The Delinquent Congress

| Ernest Partridge |

The Administration of George Bush has, in effect, suspended the Constitution of the United States. At Guantánamo in Cuba, in military prisons in the United States, and in secret detention facilities abroad, American citizens and non-citizens are being held without charge, without counsel, without prospect of a jury trial, in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth articles of the Bill of Rights. These rights apply to all persons under United States jurisdiction. The word "citizen" appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights.

The same Administration has conducted warrantless surveillance of American citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and despite an explicit order of the Supreme Court to cease and desist.

And the Administration, in violation of ratified treaties which have the force of law (Article Six of the Constitution), is engaged in an undeclared war against a non-threatening nation, and is torturing prisoners. The treaties are, respectively, the Nuremberg Accords and the Geneva Conventions.

The President, upon signing Congressional legislation, issues "signing statements" which state, in effect, that he can, at his discretion, ignore the legislation above his signature. And he has issued a "directive" that, in event of some unspecified "emergency" so designated by himself, he can assume dictatorial powers.

Nor is this the end of it. As most readers are well aware, there have been numerous additional illegal acts by the Bush Administration, including the "outing" of a covert intelligence officer, obstruction of justice, and lying to the Congress and the American people.

The institution best situated to put an end to these crimes and to hold the criminals accountable to the rule of law is the Congress of the United States, each member of which has taken an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Five months into its new term, the Congress now in control of the Democratic party has done essentially nothing to restore the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. The initial decisive act leading to that end might be as simple as the passage of this two sentence resolution:


The word "affirms" is crucial, for it states that at no time was the Constitution legally "in suspension," and thus any legislation or acts by the Bush administration in violation thereof were at all times illegal and invalid. Accordingly, the word "restoration" must be avoided in such a resolution.

The Democrats should bring this resolution to a vote, and dare the Republicans to vote against it. The GOP would doubtless resist by calling it a "meaningless political stunt," and would struggle to prevent an open vote. But if it were to be brought to a vote, who would dare go on record with a denial that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?

And if such a resolution were to pass both houses of Congress, it should be immediately followed by other resolutions specifying the implications of that first resolution. Namely,

• It is affirmed that all US citizens and other individuals under US jurisdiction enjoy the protection of Habeas Corpus, as specified in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.


• Therefore, all persons in custody at Guantánamo and other prisons must either be charged with a crime and given a fair trial, or released. Following that, the Guantánamo facility must be closed and all "renditions" of prisoners to other countries cease.


• All torture of so-called "enemy combatants" must cease immediately.


• All provisions of the Patriot Act and the Military Provisions Act in violation of the protections of the Constitution must be declared null and void.


• Acts of Congress signed by the President have the status of law, and signing statements have no legal status whatever.

In addition, the Congress should act upon the following:

• Cite Attorney General Gonzales for perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. Then proceed with his impeachment.


• End the funding of the Iraq occupation, except for the funds required for the prompt withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.


• Proceed with investigations and then indictments for war profiteering, with special attention directed toward Halliburton and its ex-CEO, Dick Cheney.


• At long last, investigate election fraud by e-voting machines, intimidation, and voter disenfranchisement (e.g., through "caging lists").


• Then issue bills of impeachment of Bush and Cheney, followed by investigations, hearings and open debate.

Impeachment is being resisted by "practical" Democratic politicians on the grounds that even if it succeeded in the House, conviction and removal from office would surely fail in the Senate.

I am not at all certain of this, in view of what might result from the House investigations and debate. But this objection misses the point. Ultimate conviction and removal may be less important than the impeachment process and the evidence and prosecution case that would result from it. Once the high crimes and misdemeanors of Bush and Cheney are brought to light, those who vote against impeachment in the House and conviction in Senate may pay a high price at the polls.

In the meantime, what is the progressive citizen and voter to do? Both parties have betrayed the trust of the American public and have violated their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. Thus those of us who are justifiably disgusted with both parties, are faced with daunting dilemma:

One the one hand, should we punish the Democrats by voting for third parties? Such a decision serves to keep the Republicans in power which would keep the culprits forever unaccountable for their crimes.

On the other hand, should we vote for the Democrats, as the lesser of the evils? If so, the party might construe this as public approval of its delinquent behavior.

With much reluctance and regret, I would opt for the latter alternative, all the while putting a well-deserved scare into the ranks of the "establishment" Democrats.

Most immediately, all Democrats who voted for Bush's Iraq resolution and otherwise collaborated with the outlaw regime should be challenged in the primaries. A few might lose their seats to such challenges, though most would not. But even if the challenges fall short, strong showings at the polls by the progressive challengers will send a message: we the people are here, we protest, and we demand to be heard.

If that protest fails to reform the Democrats, then perhaps it will be time to look to third parties. The Democrats must understand that this remains a live option.

Finally, progressives must take a lesson from the religious right and take over the Democratic Party from the bottom up. Get active in local and state party activities, send progressives to the state conventions and then to the national convention. Far better to take control of an existing major party organization than to attempt to build a national organization for a minor party.

The good news for the Democrats is that public approval of Bush is down to around thirty percent. The bad news is that the public approval of the Democratic Congress is not much above that: thirty-seven percent, down from forty-four percent in April. And the worst news is that this poor and declining public opinion of the Democratic Congress is well-deserved.

There is no other way to put it: the Congressional Democratic leadership (with a few honorable exceptions) has failed the American public and has violated its oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

We must demand that they wake up and do their duty, assuring them that if they do, they will earn the respect and support of their constituents.

-- EP

I'm still waiting...

It would be a great way to undo many of Bushco's abuses against America.

So why is it the Dems in Congress are so reluctant to do something like this? After all, is that not what they are SUPPOSED to be doing? Protecting the Constitution?

Thanks for posting it! I wish every democrat in congress would read it!

.

There is NO excuse not to fight when the Constitution lies in tatters. None.

The question now lies with us progressives who have become disgusted with repugs, the media and Democrats. What will we do to reaafirm the constitution of the United States? How can we stop these criminals (repugs, the media and Democrats) from usurping the rule of law? (And why, pray tell, have I gone full circle and now sound like a freeper?)

I strongly recommend reading this excellent post. It gives step by step instructions on how to restore the Constitution as the basis of all of our laws, and of the responsibilities of the Congress to prevent America from becoming a dictatorship. As Partridge points out, the process can begin with the affirmation of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and making all of Bush's signing statements, executive orders, and legislation passed in violation of the Constitution, null and void.

How can any lawmaker possibly vote against affirming the Constitution as the law? It seems to be a risky position to take, and I think that this affirmation would be a good step in the right direction. I know of no way to get our timid Democratic congressmen to stand up to Bush's bullying, other than to refuse to donate to any of them who enable Bush to get away with his crimes. Of course, having fair elections will be crucial in making our votes count.

Because "WE" are the people who make the changes. And here we are looking at Congress as though they have the power. I'm afraid that until we have our asses kicked, we won't be caring enough to do anything. It, unfortunately, takes a crisis to wake people. It takes a Hitler, a holocaust, a Pinochet, to wake people. And even then only half the people. I'm very pessimistic about where this country is going to go. With petroleum in everyone's tanks, we don't stand a chance. We're too comfortable. Only the vigilant and caring care. The rest could care less. Let the Iraqis die. Let the planet warm.

But your ideas are noble.

The poor dears can hardly handle the calendar and the timepiece. They aren't up to all this "legal"
stuff!

:kick:

I will e-mail this to my congressperson, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.

would have a very hard time voting against. I say, let's go for it!

Pelosi and Reid.

:applause:

With a simple attachment that they can print out and mail also.

Yea it's work but it's easy, you don't even have to get up.

Latr
Chris

What a crock, albeit clever. Use Bush's crimes to bash the Dems by saying, "the Congress now in control of the Democratic party has done essentially nothing to restore the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution."

I see no need to go into details, but 36 investigastions, 200+ hearings, resignations, and more isn't "essentially nothing." I'm watching them right now on C-SPAN and they are hard at work doing amazing, historic work.

Ernest Partridge fails to understand political reality and does not see the path forward, nor does he notice those working diligently to proceed down that path. At best, this is a false argument to denigrate our leasdership, at worse it is counterproductive of the very ends it would have us believe it promotes.

What a crock!

clever, defensible, sane, restorative, honorable, effective, and appropriate and should appeal to all wings of democratic party and most republicans. Even if fillibustered (doubtful) dc dems should sign such a statement and publish a full page ad in major newspapers and periodicals.

The right message is not hard to express...the will to express it is missing.

Truth is, there has always been a lot more dc dems could have done, even when not in the majority.

Emails are scanned by lower staff members.

But they open and read all envelopes. There might be a check in one, you know.

Send one to both your senators, one to your representative and one each to Reid and Pelosi.

It'll cost us each just two bucks in stamps, but the more of us who send the louder it will speak.

Congress is owned by the Corporations, and the Corporations have no need for any of this, they like things just the way they are.

Democracy in America is so over. Faux elections will continue to give the populace the impression that they still have some control, while in reality they have absolutely none.

Your points are excellent, but I thought only the Judiciary Branch could define & declare what is "Constitutional"? The Legislative Branch can pass whatever laws they want, Prez. Frat-boy can then issue whatever signing statements he wants, but the courts decide whether it's legal, no?