingly, that objection in yesterday's Senate hearing was based on Brownback's utter shock that anyone would think the Bush-Cheney crew has done anything to break the law in the last seven years.
"I have to take some question about the title of the hearing and the testimony offered by some of our witnesses here today is both clearly intended to imply that President Bush and certain members of the administration have undermined or even eviscerated the rule of law," said Brownback. "I have to take issue with the premise. Clearly there is a wide range of opinion as to how the president has conducted the war against terrorism over the past seven years -- I give that."
"At the end of the day the fact that these sort of disagreements exist in no way demonstrates that our nation is somehow subsisting in a lawless state. And I don't believe that it's helpful for even really productive to claim that it is."
Teh stoopid, it hurts. I'm sure he had no such compunction of the Constitutional crisis during the Clinton impeachment hearings.
Login or Register to post comments.
FOIST!
And furthermore...I have my torch and pitchfork ready...juuuuust in case.
No wonder this country is fucked up?
Who elected this M-F?
".... you say knowingly destroying the country and its Constitution like its a bad thing .."
brownback should read the Constitution, then maybe he wouldn't continue to be such a bush sycophant. Or is he becoming more wealthy as a result of the bush administration's lawlessness?
Oh wait a minute, isn't this the fundamenalist jerk who was running in the primaries? He therefore supports bush simply because the faux-xtian bush claims to be taking his direction from god, who talks to him...
My GOD these people are so stupid it is painful.
Brownnose
Scy @ 6:
Wilfully stupid, and trying to be a carrier.
Sam feels safe as a Class III Senator, he doesn't run for reelection until 2012. There's plenty of time for Sam to become reformed for his reelection bid. Meanwhile he'll play the party line like the stooge he is.
Brownback? I'd strongly suggest you pull your clueless appeasing head out of the sand, but it's more likely to have been up your own ass these last eight years... But the reality is asking you to wake up on any level is a pointless exercise... You love the taste of the kool-aid.... You've made your political bones and fortune standing up and advocating for exactly that which you take ummbrage to seeing brought up in proper context by other authorities...... Indeed as another poster said.. How in the hell did you ever get elected.... and why, after all this time are you still in office... You are only marginally less dangerous than the assholes currently running this nation into the ground.................JD
“I have to take some question about the title of the hearing and the testimony offered by some of our witnesses here today is both clearly intended to imply that President Bush and certain members of the administration have undermined or even eviscerated the rule of law,” said Brownback.
If the shoe fits, wear it as they say. Besides, if Brownback is so certain that the Bush Administration did nothing wrong then there should be no problem proving it or debunking witness claims right? Brownback's obstruction is just another indication of the Bush Administration's guilt.
Why am I not surprised that he would say that?
The best example of voter stupidity is Brownback.
Concerning the sharing of Boards of Directors...
An excellent site, and tool, for anyone. In fact - I just created an explanatory posting at my blog for this site... Where I created two sample ‘maps.’ describing how easy it is to do.
So, for those you are interested in this wonderful tool... “An Excellent Site”
More than well worth anyone’s time.
Bushies Both ‘Worse Than,’ and ‘Not As Good As,’ Watergate
If nothing else, the FACT that the admin needed to change the spying program they'd had in operation for sometime in order to make the Justice. dept. sign off on its legality proves the point. Then again Brownback is ironically a neanderthal man who doubts his own existence.
Has anyone seen Brownback's eyes yet? I guess they are in those tiny slits but I have no proof.
I look at that picture and suddenly realize that Brownback looks like he's getting a noseful of the stench of impending failure.....
and that's a good thing.
pissed off patricia @ 17:
It's to see the slit when they're black as coal.
pissed off patricia @ 17:
typo.
It's HARD to see the slit when they're black as coal.
Kansas Senator Brownback is a member of Opus Dei, the ultra-conservative Catholic group that disavows Vatican II.
Head, meet Ass. Ass, meet Head. Enjoy.
Is he an Idiot...just plain Stupid...or a Republican with his head up his Ass??
He reminds me of the guy at the race track holding a losing ticket and refusing to believe that his sure thing did not win the race. Bush was the second coming of Ronald Regan and blew it big time, so people like Brownback(way to easy of shit joke inserted here) cant bring themselves to face the truth. Heckofajob Brownbackie, way to keep the candle burning for this disaster of a presidency.
'Brownback' is such a fitting name for this guy.
For the sake of the Senate cleaning crew, I hope he wears shirt tails.
The Palin "executive privilege" claim is a clear example of 1) how Republicans consider themselves above the law and 2) the general air of lawlessness that is beginning to permeate our society.
Sen Brownfish doesn't really have anything to say in defense of Bush, et al. He just doesn't like the implication that their crimes are in any way illegal.
McCain the comet, I mean maverick will help us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVyE5mWPpkc
Oh my God is he really expecting us to believe that every single one of those signing statements was completely within the law? This president certainly has done nothing to assume the privilege of innocent until proven guilty. He's just too damn . . . .guilty.
Rich in San Bruno @ 23:
None of the above. He's an anti-American theocrat. He knows what he's saying, and he knows what his goals are.
He is demonstrably irrational, and clearly dangerous, but I'm not so sure he's actually stupid.
Brownnose is a flat-earth fundie. Totally clueless, utterly ignorant ...
... and, like the majority of Republicans, unfit for office and the governance it entails.
BID
shaggles @ 27:
And that's the point. He may not like the "implication"...and the response to that is...well...there is medication and therapy that can help him address those issues...but that does not take away from the fact that laws may have been broken, that no one is above the law, and that this needs to be investigated.
Someone said that Brownback should read the Constitution. That's making a LARGE assumption that he can READ!!
It's clear that he and his clue-free colleagues are happy with two sets of books and are trying to protect that fiction. It has become crystal clear that the rethugs have tried like crazy to install their own mandate to circumvent this country's legal system and it's coming back to haunt them. It WILL get worse for these backwater fiction tellers so hold on to your hats as they start dropping like flies in a stiff wind once they're gone....
Billy Bob @ 7:
LOL! No fair, that was going to be my line. Guess I'll have to settle for Buggerboy.
Sen Brownback "Moutain" is hoping beyond hope that the reyhugs can still be a party after the next disaster that Bush will have in store for the country.
liberalNmoderation @ 2:
Great! I've got the tar and feathers...
To Senator Brownback: If the Repubs were true patriots and the Democrats had a spine, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached by now. Where have you been the past seven and a half years?
Everyone that holds public office or serves in this country's military takes an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION...against ALL enemies...foreign and domestic....and that includes both inside and outside of our government. The President is NOT the government, and no one takes an oath to him.
This same bullshit attitude that Brownshirt is displaying is the same nonsense that was displayed during Watergate. The same attitude, the same excuses...and the final excuse is always...well...a prosecution or investigation would hurt the country. NO...NOT investigating and NOT prosecuting will hurt the country.
This is the same old GOP attitude. I'm sick of it, and I fully expect people like Dennis to defend it, because they don't KNOW history nor understand what the Constitution really means...what it represents. This COUNTRY is all that matters. It hasn't survived for this long because we worried about people's feelings, careers or aspirations. If the law is broken, then the lawbreakers are brought to justice. They are tried under the laws of our Constitution. Maybe that is what is frightening Brownshirt...that they have usurped the Constitution and made things like extradition, torture and deprivation of legal representation a part of our legal system now...and he is afraid that those powers will now be brought to bear against him or his party or his representatives. Well. maybe they should not have been so quick to change those laws...maybe they should not have been so arrogant as to believe that they would always be in power.
In a non functioning democracy the absence of rule of law is the norm, not the exception.
The only people to blame for politicians like Brownback and others twisting our constitution is US!!!!
Carlin said, "selfish stupid citizens elect selfish stupid politicians", "garbage in, garbage out"!
The MsM is the main vector for this disease. We have to destroy it. Kill it. C&L is on the front lines in the war against the MsM.
Are you?
When you watch Buffy, you are supporting the sworn enemy of Democracy in the US.
When you watch the Today show, read the Washington Post, you support the enemy!
Long Suffering Progressive @ 22:
What a perfect description of Sen. Idiot.
so, Rice said this about Russia today:
"What has become clear is that the legitimate goal of rebuilding Russia has taken a dark turn with the rollback of personal freedoms, the arbitrary enforcement of the law, the pervasive corruption at various levels of Russian society and the paranoid, aggressive impulse which has manifested itself before in Russian history," she said.
How ironic!
Just how many of these crazy people do we have running the country? I mean there seems to be a lunatic around every corner in DC.
Well, if you commit a crime, do not cooperate with the investigation, hire a lawyer to cover it up.
The door is open.
Leadership @ 39:
pissed off patricia @ 42:
The remnants of the former GOP majority. As I have taught my son from when he first started grade school...you will often be confronted by loud mouths who whine and rant, they may ridicule, cuss, abuse...but remember one thing always...it is an empty can that rattles loudest.
Red Headed StepChild @ 41:
Are the Russians copying us? Someone call them and tell them not to do it. Tell them that how this story ends is not pretty.
Liberal AND Proud @ 45:
Good advice!
I am reading Jane Mayer's excellent book "The Dark Side" right now and I would suggest the Senator read this after he finishes reading The Constitution. I only hope the great leaders in the Democratic leadership won't take pursuing any punishment for those in the Bush administration "off the table" for the future. I guess we will have to wait for The Hague to pursue war crimes against the present administration in the future.
Maybe he should be called Sen. Brown NOSE
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com
Liberal AND Proud @ 38:
Not to disagree with the spirit of your post, but we haven't been following the text of the Constitution for a very long time. The 20th Century has seen nothing but the irresponsible and undisciplined growth of federal powers found nowhere in the Constitution. We progressives have to take some of the blame for this as well.
These days, when we're deciding on a public policy at the federal level, barely anyone's first question is, "Do we have the Constitutional power to do this?" Instead, we ask whether it's a good idea, and justify its Constitutionality post hoc, if at all.
I'm heartened to see people calling themselves "Constitution Voters" these days, but sadly, most of them probably don't really know the Constitution either.
If we really took the text of the Constitution seriously, our government would be disciplined, the Ninth Amendment would be followed, the Tenth Amendment would be followed, the Necessary and Proper Clause would be followed, the Commerce Clause would not justify everything the federal government felt like doing, and the Courts would not be stacked with loons who think that as long as a law is democratically enacted, it ought to be presumed legitimate.
And remember, this strange creature ran for president in the primaries. How frightening is that?
Yeah... god forbid that we were to somehow imply that invading a country and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, based on a lie, is somehow 'wrong.'
See, according to these douche bags... the real victim here is Bush.
Senator Brown-nose will be rewarded well for standing steadfast and unwavering at the side of his naked Emperor, either in the the new AmeriKa they are trying to build, or maybe Hell...which ever happens first.
There is a great pic of Russ with the caption Who Elects These Republican Dumbfucks To Congress Anyways? It's at Chicotown.com. I've been trying to post it, but I can't get it to for some reason. If you want to see it try googling Feingold images and it's the second pic that pops up. At Chicotown the archive is June 7, 07, but I can't get it to come either. It's the perfect picture for this story. And thank God for Russ Feingold. The only person in Congress who cares about the Constitution.
You see when you are a Republican there is no such thing as facts, there are only debates. There is no true and false, only disagreements. There is no responsibility, only blame. There is no partisanship, only loyalty. There is no contrast, only equivalence. There is no dirty, there is only winning. There is no intellect, there is only feelings and there is no competence, there is only perceptions.
Welcome to what's left of the party of Lincoln.
Karen @ 50:
I don't disagree at all, Karen. All I would say is, the Constitution was created intentionally to be a living document, subject to change by future generations, with the exception of the Bill of Rights, which are inalienable. Now, I won't quarrel with you about whether that has been adhered to...I am talking the intent of the founders. That said, what ultimately is debated in this country is what has always been debated..tone...tenor...beliefs...etc. That was what the Civil War was about. It wasn't a war over slavery, it was a war of ideologies. The bottom line is that the Constitution requires that the rules for debate, and the system of government it outlines, needs to be respected, in order for the principles to work. That has been the problem these last 25+ years, a lack of respect. A lack of respect for rules, a lack of respect for opposition, a lack of respect of process. Without those things, there is no democracy, and that is the problem.
pissed off patricia @ 51:
I remember how he and Huckabee tried to out bible thump each other on who was the bigger Jesus freak.
Eviscerate THIS...
Some Christian ol' Browneye is. Doesn't even believe in the Constitution. Somehow I think Geesus has a problem with that.
He was correct about his own lack of evolution.
Isn't there a male horse with stains on his dress from prez bush? Can't we impeach on that?
THERE IS NO HONOR AMONG THIEVES
The same applies to Republicans. Brownback was just on MSNBC at 12:10 pac. and I found his rhetoric about the excellent choice of Palin incredible. Also his presentation of McCain who called for Fannie and Freddie 'to be regulated in 2006, and Barack Obama was nowhere to be found on that'.'McCain again putting the country first'.
He also claimed that she (Palin) knows more about energy than anybody and even though she may be factually wrong (Alaska supplying 20% of the country's oil as opposed to the factual 7.5%) she knows more about it because she is from an energy state. No apologies to scientists who have made energy their expertise, and no reference that she can see Russia from her window.
Liberal AND Proud @ 45:
Sage.
Liberal AND Proud @ 56,
I know we basically agree here, so I don't want to become to obnoxiously didactic. I just want to point out a few things. :)
Here's something I'll bet these "Constitution Voters" don't know: The Bill of Rights has NEVER been interpreted as universally applicable against the state governments. In fact, for a very long time, it was thought not to apply against them at all. Some of the rights and amendments listed, are STILL not really your rights. Not if your home state feels like alienating them from you. Care to guess which ones?
Just a not on my personal philosophy: The intent of the founders is illegitimate authority for anything when it comes to Constitutional interpretation. :)
Indeed. I almost completely agree. I would just say that it's been a problem for far longer than a quarter century plus. I think it's been a problem for almost an entire century now. And a lot of it begins with early 20th Century politics progressives admire.
If we really want to talk about the unchecked powers of the presidency, and unbridled authoritarianism of so many in our government, we have to take long hard look at how progressives have enabled such to come to fruition.
"Amazingly, that objection in yesterday’s Senate hearing was based on Brownback’s utter shock that anyone would think the Bush-Cheney crew has done anything to break the law in the last seven years."
Isn't that the same excuse Pelosi and Biden are using for when they will investigate shrubbie? Ie "if" there is any evidence of anything illegal done by bushchenney then they will do something about it.
Brownback is my Representative and a big ass. I can't wait to vote against him yet again. Maybe someday my neighbors will start doing the same.
Other countries that are in the know and understand what is truly happening in America should force investigations on the US gov as a condition of doing business with them in the future. Like a reverse background check.Linda like " You'll get our business when we get some answers about 911 that we can swallow."
What a PUTZ.
Republicans all KNOW that laws were broken... and now they are scared to death that their dear, soon-departing beloved Son of Bush will face dire legalistic consequences for his complicity in war crimes, and systematic de-construction of the Constitution.
THEY ARE SO SCREWED.
Did anyone hand Brownback a list, or did they just let him make his prepared daily right-wig speech and then walk out?
Karen, I agree on your first point...to a point. The application of the Bill of Rights across the board yes, MAY be argued by the states...again...we're back to the Civil War. But the fact is, should a State be brought before a Federal Court as defendent, it's been proven over and over which application of the Bill of Rights is going to be applied.
I think we may disagree on your "personal" philosophy with regard to the intent of the founders. LOL. There isn't enough bandwidth to give you MINE! LOL!
As to your last point, I certainly agree that extremism can exist on both sides. That is a given. But that is why mutual respect and particularly respect for the minority opinion must be adhered to, it is only then that compromise can be reached. Otherwise, there is only tyranny.
All this coming from a man who said, "President Clinton repeatedly chose to lie.."
Granted, out of context but which lie that Bush told is the one Brownback is concerned about?
Idiot.
Liberal AND Proud @ 70:
There's nothing really to disagree with. I'm just telling you the state of the law today. How it actually is. It's something people don't know.
If you ask me whether I think all the rights in the Bill of Rights should limit the state governments' powers, I would unequivocally yell, "YES!"
But they don't. ;)
:)
It's not just extremism I'm talking about. It's basic lack of Constitutional understanding. Ask a progressive why Social Security is a Constitutionally legitimate program, and their answer will likely be simply that it's a good policy. Ask them whether the federal government really has to power to legislate on the environment, and they'll eventually spout arguments Busheviks spout about warrantless wiretaps -- simply that it's something that has to be done, even if the power to do it is not really there in the Constitution.
I'm not arguing that those powers aren't there. But over the course of the 20th Century, we've stopped justifying those powers by referring to the Constitution. And progressives were very successful in convincing the courts that Congress and the president should just be presumed to be within their powers when enacting progressive laws.
Now that presumption has come back to bite us in the ass. Loons like Brownback get to say with a straight face that Congress ought to be presumed correct when it enacts religious laws, and make stupid arguments that Feingold shouldn't presume that Bush has actually done anything unconstitutional.
Dubya hasn't done one thing wrong....he has done EVERYTHING wrong! For so long. It is time to put the Bush Crime Family behind bars.
Just another two faced hypocritical pseudo Christian charlatan of the GOP. Brownback is an argument for abstinence period.
George W Bush should be tried for murder. No impeacement, MURDER
His administration tried for Warcrimes and all sentences enforced with a Guillotine. The's right, the leader of your country just killed 5000 (4000 more if you think the government was behind 911) or more of your citizens and over 1 million Iraqis have been killing and millions more raped.
Personally he should be shot and killed where he stands, no trial, no parole, however, as I am interested in the truth of his crimes coming out, and see how many others in your government and business sectors are complicit with the crimes of this administration they too should be put on trial as "Accessories BEFORE THE FACT" and they too should be hung/beheaded.
Dear Senator Brownback,
This may be painful for you, but there is no Easter Bunny either.
signed.
Concerned
Impeaching a popular twice elected president who presided over record prosperity and peace over a consensual sexual relation with an adult intern but not impeaching the worst president ever who has lied over issues far greater and wrecked America in the process, that's how much the Rethuglicans love this country.
Brownback needs to pull his head out of his butt and take a good wiff of the stench generated by the Bush-Cheney White HOuse. Obviously, not a few mental defectives have found their way into the Congress.
Brownback is right, this president has not exposed himself to the greatest crime of all time, perjury. Neither Bush nor any of his flunkies, hirelings, goons or yesmen has been under oath once. Imagine, President Clinton testified! Under oath!! to people he KNEW were on a witch hunt. Bush will hardly answer a question to the press corp. imagine asking this administration to go under oath. How many legal excuses would we hear how much spin? Really one one hand we have a blowjob, on the other we have ignored Presidential briefings on possible terrorist attacks, Wiretapping, lies leading us to war, outing covert agents, voter fraud, voter sppressionm, maniplating threat levels for political purpose, firing US attorneys for not prosecuting political oponants, the list goes on and on. WTF is this world coming to black is white red is orange and noone knows the difference anymore.
Karen, this has been great fun and a wonderful discussion. I am most appreciative.
You had me up to the point where you equated the creation of Social Security leading Brownback to justify the enactment of religious laws.
I understand where you're going...but that is quite a leap. There is a clearly defined line drawn between the separation of church and state. It hasn't been undermined...it has been ignored, and yes that is exactly what you've been arguing...at least I think so.
However, my support of Social Security extends beyond my personal view that it is a good program. Believe me, if I thought that it in any way contradicted the intent of the Constitution, I would be the first to jump up and down. However...and yes...this is my view, but I think it can be backed up by legal ruling, the creation of Social Security ties directly with the premise of the Constitution, and the intent of the Founders, that as a republic, it is important to protect the citizenry and maintain public welfare (no..not welfare in the "modern" sense...but you know that already). Also, Social Security wasn't created in a vacuum. It was debated, hotly debated and ultimately created. It has withstood Constitutional scrutiny. Yes, I know that you're going to argue that that is exactly the point you're arguing...that the Constitutional discussion did not take place until AFTER the program was created, and you may even get me to agree with you. MAYBE! ; 0 )
However, I would argue that the debate that was held regarding the creation of the program is exactly the debate that the Founders intended.
We are almost at a point where we are debating whether the Constitution is static or subject to interpretation. Although maybe not so, as I think you agree that you might agree that latitude for interpretation was part of the intent. But, that would take us full circle in this discussion.
Which brings us to the real point. We have spent a fair amount of time on this issue, and no one has raised their voice, no one has been attacked personally, no one has been called a traitor. That to me, is what democracy and the Constitution are about.
Freedom. Freedom to agree, disagree, debate, resolve...evolve. That is the beauty of the document. That is what I have always loved about it.
Liberal AND Proud @ 80:
Likewise. :)
Well, not quite. :) I don't think they're the same at all. If you ask me, Social Security is indeed consistent with federal powers (tax and spend for the general welfare), whereas religious laws are, as you know, are not.
What I was arguing was that we need to be very careful with the rationales we use to justify the laws we want to pass. When progressives began enacting such economic federal programs in the early 20th Century, the courts kept striking them down. Frustrated, progressives convinced the courts that it should stop scrutinizing these individual programs, and presume that they're Constitutional unless it could be proven otherwise.
I think that's a dangerous rationale, especially when a disciplined approach is available. As the 20th Century progressed, that really became the philosophy of the country. No exercise of power is unconstitutional unless presumed otherwise. Conversely, no rights really exist unless they are written down, or otherwise proven to exist.
The ultimate result: Powers are presumed legitimate. Freedoms are presumed not to be legitimate.
There are Constitutional justifications for Social Security. There are none for religious laws -- in which, I include not merely explicitly or facially religious laws, but religiously inspired laws (i.e. no prostitution, no selling liquor on Sunday, etc.) There are likewise no justifications for our disastrous federal drug laws.
But these days, the government doesn't have to justify jailing us for grand portions of our lives for smoking pot. We have to justify using pot, and the courts don't accept our justifications.
My point is simply that we've lost Constitutional discipline a long time ago, and progressives had a lot to do with it. And these days, conservatives and authoritarians now use the arguments progressives convinced the courts to adopt in order to have their idiotic and dangerous laws presumed Constitutional as well.
That doesn't equate the policies. It's a broad look at how we have lost our Constitutional discipline over time, and the long term effects of having done so.
It hardly surprised me that your understanding is deep and nuanced. ;) I expect as much from ya. :)
Oh, indeed. But when the courts were striking down those kinds of programs, rather than figuring out a disciplined approach to drafting laws in a Constitutional manner, progressives convinced the courts to invert the Constitution altogether -- to presume laws Constitutional until citizens could prove otherwise. That's not a philosophy that limits government. It's a philosophy that, over the course of a century, leads to a government that tries to get away with more and more.
They also clearly outlined a process of checks and balances through which things could be changed. If it were determined that a certain law is unconstitutional, we can amend the Constitution. These days, if we determine something is unconstitutional, we find ways to do it without amending the Constitution.
By the way, the founders intended the Bill of Rights not to apply to the states. I still think the text that was ratified undermines their intent. They may have intended such, but they didn't write such.
Heh, and we don't want to get too tangential from the thread. :) [Sorry site monitors.]
Though if you feel like reading some of my writings on the subject, I'd be happy to send you some Karen-style textualism writing. ;) I don't think you'd really disagree with me in the end. (But then, I'm biased in my favor.)
Hard to disagree with that. ;)
They absolutely know their overall goal is to subvert the Constitution. So why the fake outrage? Doesn't he like it when someone calls a pig a pig? What else are they supposed to call it, I'd like to know?
Brownback is another classic repiglics. And
Repiglics are the party of immature, rapacious, despotic, doughy white, cowardly, angry, bigots, racists, perverts, pedophiles, murderers, war criminals, homophobes, misogynists, stupid women and consummate, chronic liars.
*
Nice fucking try Sen.
BrokebackBrownback, you corrupt morongod are they all stupid?
how many hands does cheney have to shove up brownbeck's butt?
brownbeck does not use "just for men", he used cheney's rectum
for color, hair and lips.
The best part from Brownback's speech favring Clinton impeachment;
"We seem to have forgotten that all of our prosperity would be impossible without the rule of law, and without a cultural predisposition to honor and uphold the law. Reducing the administration of justice to opinion polls debases our country. Putting pocketbook concerns over standards of right and wrong impoverishes our culture. If we do not sustain the moral and legal foundation on which our system of government and our prosperity is based, both will surely and steadily diminish.
The great southern writer Walker Percy once stated that his greatest fear for our future was that of `seeing America, with all of her great strength and beauty and freedom . . . . gradually subside into decay through default and be defeated . . . from within by weariness, boredom, cynicism, greed, and in the end, helplessness before its great problems.'
I may be wrong, but didn't the idea of "the law is whatever the King says it is" in large part lead to a war, a sacred document, and a little country called America?
broenback is just another asshat. Please someone start shoothing these stupid bastards they need to be put out of our misery!
You didn't used to be able to change the constitution with an act but rather through a long arduous amendment process. The notion that an act supersedes the constitution is a fallacy such as The war powers ACT ,fisa(ACT) sold by republicans acting as our protectors.
What a bunch of wankers you commentors are. The Democrats have had two years to educate the public as to the illegality of this administrations actions, but have intentionally steered clear. The Republicans are the criminals, so the idea that they deny their criminality is a dog bite man story - the Dems are SUPPOSED to be the good guys. It is their JOB to oversee the executive. Why is no on (save all hail the hypno toad ) pointing out that the Dems have been useless - USELESS.
I've used too many caps, but I get so frustrated by the moronic posturing found in most of the comments. Who is worse, the criminal or the dirty cop that lets him get away with it? I've always wanted to jail the criminal, but wanted to hang the cop.
Medical Diagnosis by Video @ 13:
And he's there for another 3 years. I cry for my country and a state I lived in for 8 years. What's the matter with Kansas, indeed. Thanks Thomas Frank.
Phaedrus @ 90:
Go away now. No trolls allowed. We are not that stupid and you can't be making that much money. The congress has been screwed by Bushco and dirty tricks for over 12 years. Yes, they could stand up, and many have tried, but in the end Rove has always had his way. Fortunately, Palin/McCain are not that good at lying and BSing the country and at least the media is finally waking up to the fraud.
Billy Bob @ 7:
Brownback Mountain. He just can't quit the chimp.
.
R E M E M B E R:
THEY(sic) HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS AND WAY OF LIFE...
... And so THEY(sic) have lobbied, debated and legislated away our foundational Freedoms and altered our way of life.
Got Warrants to spy... no!
Got Habeas Corpus... barely!
Got presumed innocent... not any more!
Got Free Press... sold out!
Got TORTURE... yep!
Got Geneva Conventions... gone!
He's not called "BROWNBACK" for nothing...
... I'm just saying!
.
Phaedrus @ 90:
Phaedrus,
Congress is supposed to be the good guys.
Congress is supposed to work for the People.
Blame Congress as a whole, not just Red or Blue, Left or Right, Dem or Republican.
I've seen some good Democrats and some ugly one's.
I've seen some good Republicans and some ugly one's too.
The People need to lay the blame where it most appropriately should fall...
... At the People's feet for being far too passive and uninvolved in their Government.
Sure there is a disgruntled populace out there, yet I've seen a vast majority of that disgruntled populace refuse to take action and instead go about their daily lives because it's that routine that pays the mortgage...
.
enough @ 92:
I know Phaedrus is a wanker and a moron. His attempt at thoughtful comment belies him. It wasn't Democrats like Kucinich or Wexler who fell down, it idiots like him that sit and complain about everything and everyone but do little else. What a shitty life. He doesn't understand the disconnect that allowed a nation to go after a president because he lied about a blow job versus giving a pass to a president who lied about a reason to invade a country which has resulted in over 4000 dead citizens and countless more inhabitants of the invaded country. That is the problem with simple minds. That is why they hate anything approaching intellect. It reminds them that they have allowed themselves to be bottom dwellers and they try to blame their condition on everyone else but themselves. Its almost criminal, its definitely sociopathic.
Congress had nearly eight years to do something about it and they haven't.
John @ 97:
And......
Why do you think "Congress" has not been able to act?
Senator Sam Brownback (KS) apparently doesn't see anything wrong with the following "Constitutional" problems:
(1) The "unitary" presidency argument basically turns the balance of powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, as defined in the USA Constitution, into a king (King George I, USA) ruling over his subjects.
(2) The USA position of vice-presidency is now and always has been part of the Executive branch, and as such falls under the rules, regulations, and LAWS pertaining to the vice-presidency.
(3) The US Supreme Court has already ruled that the "line item veto" that some states' governors are empowered with is not constitutional in regard to the USA president. Therefore, the more than 1,000 times that George W. Bush has used "signing statements" to redefine Congress' intent with a Bill, or to state that he will not follow certain aspects of the Bill because "he" thinks it is unconstitutional are all patently ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The USA Constitution gives the President one of two or three options regarding a Bill that Congress passes:
(1) sign it into law, (2) veto the Bill, or (3) pocket veto by allowing the Bill to expire unsigned. There ARE NO OTHER options, period.
(4) The President cannot constitutionally declare war on any sovereign nation without an explicit vote by Congress. A joint resolution by both houses of Congress that merely grants the President the ability to use military force if necessary is no more than a reaffirmation of the President's limited ability to protect USA interests abroad with military force. No war vote, and no legal or constitutional war. Any additional Presidential powers sometimes adopted in times of war ARE NOT available to him without the Congressional vote for WAR.
(5) The President cannot summarily dismiss the constitutionally guaranteed due process of law, nor of habeas corpus, nor can he legally engage in warrant-less domestic spying. The 1st through 10th amendments to the USA Constitution cannot be abridged or denied to anyone in the USA.
(6) The Bush administration has diverted tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars from the illegal war and occupation in Iraq to USA newspaper, television, and periodical reporters, anchors, and writers in a covert operation of propaganda in an attempt to win the confidence and approval of the American people. This action goes against the wishes of Congress when said funds were appropriated, and also corrupts the people's 1st amendment right to a FREE and INDEPENDENT press.
(7) The Bush regime has repeatedly engaged in illegal and deceitful practices in regard to vote tampering, voter caging, and outright vote fraud. The repetition of such crimes, for political and monetary gain, and the national web of conspiracy necessary to implement it, falls under the purview of not only the Constitution, but also of RICO anti-racketeering statutes.
I guess that, like Tricky-Dick Cheney, no other politician in the USA can be held accountable for their actions, let alone their oaths of office, during which they swore to uphold the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and faithfully execute their office. Could it be possible? Is this the reason? Has the dictionary completely dropped that definition of "execute" that meant "fulfilling those duties thereof" and leaving only the definition "to kill, or destroy"?
Login or Register to post comments.