New Civilization News: Constitutional Crisis    
 Constitutional Crisis12 comments
picture16 Jul 2007 @ 09:28, by Richard Carlson

The great way of the Buddhas is profound, wondrous, inconceivable; how could its practice be easy? Have you not seen how the ancients gave up their bodies and lives, abandoned their countries, cities, and families, looking upon them as like shards of tile? After that they passed eons living alone in the mountains and forests, bodies and minds like dead trees; only then did they unite with the way. Then they could use mountains and rivers for words, raise the wind and rain for a tongue, explain the great void...


When we speak of being highly developed spiritually, this does not mean that we float in the air. In fact, the higher we go, the more we come down to earth.

---Chogyam Trungpa

You are seeing impeachment as a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis. Don't mistake the medicine for the disease. When you have a constitutional crisis, the founders are very clear. They said there is a way to deal with this. We don't have to have a war. We don't have to raise an army and go to Washington. We have procedures in place where we can sanction a president appropriately, do what needs to be done up to the point of removing him from office and continue the republic.

---John Nichols on Bill Moyers Journal, 7/13/07

Alessandro Pigna (1883-1903)
Paying Homage To The Emperor

I am not a constitutional scholar. I'm not a lawyer. I might think about citizenship quite a bit, but I may be pretty much an average American. As I understand the Constitution of the United States, that qualifies me to register concern...and to do so with forceful words.

Whatever our history has been and however we managed it, a republic was established so that each citizen could have a fair chance of a voice in the conduct of government which so affects our lives. My understanding of how that works is through a series of representative assemblies from local to state through federal levels.

At the top, in Washington, DC, we have the House of Representatives and the Senate. Between them, they legislate and debate and ultimately create laws and programs that enable us to live better lives...and maybe help people in other countries too. A system of public education was considered vital to maintain an informed electorate.

But at that point the Congress must turn over the created legislation to the Executive, whose job it is to put these examples and results of the will of the people into action. Sometimes, for one reason or another, the President doesn't think he can or should do it...and he tells Congress that. Maybe they can overrule his judgment or perhaps the Supreme Court must decide who is right, according to the Constitution.

Sometimes a great threat materializes and war must be declared. The Congress does this and thus hands to the President the awesome duties of Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the country. When this happens, everyone in the nation is expected to sacrifice aspects of life and liberty to enable the President to expedite the battle quickly. All Americans know this and we have done it.

There have been instances in the histories of all nations when supreme leaders have used occasions of warfare to increase personal and family fortunes. We expect such events in a dictatorship, but it is the worst thing to happen in a republic. Here, there is no question but that the money in the Treasury is ours, kept and spent in trust by freely elected representatives. If those people are stealing our money for themselves, they must be stopped or all fails.

There is a distinct possibility our Congress acted in the fever of haste when war powers were handed over to George Bush. Troops have been dispatched, and hundreds of thousands of people may be dead...or forever maimed. Everyone in the world knows the intelligence, in the full sense of that word, was "flawed" in developing the case for war. But now that we're there, the Commander says, we have to fix stuff before we leave. He's not in a terrible hurry on this because 1) he can pass the mess onto a successor, and 2) a lot of money is still to be made by private supporters.

It seems the nation and the Congress disagree with the President, but now how do we stop him? We gave him all these powers, matters of "executive privilege," and now he claims the national security he is pledged to maintain is endangered by any investigation. Even if the powers were granted under false pretenses, what, short of the Senate storming the White House, can be done? Or is it time to storm the White House?

Last Friday, the same day Bill Moyers gave a TV hour to consider impeaching both President and Vice President to remove them from office [link] , former presidential counsel John Dean wrote an article about the problem of Harriet Miers. It is auspicious he did so, for he held precisely the same position as Ms. Miers in an administration that was brought to collapse under the scrutiny of Congress. Mr. Dean did appear before investigation when called and told the truth to the best of his ability. Ms. Miers refused to do so.

In his article John Dean considers what the Legislature can do next. Papers have been drawn up to charge Harriet Miers with contempt of Congress, conviction for which carries fines and jailtime. But those papers must be handed over to the Executive Branch for implementation, and it was the Executive who told Miers not to show up. What now?

The article is lengthy and detailed, but concludes with this scenario~~~

Congress Needs To Protect Its Powers: Only One Way It Can Do So

Marty Lederman has prepared a nice overview analysis of what happens when officials defy a congressional subpoena. [link]

Let's suppose that the House votes Miers in contempt, and the matter is sent to the U.S. Attorney. One can expect that no prosecution will be brought. During the Reagan years, the Justice Department ruled that even though the referral statute makes it the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to take the matter to the grand jury, Congress cannot enforce that duty on the Executive Branch if the Executive Branch refuses to honor it. As noted, it would appear that under the most recent Justice memo on the subject, the White House will not permit the U.S. Attorney to prosecute the matter, and Congress has no power to overrule that by forcing the U.S. Attorney to go forward.

If the U.S. Attorney did go forward could criminal sanctions be imposed on a witness such as Harriet Miers who is (albeit willingly) following the orders of the president by refusing to honor a congressional subpoena? The issue raises serious Constitutional questions that have not been resolved by the Supreme Court. If the issue did reach the Court, how would the Court rule? Given its current conservative majority, the Justice Department and White House may be right if they have concluded that they can win before the Court, convincing at least five Justices to declare such criminal sanctions unconstitutional.

If the House votes Miers in contempt, they can also institute a civil legal action by seeking declaratory judgment from a federal court to compel enforcement of their subpoena. However, there is a growing body of law, coming from conservative jurists, calling for conflicts like this between the executive and legislative branch to be considered "political questions" that are improper for the federal courts to resolve. Thus, it seems likely that the Court might - citing the political-question doctrine - decline to take jurisdiction over this clash, thereby leaving the White House's status quo untouched. For the Bush Administration, the worse case scenario, as Lederman suggests, is simply that the courts will seek to force a political settlement.

Finally, if Miers is found in contempt, the House itself can take action against her at the bar of the House. (The Senate can similarly hold such proceedings.) Congress has the power to prosecute contumacious witnesses to require them to comply, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this power. For example, in 1987, in Young v. U.S., Justice Antonin Scalia recognized "the narrow principle of necessity" or "self-defense" of the Congress in protecting its institutional prerogatives. Scalia said "the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches must each possess those powers necessary to protect the functioning of its own processes, although those implicit powers may take a form that appears to be nonlegislative, nonexecutive, or nonjudicial, respectively." [link]

When all is said and done the only way Congress can protect its prerogatives is to undertake its own contempt proceedings. The parliamentary precedents of the House provide such procedures, by which Congress can effectively protect itself. There is no shortage of past instances where the Congress has held such trials. Readers may want to consult, for example, Hinds' Precedents [link] and Canon's Precedents [link] . Unfortunately, however, this machinery has become a bit rusty, for these procedures have not been used since 1934.

Congress Must Avail Itself of Traditional Procedures to Compel Testimony and/or Punish Contempt

Given the clear attitude of conservative presidents, who are doing all within their power to make Congress irrelevant, Congress should turn to these underemployed precedents and put them back to work. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should take the lead in reviving these procedures, and the Democrats' leadership should announce that they are embracing them.

If they do not, Fred Fielding has it right: Officials are absolutely immune from compelled Congressional testimony. Bush can simply tell Congress to stop sending subpoenas to his appointees. However, if Congress does engage in a little self-help at this crucial juncture, it can be sure that not only Harriet Miers, but also George Bush, will be forced to pay attention to congressional subpoenas - for the bottom line is that Congress will not need the cooperation of the other branches to enable it to conduct proper oversight.


[< Back] [New Civilization News]



16 Jul 2007 @ 14:40 by vaxen : ...

16 Jul 2007 @ 21:27 by a-d : This ROTTEN JOKE
really IS very OLD!.... Also called the Old Paradigm; which has its OWN OLD "Religion" = PSYCHOLOGY (found in the OLD Testament/PARADIGM !!!.... = SEPARATIST Consciousness in & with ALL its SICK forms (of) Twists & Turns = the SELISH/NESS that extends beyond the selfish person him/herself and TAKES -as in steals, takes by brute force FROM OTHERS!!!.... NOT New at all!... but somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years as ESTABLISHMENT/"Society"-MODEL!.... HOW COME it is sooooo hard to COMPREHEND what one sees (/reads) has happened in History/the Past?????
I don't feel compelled to go through the motions again, repeat the same ol, same ol!.... besides, with Today's Weapon arsenal the mentally sick guys holding those toys in their hands and backyards cannot be trusted, can they?
No!.... TIME for EACH HUMAN to GROW UP and tkae charge of their own lives:
[ and stop seeing the Gov as one's... well, read it! [ ]

HOW in the world can Rules/regulations/RIGGED GAMES that got us into this mess take us out from it?????? They can't!
'You' say the Good Rules have NOT been practiced by -----. That, I think, is an Illusion; -in my opinion- the ONLY True Illusion under the Sun!!!  

17 Jul 2007 @ 09:17 by rayon : benevolent dictators
my Father said, is what the world needed. Many think the same. To branch off into the other extreme of the argument, if the church explained what certain things were actually about in real terms, not just the mystical, we might get a consumerism of a spiritual awareness kind, where spirit is linked a little more to the value of matter, and does not create so much waste. There is self reining back here from wheeling out the same old points. Poorer folk do much better within their communities when attending a church of sorts - an easier option than discipline of private meditation etc. Citizenship without awareness of Nature, is the crux, this brought down the Romans - many sorts of ideas and unnatural laws are put in it's place to make up for the loss of this awareness gained through prayer and restraint (humbleness), non-excess.  

17 Jul 2007 @ 10:03 by jazzolog : Yes But...
The earthly institutions of all the religions have proven particularly schizophrenic about spirit and material manifestations. Beginning with angels dancing on the head of a pin and ending with bishops riding in limousines, the Church has been worthless in teaching stewardship of and in Nature. Christianity particularly has been responsible for rapacious attitudes because we believe the pie is in the sky. And God knows---hopefully God knows---what Islam is up to these days.

I conclude the world goes wrong when it opts for consumerism over citizenship. I lived through the transition in this country, and I am of the conviction that few Yanks even noticed as the rug was gradually pulled out, rolled up, and moved offshore. And now the New World Order globalizes its markets, bringing its addiction to getting and spending. Maybe a benevolent dictator could snap his/her fingers and wake us up. Or maybe Global Warming will stew us frogs in our own juices.  

17 Jul 2007 @ 12:45 by jerryvest : Let's get on with the Impeachment so
that others who follow these criminals may not have a precedent to fall back on as they commit their criminal acts. I wrote a brief "letter to the editor" that was published in our local paper today. We have a very "R" news rag that features William Kristol as an ongoing journalist, so that tells much about our paper's position on the war and Bush.

This is a brief abstract of Kristol's comments in today's paper:

"Why Bush will be a winner"
Sun News Report
Article Launched: 07/17/2007 12:00:00 AM MDT

"By William Kristol
Special to The Washington Post

WASHINGTON I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.

Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy also something that wasn't inevitable.

And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome."

This is my brief attempt to stand up for justice:

"Impeach Bush

Bush's oath to defend our Constitution and support equal justice/rights for all is reason enough to impeach him and his disgusting choice for VP. Just add his latest reason for pardon to his other lies, deceit and war mongering.

Perhaps they will recognize that it is time to resign for the good of our nation if Congress will not do the right thing."


Las Cruces


17 Jul 2007 @ 13:08 by jazzolog : Hurrah For Vest, Gak To Kristol
It's the "Let's Get On" that's the rub. Who're the "let's?" Maybe there'll be a huge popular demonstration in Washington---when it's not so hot outside, and when Congress is around. Labor Day?  

17 Jul 2007 @ 18:42 by Quinty @ : Kristol

"First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil not something we could have taken for granted."

Piffle. That there has been no terrorist attack means nothing. Al Qaeda does not wage war in any conventional manner: they can take their time and choose their time and place. In the past there have been numerous lengthy time gaps between attacks. There's much else wrong with this piffle which could take up a great deal of space to deal with.

"Second, a strong economy also something that wasn't inevitable."

And who benefits from this economy? Those closely tied to the stock market or the poor and middleclass? The middleclass has seen few advances in recent years and has, according to some economists, diminished. While costs for health care, higher education, housing prices, gasoline, etc., have greatly increased. No, we may not be in a depression, but defining a "strong economy" in terms of a bull market omits the problems of the poor and middleclass. The poor being almost entirely forgotten in this equation.

Third, regarding Iraq, "we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome."

More piffle. Successful in whose wishful thinking? The US with its enormous military might may be able to keep the lid on in places, though the lid has a tendency to pop up when the pressure is released. But unless the US remains forever (assuming Bush doesn't finally begin to at least talk to Iraq's neighbors and the various feuding parties who would be willing to participate) the animosities there will remain and continue. Though according to the Neocon point of view our enemy there is al Qaeda: “the center of the war on terrorism.” More piffle en extremis. No half objective observer has told us that there aren’t numerous factions in Iraq battling among themselves. Only the apologists for Bush, searching for self-serving handy piffle, have even denied a civil war has broken out there. We could go on all night with this too, but why bother?

Good letter. Some day we may wake from this nightmare.  

17 Jul 2007 @ 19:05 by swanny : Clown Nation
Was it Koryava that found the piece that said the nation had been reduced to
"clown" status with people wearing painted faces and driving clown cars and watching clown tv etc etce and now making a mockery of their very essence their constitution. Maybe holywood should write the new clown constitution.
sorry don't mean to meddle but having trouble keeping tabs.
If constitutions are just pieces of paper that is a bad precidence.


21 Jul 2007 @ 16:25 by Quinty @ : Impeachment
Here the basic reasons why the Congress needs to act.....

Published on Friday, July 20, 2007 by The Trenton Times (New Jersey)

As it appeared in {link:|Common Dreams}

Act On Impeachment, Now
by Mary Ellen Marino

The Constitution states that the president and vice president can be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

If we do not impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, we establish that it is permissible for future presidents and vice presidents to deceive Congress and the public into futile wars, engage in widespread illegal spying on Americans, detain prisoners without charge, engage in torture, operate in secrecy and re fuse to execute laws passed by Congress. In writing the Constitution, our Founding Fathers chose impeachment as the primary check on federal officials who act as despots while in office. They had just removed a king and had no interest in replacing him with an elected one.

This was the message we, a group of constituents and leaders of the Central and South Jersey Impeach Groups, brought Rep. Rush Holt, D-Hopewell Township, on July 9. We delivered an impeachment resolution passed by the Princeton Community Democratic Organization (PCDO), hundreds of signed petitions, and our passionate belief that our Constitution and democracy are in grave danger. The actions of Mssrs. Bush and Cheney continue to parallel the offenses that caused the House to impeach Richard Nixon 33 years ago.

We asked Holt to co-sponsor HR Res. 333, the resolution to impeach Cheney introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, on April 24, which now has 15 co-sponsors.

Have there been “high crimes and misdemeanors”? The Supreme Court found that the treatment of Guantánamo prisoners violated the Constitution and an appellate judge ruled that Bush’s secret wiretapping and electronic surveillance were a felony. Most of the administration’s offenses need no further investigation. Bush and Cheney are both on videotape admitting them. Others, such as the mishandling of the devastation of Hurricane Ka trina and the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison are visible to all. New offenses emerge daily, such as the refusal to honor Congressional subpoenas.

Until recently, many Democrats have hesitated to call for impeachment following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s declaration that impeachment is “off the table.” Now public opinion is shifting. Journalist Bill Moyers presented bipartisan experts who echoed our arguments warning of the expanded tool kit that could be used by any future president if action is not taken now on the abuses perpetrated by this administration.

Holt, who is a prime leader on voting reform and who opposed the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq, agreed that the administration committed illegal and criminal acts, but he did not think the American people understood impeachment.

The American people do understand. Forty-three towns and counties across the country have passed resolutions for impeachment, as well as 15 state Democratic parties and the Green Party, three unions, and many other local groups like the PCDO.

A poll by the American Research Group this month showed that 54 percent of Americans are in favor of bringing impeachment proceedings against Cheney in the House of Representatives and 46 percent support the impeachment of President Bush. A Newsweek poll in October 2006 found that 52 percent of the respondents, a clear majority, thought impeachment should be a high priority.

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to impeach, i.e. to bring charges. This would be enough to start a thorough public investiga tion and set a precedent that Bush and Cheney’s actions violate our Constitution and must be stopped. When Nixon was impeached by the House for similar offenses, he chose to resign. Impeachment is its own punishment. It requires only a simple majority of the House. There is no obligation for the Senate to even hold a trial after someone is impeached.

Bush’s recent commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence was aimed at obstructing justice by removing any incentive for Libby to reveal the truth. In this respect, it was similar to Nixon’s fir ing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox.

Bush and Cheney can still do a great deal of damage before they leave office. For what goal are more Americans and Iraqis dying every day in Iraq? We need to remove the president and vice president from office to end our brutal occupation in that country, prevent a planned attack on Iran, end the assault on our civil liberties, restore competence in political appointments and prevent widespread election fraud as oc curred in 2000 and 2004.

# If we do not impeach now, we are all complicit in this administration’s crimes.

# If we do not impeach now, we effectively remove impeachment from the Constitution.

# If we do not act now, we are accepting Bush and Cheney’s “unitary executive” theory.

# If we do not impeach now, we destroy the balance of powers designed to preserve our freedom and democracy.

If not now, when? What further offenses must occur before our legislators act to uphold the Constitution in accord with their oath of office? The momentum is building. MoveOn, the massive 3.2 million member political action group, now supports impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC’s Countdown demanded their resignation with a powerful list of accusations. Even Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., introduced a bill declaring signing statements an “unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority.”

We hope and expect that Holt will respond to the growing impeachment movement in his district and across the nation, and become a co-sponsor of the impeachment resolution to protect the Constitution and restore the rule of law. We urge constituents to call Rep. Rush Holt at (202) 225-5801, or their own lawmakers in Congress at (202) 224-3121 and request that they co-sponsor HR 333 to restore the rule of law. Urge Speaker Pelosi at (202) 225-4965 to allow impeachment proceedings to begin.

Mary Ellen Marino is co-chair of the Central Jersey Impeach Group, a member of the Princeton Community Democratic Organization.

© 2007 The Times of Trenton  

23 Jul 2007 @ 10:15 by jazzolog : This Morning's Editorial
The New York Times
July 23, 2007
Editorial Observer
Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War

The nation is heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq war. Congress is moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war, but President Bush insists Congress doesn’t have the power to do it. “I don’t think Congress ought to be running the war,” he said at a recent press conference. “I think they ought to be funding the troops.” He added magnanimously: “I’m certainly interested in their opinion.”

The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress’s side.

Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.”

The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe’s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”

Many critics of the Iraq war are reluctant to suggest that President Bush went into it in anything but good faith. But James Madison, widely known as the father of the Constitution, might have been more skeptical. “In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed,” he warned. “It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.”

When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.

The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress’s control over spending as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

The framers expected Congress to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters. The Constitution authorizes Congress to appropriate money for an army, but prohibits appropriations for longer than two years. Hamilton explained that the limitation prevented Congress from vesting “in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.”

As opinion turns more decisively against the war, the administration is becoming ever more dismissive of Congress’s role. Last week, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman brusquely turned away Senator Hillary Clinton’s questions about how the Pentagon intended to plan for withdrawal from Iraq. "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq,” he wrote. Mr. Edelman’s response showed contempt not merely for Congress, but for the system of government the founders carefully created.

The Constitution cannot enforce itself. It is, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin famously observed, an “invitation to struggle” among the branches, but the founders wisely bequeathed to Congress some powerful tools for engaging in the struggle. It is no surprise that the current debate over a deeply unpopular war is arising in the context of a Congressional spending bill. That is precisely what the founders intended.

Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company  

30 Jul 2007 @ 23:44 by quinty : Perhaps the Democrats promised
too much in 2006. But it would be thoughtless of us to assume that in the heat of an election campaign they wouldn’t. Especially when the course is so clear and obvious. (Or at least appears to be.)

But for the Senate to get anywhere at least 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster. The Republicans have, since January, put up close to fifty. (And today, if you have been watching CSPAN - I somehow doubt your local news has informed you - the Senate overwhelmingly voted to end the filibuster on expanding the SCHIP program. Imagine that? But that’s another story.) And the House, which did offer a Democratic majority vote to bring the troops home from Iraq a few weeks ago (much ignored by pundits and the media,) requires a 2/3s vote to overcome any presidential veto. And in the Senate that would be 67 votes.

In the House those I associate philosophically most with are the Black Congressional Caucus. They’re the ones who really have their collective hand on the ball. Perhaps even moreso than the Progressives. Let’s not forget, too, that there are all kinds of Democrats, each representing his unique district. And as for those who complain we should remember diversity is within the nature of democracy.

Here’s Major Owens on impeachment.....

 D-Day Is Off the Table
    By Representative Major R. Owens
    The Huffington Post

    Friday 27 July 2007

    "There will be no invasion of Normandy. Such an action might distract from the overall war effort."

    Impeachment is off the table. Ordinary House Members will not be exposed to the opportunity to become the "Greatest Generation" of legislators.

    In June 1944, upon hearing that the Americans would not try to capture Omaha Beach, imagine the joy among the Nazi leaders. At Bertesgarten there would have been the grossest banquet and celebration ever experienced by humankind.

    With impeachment "off the table," Carl Rove spends a few hours celebrating every day as he prepares his war plans for the 2008 elections.

    With D-Day off the table and no second front, imagine the plight of the Russians who had already sacrificed millions. They would have probably been forced to accept a humiliating truce. And certainly the world would have expected the Third Reich to position itself for a more advantageous final confrontation with America.

    Following the blunder of sweeping impeachment off the table, there is now a clarification of the Democrats' solo strategy for capturing public opinion and driving forward to victory in 2008. For the master plan there are a myriad of "commando raids":
• Subpoena Harriet Miers

• Subpoena Chief of Staff Bolton

• Try Gonzalez for contempt of congress

• Hold more hearings on the slow pace of outfitting combat vehicles for better protection

• Assure better benefits for the 2/3rds of the casualties who do survive

• Pass amendments against permanent bases

• Pass amendments limiting the amount of time soldiers must spend in the path of death - at least half their lives should be reserved for home.

    "Thumpin" Rahm reasons that since the media is covering these "commando raids" and the voters' attention is riveted upon these Democratic Party initiatives; Democrats are guaranteed an informed electorate to return them to power in 2008. Rahm further reasons that it is impolite and bad manners to start a proceeding that cannot be finished within the session schedule. Rahm reasons that the President should not have charges and an indictment hanging over his head if there is no time for a Senate trial.

    Impeachment is off the table. There will be no D-Day. There will be no messy Battle of the Bulge. The Bush citadel is too Big to fail. Let's march forward and capture fortress Gonzalez instead. For not being untidy, maybe Rahm and Democrats expect voters in 2008 to throw flowers at their feet?  

29 Apr 2016 @ 06:32 by Bandar Togel @ : brilliant! I would like to share this ar
Togel Online Singapore
Togel Online Hongkong
Bandar Togel Singapore
Bandar Togel
Togel Online Terpercaya
Bandar Togel Online Terpercaya
Togel Online
Agen Togel Online Terpercaya
Agen Togel Online  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
24 Nov 2008 @ 10:57: American Justice: Any Hope?
11 Nov 2008 @ 07:40: In justice in Utah
14 May 2008 @ 12:45: Kriss Hammond wants to change my financial status
3 Dec 2007 @ 22:40: Megadukkhas - quantifying suffering
6 Jul 2007 @ 23:16: Year One of the Roberts Court
4 Jul 2007 @ 10:50: Justice Texas Style
20 Apr 2007 @ 09:57: If I Hear "Robust" Once More, I'm Gonna Puke
26 Mar 2007 @ 19:25: The Profit
7 Jun 2006 @ 17:29: Transport of London sucks
31 Mar 2006 @ 17:10: where have all the lawyers gone ?

[< Back] [New Civilization News] [PermaLink]?