Re: When the revolution comes
I think Bush has mis-interpreted Thomas Paine and Jefferson. The tree of liberty needs from time to time to be watered with the blood of Tyrants.
Bush and Cheney don't understand that their choices and actions have revealed them to BE the very kind of Tyrants that Jefferson was talking about.
We don't need blood, of course. But a series of measured, legal responses to their outrages are quite appropriate.
I heard this weekend that the biggest problem with the Bush administration is the precedents they are trying to set. These being imprisonment without Habeas-Corpus, illegal wire-taps, falsifying evidence, ignoring subpoenas, suborning perjury, pardoning for suborned perjury, invading another soverign nation on false pretenses, using Signing Statements to invalidate laws, and declaring additional Presidential rights under the theory of the Unitary Executive.
The solution to that is an after-the-fact prosecution for each of those precedents that shows posterity that these are not LEGAL precedents, but illegal abuses of the Constitutional power granted the Executive Branch.
July 16th, 2007 10:47am
> I think Bush has mis-interpreted Thomas Paine and Jefferson.
I am sure he never interpreted them in the first place. He is an authoritarian by upbringing and all his actions flow accordingly.
I hope you are right though. Measured legal steps will hopefully get us out of this.
son of parnas
July 16th, 2007 10:52am
Stop assuming that Bush & Co. care about the Constitution in any way. They are operating according to their own rules and have no respect for the way this country has been run for the past 240 years.
There should be an outcry from every corner of society. The fact that there is not is a very serious problem, and if the populace doesn't rise up soon and start screaming that America is in grave danger, we're going to lose everything.
I wish I knew what to do other than move to some other country. Pester my congressional representatives? Will they listen?
July 16th, 2007 11:02am
> Will they listen?
Sure, to those giving them the most money...
son of parnas
July 16th, 2007 11:04am
I don't assume that Bush and Cheney know, or care that much about the Constitution. Clearly, they've assumed that the ends justify the means, and if the means include subverting the letter or intent of the Constitution (whether they know or care that's what they're doing) they're willing to do it.
The point being, in their actions they are setting precedents. The precedents they are setting are quite dangerous. But those precedents CAN be fought in the courts (and with a non-rubber-stamp Congress).
And that legal fight doesn't depend on what Bush and Cheney know or care about. That legal fight depends on what the Constitution and laws DO say, and what Bush and Cheney DID do.
For this to happen, of course, the voters of America must care enough about posterity to vote in people who will pursue this prosecution to preserve the Constitution. So far, it looks like the voters of America care enough about the morass in Iraq that they WILL vote in people who will pursue this prosecution.
It's good to live in a country where nobody is above the law, even IF they say "Executive Privlege" let's them say they are. Nixon didn't think he'd done anything wrong, either.
July 16th, 2007 11:19am
I'm pretty sure there's a conspiracy to hand over the nominal reigns of power to the Democrats in 2008. First, the Dems can be blamed for anything and everything they inherit. Second, must keep Republican hegemony from looking too monolithic or the plebes will catch on and rebel.
Note: in the last 40 years only 2 justices to the SC have been nominated by Democratic presidents.
July 16th, 2007 11:25am
>>tree of liberty needs from time to time to be watered with the blood of Tyrants.
could be bush and cheney's blood jefferson was talking about.
July 16th, 2007 11:26am
That's one of the few good things about the 2004 election -- since the Republicans weren't kicked out at that time, the subsequent morass in Iraq can't realistically be blamed on the Democrats (though some still try).
I'm not saying that's a really good thing -- I suspect Iraq would have been partitioned long before this if a Democratic Congress had been in charge since 2004 -- but if you're looking for a silver lining, that would be one.
Good catch on the Supreme Court. I've read a recent article that pointed out that during most of American history, the Supreme Court has NOT been a progressive element. We've HAD a progressive Supreme Court since like 1972, so we've been spoiled. But the current Supreme Court is MUCH more typical of American history -- conservative, supportive of the status quo.
Hell, during Roosevelt's time, the Supreme Court kept ruling Social Security as un-constitutional, not to mention the social programs he kept trying to put into place for the New Deal.
July 16th, 2007 11:30am
"the biggest problem with the Bush administration is the precedents they are trying to set. These being imprisonment without Habeas-Corpus, illegal wire-taps, falsifying evidence, ignoring subpoenas, suborning perjury, pardoning for suborned perjury, invading another soverign nation on false pretenses, using Signing Statements to invalidate laws, and declaring additional Presidential rights under the theory of the Unitary Executive"
I agree with you there Hubble. This is laying the groundwork for fascism. Doesn't matter that Bush has nothing but good intentions for all this shit. Personally, I think that do-gooders are the most dangerous people in the world. Hitler was a do-gooder. He only wanted the best for the German people.
July 16th, 2007 4:56pm