The Nashua Advocate: The Western White House Scandal (Long Overdue)

The Nashua Advocate's new article asks the question: did the President violate the United States Constitution under the nose of the entire country in August of 2001--and is he still getting away with the same violation, four years later?

The answer, folks, is yes.

And this one matters, too, because it tells us everything we need to know about this President, his belief in democracy and the power of the People, and his regard for the constitutional Separation of Powers.

Only at The Nashua Advocate.

-- TNE

*****
An excerpt:

Did President Bush Violate the U.S. Constitution in Designating His Private Property in Texas As the Seat of the Executive Branch of U.S. Government?

Scandal Involving the So-Called "Western White House" Far From Trivial, Implicating Both the Events of September the 11th, 2001, The President's Ongoing Penchant for Propaganda, and His Historic Disregard for the Constitutionally-Mandated Separation of Powers

By ADVOCATE STAFF

Remember September 11th, 2001?

Of course you do.

We all do.

And for those of us not particularly fond of this President or confident in his competence, one of the first questions which nagged us after that horrible day in American history, and which nags at us still, is this: Could the President have done more to protect us?

As the controversial but critically-acclaimed movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" famously disclosed to the nation, President Bush spent an alarming percentage of his first eight months in office relaxing on his private ranch in Texas. Indeed, the President was a rare sight in Washington in the months leading up to September 11th, leading many to question not only President's early-term political agenda--a missile defense system which has never yet worked now seems an absurd political "priority," in retrospect, and seemed so to many progressives at the time--but also the President's commitment to governing this nation as opposed to, well, vacationing on his private property hundreds of miles from the nation's capital.

Which brings us to the headline emblazoned above, which should be every bit as troubling to the average citizen as it was to us at The Nashua Advocate when we first stumbled across the story.

So, to begin...

*****

Brilliant work, as usual.

Did I hear someone say "Pullitzer"?

just keep * away from my Coast Guard.

in those early months because they didn't know how well he'd perform in the more public setting at the WH. Okay, now onto the article.

/typing

Anyone open to debate on this?

Just worried about the usual daily dose of inpending gloom, doom and destruction of our country.

Go back to sleep... have huge test tomorrow. Nuttin like an all-nighter w/those damn books.

just in case it would seep up through the cotton and up into my skull.

lol

Was it about the bi-coastal worry? I think these people are capable of anything, I really do. And we live two blocks from the beach here in San Francisco.

I'm just too mad to be scared, most of the time!

/typing

http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/04/did-president-bush-violate-us.html

Edited to add: The link given in the previous post will work too tonight - it's the general link to the Nashual Advocate blog. The link I just gave is the PERMALINK to the article and should still work in the future.

"the western white house"

this should be spread far and wide .

Crawford is 1661 miles EAST of my house.

It should be called the Confederate White House. No offense to my liberal Southern friends.

Sorry, I can't pull the memory, but it seems to me that Ronnie did this as well?

Yes, so did Reagan.

But even Nixon didn't have the gall to actually put up signs there and declare it to the press.

And in both cases, at least we're talking about the actual West.

Notice that Clinton never called anywhere his second white house. He took vacations, and most of the ended up cutting them short. Don't remember too much about Carter, but he never claimed the second white house location. I remember the fishing trip he took with the rabbit incident.

edit: The Clinton's didn't even own a home until 2000.

...places to conduct national business without having to be in D. C. to do it.

--I didn't say prior Presidents' vacation homes were never used for necessary business on occasion.

Point to where I said that.

I said that this is to that as the whole supermarket is to the yogurt section.

-- TNE

"You're wrong."

-- TNE

What amazes me is the complete lack of awareness of the current crew,
there seems to be no attempt to follow protocol at all.

MissWaverly... we're the only ones paying attention. We are too close to that hill. This is amazingly strange; admittedly all of their crap is, but how do things like this go un-noticed?

How do we wake up America? How many miles away must one be to avoid potentially massive disasters?

Resolved by the House of Representatives {the Senate concurring}, That it is the sense of the Congress that the following Code of Ethics should be adhered to by all Government employees, including officeholders.
CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE
Any person in Government service should:
1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department.
2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
3. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving to the performance of his duties his earnest effort and best thought.
4. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.
5. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.
6. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Government employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.
7. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his governmental duties.
8. Never use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit.
9. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
10. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.

Gene Autry's Cowboy Code

1. The Cowboy must never shoot first, hit a smaller man, or take unfair advantage.
   
   
2. He must never go back on his word, or a trust confided in him.
   
   
3. He must always tell the truth.
   
   
4. He must be gentle with children, the elderly, and animals.
   
   
5. He must not advocate or possess racially or religiously intolerant ideas.
   
   
6. He must help people in distress.
   
   
7. He must be a good worker.
   
   
8. He must keep himself clean in thought, speech, action, and personal habits.
   
   
9. He must respect women, parents, and his nations laws.
   
   
10. The Cowboy is a patriot.

--IMM

contempt for the Constitution and for the nation.

:thumbsup:

sounds like they needed about a month to get ready for 9-11.

Yeh,I always go for the conspiracy theory first these days.

he wanted to meet with people in secret away from the watchful eyes in Washington. The White House has always had staff that are permanent and they are the ones who deal with the Presidents life. So there's alot of protocol passed down. The Chimp must not have liked that and been concerned about those "prying eyes" and so it's possible he knows his ranch is a safe place where he can plot in private. Sharon has been there, Berlusconi, Putin and the Saudi Princes and whomever else he's been "conducting the nation's business with" over the past four years.

I would bet that much has been going on that is illegal there. But, there's no way Congress is going to tell Chimp that his "Western White House" is illegal...

It's great that the Nasua Advocate brought this up, though. I hope they will get into "what just might have been going on there" in another installment.

Anyone have a corrected link? So it begins... what??

:popcorn:

This is interesting but link does not work... ;(

on The Bush tax return it says his home address is a P.O. box in Chicago.

I am going to challenge his ability to vote in Texas in the next election....

If it's what I think it means, and I'm certain it is just that.

Whoa. Shew. Things are strange. It's in the air. You can sense it. And it ain't good. East/West Coast maybe "gone," and the west/south rises...

Oh brother. Du'ers... help on this one. Have I got it wrong?

:scared:

Get this out, please:) K?

First, "brilliant" writing; an easy read for all. Keep liquor close by if need be, this story is powerful. Shew.

Get a few thoughts, neither are good but 1 is super bad.

1. He's a stinkin lazy jerk (agreed), & was never intended to be Pre* in the first place. Many of us can agree.
2. South rises again... pay pack time... get rid of East/West Coasters; reclaim country; No more libs, dems, big cities.
3. 9/11 again, way bigger... which leads me to the scariest.

Is anyone paying attention anymore?

:crazy:

and the first thing that came to mind was, if Crawford is a new 'Seat of Government' does that mean that it's no longer private property, and therefore subject to FOIA requests? Like, was JimJeff there, and are visitors logged in/out like the WH?

I'll go read it, but before I did, just thought I'd ask.

Great question

I am to please. :)

The amount of time he spent there during the beginning of his pResidency always bugged the hell outta me, and not even so much because he spent an embarrassing amount of time there (and still), - I could never put a finger on it. Now the light bulb goes off!

But will these new 'revelations', appearing almost daily, ever end? It's SO emotionally draining.

So, if it's not his private residence during these 'vacations', can we get detailed records from the SS for all visits there? (I know, I know - I can dream though, right?)

Terrific writing, BTW - so glad you're on our side!  :applause:

:kick:

pointing out more under the radar shit from the bushmonkey regime.

fuck bush for letting 9/11 happen!

He's the little emperor down on his private ranch, holding court in secret, seeing only whom he wishes. Members of Congress would have to make a special trip across the country and beg for an audience to see the litle blivet** -- TOTALLY against the spirit in addition to the letter of the law.

Yet no one called him on it. DISGRACEFUL negligence to have let it go on this long unquestioned, and a great job by Nashua Advocate?

How is this being publicized? It MUST be.
:grr:

pattern of abuse that it shows so clearly.

The Cabal has taxpayers paying for all kinds of stuff that is just illegal. I'm not a lawyer (although some people are, lol) but why am I paying for Republican Social Security Rallies? Why am I paying to improvements to a pig farm in Crawford (and, probably, a plaque, too)? Why am I paying for websites pushing "abstinence only" when that program has been thoroughly proven ineffective?

Bush reminds me of a rich aunt of mine. She loves to go to fine restaurants and empties the cracker holder right into her purse, every time. It's like a game to see how much she can get away with.

Come on, get serious - this means nothing. People thought this was worth voting onto the 'Greatest' page?

Compare this with Woodrow Wilson not attending cabinet for 6 months due to his stroke (kept secret) - http://www.healthmedialab.com/html/president/wilson.html . So Bush is a lazy prick who takes too much time off? We knew that. To call this a violation of the constitution is absurd.

Is he getting ready to make a front-page appearance, for the wild west scandal of the white house?

above the Law. Nothing will bring this Junta down.

then eat her uncooked body on TV, and nothing would happen. The Christian right would praise him for his forceful action, and Tom DeLay would nominate him for a Nobel Peace prize. Fox news would defend his actions stating that because he is Commander In Chief his sexual and dietary needs are extraordinary. It wasn't like he got a blow job from an intern. Plus because it wasn't consensual sex, so it wasn't adultery.

At first I thought, "who care's what they call his house..." I even passed up this thread a dozen times, but it kept nagging at me.

It has always enraged me that he vacations st his ranch so much of the time, but I just chalked it up to Bush's incompetence.

This article raises huge questions for me about the lack of accountability that can occur by Bush conducting PUBLIC business in his PRIVATE residence. What would we think if the Supreme Court conducted hearings in a justice's house?

I never considered the ways that conducting PUBLIC business in Bush's PRIVATE residence could be used to shield the administration, not just from unwanted contact with the legislature and the public, but from investigation.

Take the month spent in Crawford before September 11. Which meetings at the ranch were public business and open to some level of scrutiny, and which were private, Bush's personal business, exempt from scrutiny? Sorry if this isn't very coherent, but the whole public/private thing is freaking me out...

...is easy to misread or misunderstand or underestimate (or even misunderestimate). It takes some time considering the implications of this before one realizes just how big it is. Almost certainly, no conservative--and even few casual readers from the Democratic end of things--will get the big picture here.

Thanks for distilling it so well!

-- TNE

Yet another way BushCo has built secrecy into this administration.

President's have been conducting "public business" from "private residences" for a long long time. Did you know that FDR built a home in Warm Springs Georgia that was dubbed the "Little White House" that he often visited and from where he conducted the nation's business? JFK's Hyannis Port Compound is private property and I guarantee you that he conducted public business while there. Nixon, LBJ... the list goes on and on.

I cannot believe anyone thinks that this matters a fraction of a fraction of an iota....And if you think the American public gives a ratshit about the fact that Bushie stuck up a sign on his ranch, you are seriously mistaken. If Dems try to make this an issue, we will look ridiculous... and rightly so.

onenote

Camp David is not located in or part of the "seat of Government" (i.e. DC), so did he violate the Constitution? Did every President since FDR violate the Constitution by conducting business there? Were the Camp David accords an unconstitutional usurpation of power? Sure Camp David is federally owned and run, but if you take the Advocate's theory to its logical conclusion, that's not what matters. Because if that was the distinction, the President could move the White House to any military base or courthouse in the country. Nope the Advocate's theory is that there is only one "official" place where the executive branch business can be conduced: the White House in DC.

That's where the Advoacte's silly article leads...

onenote

PS - bonus points for the DUer who knows what FDR called the site now known as Camp David....

On Shangra La :evilgrin:

So, if Camp David was Shangri-La when FDR was there, and then named Camp David by Eisenhower (after son David), what would be an appropriate name for Camp David now...

1. The Monkey Farm
2. Devil's Hole
3. The Beer Palace


onenote

to argue the finer points with you. However, I do know that Bush has spent more time on "working vacations" than any other president(I think since Bush I.) When you look at the pattern of information control with this administration, his preference for doing business in Crawford raises a lot of questions. I don't care one bit about calling his ranch in Crawford the "Western White House". I do care about the lack of information that might be available regarding the conduct of business at the "Western White House."

They're a secretive bunch no matter where they are..

onenote

that this government is the most secretive ever. They're very good at lying and saving their own asses. So we do have the right to be suspecious. Even if it's nothing. You can't be too careful with these thugs.

How many times did FDR spend there? He built his place there because of his polio. What's George's excuse? Of course nobody knew about FDR's polio since he hid it so well. Why does Bush go there so much? Why did he meet the Saudi people and Sharon there instead of DC? Has any other president met foreign leaders on business at their private places or in DC?

I finally came to the thread to see what the converstion was like here. I have wondered why he goes to his other house so much. I'm sure he plans all types of stuff there. Kind of odd how he's the only president to vacation this many times. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

But does it violate the BIBLE??? That's all that seems to matter to them. So they say.

Nixon, Reagan, and LBJ all had "Western White Houses" that they spent time in, and conducted the nation's business in. This is just and example of Bushboy taking a longer vacation. You can slam him for taking too much time off, but you can't slam him for declaring his residence the "Western White House".

<http://www.sanclemente.com/HeritageCenter/nixonyears.htm>
<http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:Ronald%20Reagan%20and%20His%20Ranch%3A%20The%20Western%20White%20House%3A%201981-1989:3001282715;_ylc=X3oDMTB1c21tcDhkBF9TAzk2NjMyOTA3BHNlYwNmZWVkBHNsawNib29rcw-->
<http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2001/rothman.htm>

Sorry , but this is a non-issue, and a distraction from other more serious issues of the day. Bush hasn't signed any papers moving the official seat of power, he has, in fact, done no more than his other predecessors who had land out west. He vacations there(too much) and conducts business from there. Other presidents have done this, not just out west, but in other locales across the country. Yes, it is a bit tacky that Bush stuck up a sign, but hey, tacky is as tacky does.

This is just a tempest in a teapot, and I suggest we focus our outrage and energy on items that are more pressing, like the war in Iraq, etc.

I knew about Reagan & Nixon, but LBJ was too much before my time, being born in '66.

I agree that this is a tempest in a teapot.

The real issue is that this man of the people spends 1/3 of his time on vacations and another 1/3 at political fundraisers... I mean, I wish I could do that.

Kennedy had Hyannis Port, Clinton had Martha's Vineyard, hell, oringinally Camp David was built for FDR as a vacation and retreat, for during WWII, FDR couldn't go cruising in his yacht anymore due to concerns about Nazi subs.

It was a regular occurence during the summertime for Washington to be abandoned almost in its entirety, due to the fact that it was built on a swamp. Congress was in recess, and Presidential business was taken care of in the President's private retreat.

The fact that there is, once again, a Western White House doesn't bother me. It is just the cutesy, time worn name Bush has chosen for his pig farm. It does however bother me that he has seen fit to spend so much time on vacation and on political fundraising. Granted, being a figurehead president, there is probably not much for him to do, and fundraising is becoming a full time job for politicians on both sides of the aisle, but still and all, it is bad for and goes to show what kind of man Bush truly is.

But hey, if he wants to call his pig farm the Western White House, fine by me. It will be gone in a few years, and shortly afterwards another faux ranch willed be dubbed with the same name.

...but I think you're buying Bush's line about "I'm not on vacation, I'm working" hook, line, and sinker.

When he's in Crawford he has one option: to vacation there and do whatever minimal work a President does on vacation.

He does not have the option to regularly work there on the business of the American people.

Certainly nothing like 42% of the time.

The Constitution envisioned this danger and explicitly prohibited it from ever occurring.

That's what's at stake here. A "vacation" is something quite apart from "running the world on a workaday basis."

-- TNE

...that several Presidents have dubbed (unofficially) their vacation homes "the Western White House."

George W. Bush--not coincidentally, but precisely because of the heat he was taking for spending an historically unprecedented amount of time away from Washington during his first term--made it official, through not only taxpayer-purchased official plaques but through official statements from his designated spokespeople, that, as USA Today put it, he had "moved the White House to Texas." That means operations, not just some titular moniker (though there was that, too) or some jocular reference to a Presidential summer home or retreat (cf. Calvin Coolidge and others you cited).

During the first eight months of his reign, and routinely since then, Bush has run operations from the White House in Crawford when he was NOT--repeat NOT--on vacation, including when Congress was in session. If you're not seeing the vital distinction, both as a constitutional and as a pragmatic matter, I don't know what to say. The fact is, the Advocate article specifically allows (having anticipated just such a response as yours) that the President can "live" and "vacation" anywhere he wants--but he can't WORK anywhere he wants on anything other than a few-briefings-during-a-vacation basis, and that's exactly what he's done, not because other Presidents have done it (and they haven't on any scale approaching this, suggesting not merely a difference in degree between the two circumstances but, indeed, in kind) but because he quite specifically was under attack for routinely fleeing Washington to avoid his political responsibilities, which fleeing--42% of the time--might well have contributed to our lack of preparedness on September 11th. For example, don't you want to know what operational capacity the President's second White House had to assess and prepare for foreign and domestic threats on a daily basis?

Well, guess what, since the White House which was used 42% of the time in 2001--the Crawford White House--is private property, you ain't ever gonna find that out.

Anyone who ever sensed something profoundly WRONG about the President being absent from Washington 42% of the time in 2001 now knows WHY there was something wrong about it--because the Constitution makes doing so illegal, and no amount of malarkey about "vacationing Presidents" can mask that, sorry.

That's taking the Bush Administration at face value, which, if we've learned anything, is something we've learned not to do. (Yet indeed, seen another way, this is a rare instance in which the Bush Administration is actually telling the truth, as they've been quite candid about the fact that the President does not merely vacation in Crawford, he has "moved the White House" there for fully-operational, long-term execution of Executive Branch duties).

-- TNE

From their vacation houses. Did you read my links? Here's a clip about Nixon's Western White House:

"
Residents found cabinet members renting homes next door, because when the President occupied the Western White House, it was business as usual and they all came. Bebe Rebozo and Henry Kissinger were frequently seen around town. The Nixons attended the local churches, shopped in the local stores and shops, and frequently drove to San Juan Capistrano for Mexican food. The nearby supermarket stocked a supply of the President's favorite ice cream-macadamia nut. 

The local police department received a federal grant, enabling them to hire and equip ten additional officers to assist the Secret Service detail. The street leading to Casa Pacifica was renamed del Presidente. Occasionally there were demonstrations, but even Jane Fonda failed to create an unruly crowd. A fire in the President's study was put out by the local fire department. The fire was caused when the President neglected to open the flue. On the President's next visit to San Clemente, the Nixon family paid a visit to the fire station and presented gifts to each of the firemen. 

The dignitaries came and went-diplomats, astronauts, movie stars. President Diaz of Mexico came, as well as Prime Minister Sato of Japan. Former President Johnson celebrated his birthday with the Nixons. Julie and David Eisenhower were often in residence in the small guest house, and Tricia entertained Ed Cox here before their marriage. 
 

On October 28, 1970, a commemorative postage stamp ceremony was held in San Clemente. The President had decreed that the anti-pollution stamp urging us to save our air, water, cities, and soil be unveiled in his town. 

The President signed a bill in March of 1971 giving the State of California 2.5 miles of beach, stretching from San Clemente to San Onofre, opening up the famed Trestles Beach. A total of five million dollars was set aside to create San Onofre State Park. He also took time to meet a tiny heart patient and his family. His secret service detail and the local police department organized a fund raising softball game for the boy-the Secret Service won. The President's motorcade had to pass Concordia School on del Presidente, and the President always waived at the children and sometimes stopped to shake hands and meet them. The school children often made welcome signs for the President or sent him birthday greetings and presented bouquets to Mrs. Nixon. In November 1972, the Nixons returned to vote at Concordia School in the election where he won by a landslide. 

History was made in San Clemente when South Vietnam President Thieu came in April of 1973 to meet with the President and was greeted by the U.S. Marine Corps Drum and Bugle Corps. In June of the same year, Soviet Communist Party Chief Leonid Brezhnev flanked by a contingent of KGB agents arrived in San Clemente. Before his departure, he and President Nixon signed the famous joint communique on the lawn of the Western White House and met the Skylab astronauts. In the same month, Chinese Envoy Huang Chen arrived. "

Damn, signing bills, consulting with cabinet members, recieving diplomats and envoys, conducting ceremonies out on the front lawn. Sounds suspiciously like what is going on now down in Crawford.

Look friend, all presidents have conducted business away from Washington. FDR did so frequently on his yacht, Kennedy at Hyannis Port, Bush the Elder at Kennebunkport, etc. etc. In fact before the advent of air conditioning it was de riguouer for the Presidents to do business someplace else other than Washington, because in Washington, being the not quite fully drained swampland that it is, is absolutely unbearable in the summertime without AC.

I'm sorry, but I can't get really get worked up about this. Taxpayer funded plaques does not an official White House make, though it does again demonsrate how tacky this guy is. But I think that you are wasting energy on a non-issue here, energy that could be better used on real matters that are threatening all of us, you know, things like the war, the nuclear option, our dismal economy, Peak Oil, voter disenfranchisement, etc. etc. Quite frankly, even if what you are saying is true and this is some sort of minor Constitutional crisis, it ranks so far down the list behind Bush's much graver crimes that it really isn't worth persuing except as a history footnote, after the fact. Geez friend, we have innocent people dying daily because of this bastard's actions, and you're fucking worrying about where the man does his business at? Get a grip and wake up! There are much much more dire things to worry about.

Protesting the war, writing your reps, working with both local and national political leaders, writing about the atrocities being committed in our names in Iraq, these and many more actions will be much more productive against the Bush misadministration than quibbling over some minor technical issue about where he hangs his hat. Why not try contributing more on these fronts rather than getting tied up in minutia that even if successful won't change the direction that this country is headed. There is real work to be done, both in your own local and on a national level. Get out and do it rather than engage in these useless diatribes that don't and won't change anything.

...a man can either be the 100,000th person to opine (and rightly so) on ills already discussed in every media outlet in America--even if not to the extent or with the gloss we would like--or the 1st person to identity yet another item on the list of ills this horrid President has visited upon us.

The historical test you've set up here--have any Presidents "conducted business" at locations other than the White House--is (you must see it) a straw man. That's not the issue here. The issue is that Bush declared, through proxies, that he was moving the White House; then put up signs saying so; and then, most importantly, proved he meant it with his actions, which included not only moving operational capacity for the Executive Branch onto private property, but also spending 42% of his first year in office on said private property, all the while calling it a second version of "The White House."

Want more proof?

You won't be disappointed...I'm about to add another reply at the bottom of this thread which will illustrate just how long-standing this issue is...

-- TNE

...Herr Busch and the NeoCons. Hmmmm...lets see how they might rank them....

1. Stealing two elections;
2. Invading another country based on a pack of lies;
3. Getting Americans killed in two wars that should never have been started in the first place;
4. Allowing major attacks to take place on American soil on 911;
5. Trying to dismantle Social Security and Medicare;
6. Underfunding the VA;
7. Tax cuts for the top 1% income earners;

.....

10,000. Called his fake ranch in Crawford, TX, his Western White House and put up a sign declaring it to the world (gasp!).

9,999. Getting liberals to snipe at each other instead of criticizing him.

-- TNE

....nothing to address the MAJOR, and very real, issues facing us today, and then getting all pissy when someone challenges them on the subject matter.

Maybe it's not him but it's the republican leaders. Does anybody know what they did during his times on his "vacation"? Maybe it's all a media show. The media will focus on his little vacation while they do plannings or working on bills.

Since the summer of 2001 I was outraged by the sign "The Western White House." I felt that it must be wrong, certainly in a symbolic sense and it pleases me that you determined that it is illegal. I disagree with the posters that say this is insignificant and that we should drop this.

The bigger picture is their disdain for the constitution. The bigger picture is their flagrant disregard for a representative gov't. It is emblematic of their secrecy and all of their attempts to circumvent any checks and balances on the executive branch. It's disrespectful to the legacy of the actual White House. It's Unamerican to have such disdain for the "People's House." Either he is always on vacation or he is conducting the public, federal business on his privately controlled property. How many heads of State have been there? He shouldn't be representing us to the world in such an unaccountable fashion. It should be stopped at once.

For those who think it's a non-issue: Imagine if the Democrats raised a fuss? Either he is on vacation and he'll have to answer for all of the time not working or he is unconstitutionally moving the seat of government. Imagine if he wasn't able to go to Crawford as much? Imagine if he actually had to stay in Washington or even just Camp David? Bush would be miserable and forced to do something against his will. This is a man who got 19/20 of his judges confirmed but now is threatening to change Senate rules to completely have his way. There would be some satisfaction in that.

We, the opposition, can fight with the Constitution. It's all we have left and they violate it in spirit and deed daily. This would call attention to that and I'm all for it!

Thanks Nashuaadvocate. Thanks.
:hi:

A curious little note from Kent Southard, one of my favorite writers, who is found on Bushwatch.

http://www.bushwatch.net/kent.htm

snip>

I might be the only one to remember it, but during those weeks of the Florida interruption of democracy, when George W. Bush was ensconced at his Crawford, TX 'ranch,' there was set up at his house a replica of the Oval Office fire place, where White House photo ops are frequently staged. With Bush staging press conferences sitting in front of this setting, it could seem to the colossally unaware that Bush was in fact already the President. It was a foreshadowing (an English Major type of term) of the key concept of this administration's approach to the press and the public: that perhaps the majority of its core support group in the public existed in a space seemingly beyond intelligence and reality, and were of such an easy suggestibility that any fabrication or lie would be accepted by them.  They would seem to be the result of generations now of socialization in this country that mitigates against the individual and his/her consciousness. --posted 03.14.05

Jeb too governs in absentia(makes the heart grow warmer) because to mix in with the legitimate democracy would be to derail his policies and tarnish his fakery.

Yet it fits too nicely with the possibility, some would say the then known probability, that Washington would be hit hard.

He certainly would not have liked governing from Nebraska or having to choose.

Like Nero, the capital was sufficiently standing, still governing and wanting heads. The innocents were eventually provided.

It is juxtaposed to this enmity with DC and democracy that the story should be considered although in essence all President's had this outside workshop, leisure setting. Only it was more for diplomatic facilitation which Bush has no skill or penchant for.

Camp Crawford it's not unless you put tiger cages full of liberals in the
desertified sectors, more to Bush's agenda. As being against the Constitution it's usage and failure to perform as other presidential refuges, its fraudulent image and isolation, is potently symbolic.

.

i am starting a new art car. this one died-



i am thinking of taking a copy of the constitution, and putting all the articles that have been violated by this junta in big, bold, red letters, with a footnote detailing the incident.
this idea was a result of *'s little photo-op with the filing cabinet, disparaging the debt of the country, a violation of article 14 b (iirc)
so, anyone care to contribute other specific incidents?

...because every president has conducted the nation's business wherever they happened to be at the time...D. C., California, Texas, New York, Virginia, overseas, etc.

IMHO, the CORRECT question has to do with WHY the NeoCon Junta spent so much time outside of Washington, D. C. in the month or two leading up to 911. Despite the findings of the hearings on the attacks of 911, there is SUBSTANTIAL evidence that the NeoCons knew that the attacks were coming. If the NeoCons weren't spending time at Crawford planning our defense against those attacks, then what were they doing? Were they planning how to enable the attacks instead?

And why did Herr Busch stay at the elementary school for another 30-40 minutes instead of immediately returning to D. C. as any of our previous real presidents would have done? Why did he appear to be mentally rehearsing his next steps while sitting in the elementary school classroom in Sarasota? Where were all of the interceptors stationed along the east coast...why did only five planes fly that day, and why were they dispatched from bases far from the attacks?

This article is a misdirection play, IMHO...they want to divert us from the REAL facts of 911.

...could we stop this "Rove is behind this!" nonsense every time a progressive (like myself) thinks something is important which you don't agree is particularly important?

Sorry, but Bush didn't just "happen to be" (to quote you) hundreds of miles from Washington for almost half his first eight months in offce, and routinely since then while Congress is in session.

And this isn't about whether or not Bush can "conduct business" while on vacation, either. That's a red herring you and others have thrown into this dialogue which is not reflected in the original article, or in my comments here, which establish that the President can "live" and "vacation" wherever he wants, and conduct necessary business while on vacation, but cannot set up a second White House in the South.

Why?

Because the Constitution and the Founding Fathers said so, goddamit.

Does that mean nothing to you?

-- TNE

...another try? The US Constitution also protects the rights of individuals to express differing opinions on any subject...does THAT mean nothing to you?

And yes, I know very well what the US Constitution is all about...I studied it for four years in college. IMHO, the difference between the unconstitutionality of moving the seat of government to the unconstitutionality of allowing the US mainland to be attacked, is like comparing a molehill to Mt. Everest.

In summary, no, I don't think what you have to say is particularly important in light of our current situation and how we got here. Most Americans, liberal or conservative, are going to shrug their shoulders when they read your comments because most of them know that nearly every previous REAL president took vacations for extended periods of time. Herr Busch's time off is excessive by any standard, but that's not even close to being one of the most important issues facing us at the current time. In fact, as I stated before, I believe YOUR article is the "red herring", not my response.

...thanks to an astute, historically-minded reader of The Nashua Advocate.

What would MadHound and other doubters say if it was proved to them that The Declaration of Independence specifically addressed what Bush has done during his Presidency--and addresses it using George's name, too, as the actions taken by this President mirror those by George III, which actions led to the American Revolution?

And I quote, from the Declaration:

The history of the present King of Great Britain (George III) is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world....He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

So, let me get this straight: the Declaration of Independence (conservatives' favorite document, because it mentions God, despite it being non-binding, pre-constitutional dicta) accuses an infamous "George" of routinely conducting important government business at a place "unusual, uncomfortable, and distant" from the nation's "legislative bodies"?

Does anyone truly believe, now, that The Nashua Advocate invented this issue from whole cloth?

Bush spends, arguendo, 42% of his Presidency several hundred miles from the nation's legislative bodies, announces that said location is a second Seat of power for the Executive Branch, and conducts government business at this location on a regular basis even when the aforementioned legislative bodies are in session.

And people see no problem here?

This is a symbolic as well as a genuine legal and political scandal. It is symbolic of who and what this President is and what he believes about himself and this country.

I repeat: ANY CONGRESSPERSON could request that the President take down the Western White House plaque, including via a court injunction, and could likely make HUGE political hay over the President's repeated, willful, and anti-constitutional absence from Washington. I mean, did anyone else see the nation's Secretary of State give an official government press conference in front of a plaque saying "The Western White House" yesterday (a plaque with no presidential seal, likely because the President knows the fine line he's walking)?

It's a national disgrace.

And the Founders would have AGREED. (Take that, Scalia).

-- TNE

instantaneous communication technology did not exist.

It's okay because the President has e-mail in Texas.

Thanks.

Constitutional crisis averted.

(Sheesh).

-- TNE

:eyes:

Edited to add: you're outraged because he PUT UP A SIGN?

...the Founding Fathers "put up a sign" that one time.

Remember?

It was a big one.

More a statement of principle, actually.

Almost like a founding document, you might say.

Kinda big.

I dunno.

Some of us think it's important.

The rest of us think Bush can govern from a whorehouse in Calcutta if he wants to, no biggie.

-- TNE

...if you prioritized the issues starting on the surface of the sun and working outward, your issue might possibly be within the orbit of Pluto.

Go do a sidewalk poll on a busy city street and see what responses you get.

By the way, your sarcastic responses to anyone with whom you disagree is not winning you any style points.

(Deleted).

Telling fellow progressives that they shouldn't investigate an issue if it's not in a particular critic's "Top 10 peeves" isn't.

It seems to me you can't decide if this is an actual non-issue or merely one you think is, while valid, unimportant.

-- TNE

...Americans today. It is just not very important in the broader scheme of life in America.

Is your argument valid? Perhaps it was once. But too many REAL presidents have conducted business from "vacation" places all across America and overseas as well, and that tends to toss your issue into the dustbin of history.

What's next? Air Force One? Camp David? Plains, Georgia? California?

WHY did they decide to relocate Bush to TX? Could it be the many, many warnings from foreign intel agencies, as well as the warning in the July PDB, of an imminent terrorist attack? Is that why Cheney also vacated DC and moved to Wyoming for a month? And why Ashcroft stopped flying commercial? Were they just trying to get out of harm's way? Ya think?

From the TX forum a few months back:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=180&topic_id=8574&mesg_id=8653

Last year (2004) the Lone Star Trust (aka chimpy) saved $24,561 by the use of ag/timber evaluations.

The 1577.22 acre "ranch" has a market value of $1,282,879. The combined property tax rate is a very cheap $2.12014 per $100. That's a potential tax of $27,198.83.

However with an ag/timber use value of $124,389, the property tax was $2637.22.

Big savings for farmerchimpy and the Lone Star Trust.

The McLennen County Appraisal District shows the Crawford "ranch" is made up 80 acres of dryland cropland, 450 acres of improved pasture and 1047.22 acres of native pasture.

Dryland cropland means crops without irrigation. Wonder if that tree farm is 80 acres?

Improved pasture is "improved" grasses that make cows fatter. To qualify for this category, in the last five of seven years you need to have cut hay or have had some cattle, horses or emu walking around and pooping to the average agricultural intensity of the area.

I think working folks who honestly pay their taxes ought to feel betrayed and should be angry as hell!

After all, if we have a "greatest" thread section, why not something to single out the truly ridiculous threads. Like this one.

For starters, I'd wager that if you consulted 100 serious constitutional scholars, 100 of them would agree that any claim that Bush has violated either the US Constitution or the US Code would be thrown out as frivolous.

I have to wonder whether the DUers who appear to take this thread seriously have read the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the US Code. Here's what Article I, section 8 says (in full, not edited the way it was in the story linked by the OP):

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;"

So why is this in the Constitution? Here's the historical explanation: "The Convention was moved to provide for the creation of a site in which to locate the Capital of the Nation, completely removed from the control of any State, because of the humiliation suffered by the Continental Congress on June 21, 1783. Some eighty soldiers, unpaid and weary, marched on the Congress sitting in Philadelphia, physically threatened and verbally abused the members, and caused the Congress to flee the City when neither municipal nor state authorities would take action to protect the members."

So it was left to Congress to decide what is the "Seat of Government." Under current law, it is the District of Columbia. And guess what, it doesn't matter where Georgie boy is, the seat of government is still DC. He can't change it by hanging out in Crawford or putting up a sign or anything else.

Now, Congress, in designating DC as the "seat of government" also has said that All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law."

A-ha, you say...Georgie Porgie has violated this law by conducting the people's business down in Texas. Well think about it. Do you really believe that all government business has to be conducted in DC? If so, we better shut down regional offices of the EPA, Social Security administration, IRS, etc etc. And remember those field hearings that Commissioners Copps and Adelstein pushed to have on media concentration? How loud would the howling have been if Chairman Powell had said, nope, can't hold field hearings outside DC - it would be illegal.

Now I have to admit I think some posters (but sadly not all) are using this thread to make a point about strict constructionists. And that's not an altogether absurd idea. After all, the same constitutional provision that sets DC as the seat of government is the one that, read literally, disenfranchises the citizens of DC so that if they pass gun controls laws, or approve gay marriage or civil unions, or decriminalize pot...well, the wise fathers and mothers of the US Congress have total authority to void those laws, at least if you take the "exclusive authority" provision literally.

The only problem is that the fact Chimpy hangs out in and works from Texas is so trivial that the average citizen isn't going to get the point and none of the alleged "strict constructionists" (like Scalia) are principled enough to be shamed by anything..so basically its just a silly waste of time. The constitution is a living document and thats why, among other things, telephones, emails, airplanes, etc all make a differnce compared to the concerns that were raised in the 1700s about the head of state operating from an inconvenient location.

Sorry for posting so much on such a ridiculous topic, but maybe, just maybe, a really long post is what is needed to bore this thing to death.

onenote

I'd wager that if you consulted 100 serious constitutional scholars, 100 of them would agree that any claim that Bush has violated either the US Constitution or the US Code would be thrown out as frivolous.

Well...

...(and only because your over-heated observation begs this response): I went to Harvard Law School and am a practicing attorney. Do I count?

Or are only the lawyers who disagree with me "serious" scholars?

I dunno, you tell me.

The reality is, no one's looked at this issue--in the media, or in the legal field--and you have absolutely no earthly idea what a lawyer practicing strictly in constitutional law (of which, incidentally, there are precious few, one reason Ann Coulter has fraudulently and hilariously staked a claim on the field) would say about it.

Besides which, the issue is almost certainly one without precedent in the common law of the U.S., meaning that anyone in the profession who claimed to know "what a court would do" would be little more than a soothsayer in a suit, playing at God.

And beyond even that, I think we can all agree that Bush could rape a turkey and not get sanctioned for it--so isn't it a little late in the Bush-bashing game to become a strident pragmatist?

-- TNE

P.S. Your post marks the tenth straight in which you and your cohort have misstated the argument from The Advocate article (viz. that the article even implies, anywhere, that "all government business has to be conducted in D.C."). Now why in the world would you keep misstating the argument and drawing false historical analogies to Nixon's weekend getaway? I dunno, because you've no idea what you're talking about? I think I'll go ask 100 experts in rhetoric and see how they weigh in on that one.

So I guess you got me there. Of course, I didn't claim to be a serious constitutional scholar myself. I just offered my opinion (stated in the form of a bet) that serious constitutional scholars would scoff at the claim that Chimpy has moved the seat of government illegally. But even with my second-rate Ivy legal education (and despite having having written a couple of Supreme Court briefs -- yes, in constitutional cases, albeit not ones relating to the "seat of the government" clause), I still am (but just barely) smart enough to know that while I'm not a constitutional scholar, such creatures do exist. Maybe I exagerrated when I said that there 100 serious ones, but most of the top law schools have some serious constitutional scholars.

Anyway, the fact that you're a practicing attorney does not make you any more a constitutional scholar, serious or otherwise, than me. But how about this. I'm going to an alumni luncheon next week where my old Con Law professor from Columbia, a certain Ruth Bader Ginsburg, will be speaking. I'll print out the Nashua piece, give it to her and see what her reaction is. You find one of your Harvard con law profs and get their reaction. Let's see if they think its a serious argument or not.

And by the way, while I'm not sure you're right, I'll accept that the article doesn't imply that all government business has to be conducted in DC. I just inferred that from the article. But what the article does say is that Chimpy moved the seat of government to Texas (or set up a second seat of government there). Now presumably that's because he's doing government business there. Unless its just because a spokesman said that the white house was in Crawford when Chimpy was there. Well, Chimpy's spokesman, and Chimpy himself could say he was a rocket scientist, but we all know that's not true and their saying the seat of government moved (which they didn't actually say) doesn't make it so. I drive by the WHite House five days a week (and occasionally on weekends). The lights are always on. Folks doing the business of the executive branch are going in and out. And since Congress has expressly permitted, by statute, the Pres to delegate authority to other agencies and to staff, etc. it looks like the executive branch is still functioning in DC.

onenote

However, I think the Constitution is vague on this issue and there is probably no legal precedence on which to rely. I doubt that even Con Law Professors would have a great deal of authority on which to base their opinion. Your argument suggests that the mere fact that Washington is declared the seat of government in the Constitution is sufficient. Keep the light on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, a receptionist, and a tour guide handy and that's all you need, because it has been declared the seat of government. I think the issue is not whether federal governmental activities are being conducted outside of D.C. (which they inevitably must), but whether significant governmental activities continue to be effectively conducted within D.C. The location of the seat of government is a factual issue of degree, not a de jure one, in my opinion. If for example Bush never came to Washington at all after the inauguration, maintained all high-level staff in Texas, and conducted all important decision-making and bill signing outside of the seat of government, it wouldn't matter whether the light was on in the White House and whether staffers were coming and going preparing the next press release. But I don't think Bush has come close to crossing that line. If Bush were to increase his time away from Washington from 40% to a higher percentage, say 70% and maintain most of his high-level advisors outside of Washington, requiring cabinet meetings somewhere else, then we could start getting quite concerned. I do think, however, that Bush is setting a very bad example which I hope future Presidents do not follow.

The facts as they are don't come close to making out a case. And keep in mind that the 42 percent number was based on his first year in office and included not just time at Crawford, but also time in Kennebunkport and at Camp David and it included weekends. In fact, he spent more time at Camp David that first year than in Crawford. And I suspect while he (or any other sitting president) is campaigning for re-election, a lot of time is spent out of DC.

None of this is meant as a defense of Chimpy, who's reign as prez is a disaster that I can only pray the country can recover from in my lifetime. But that's the point. Dwelling on silly arguments about WHERE he works from is a distraction from HOW and WHAT he does.

Finally, and in the hope of beating this dead horse thoroughly and completely into the ground, one additional legal point: exactly who has "standing" to sue Chimpy for allegedly moving the seat of government? The courts have been quite hostile to lawsuits brought by individual legislators against the president for failing to obey a federal law. There has to be an individualized showing of harm. With modern communications technology, exactly how is a member of Congress going to show that they've been harmed because they can only communicate with Chimpy by email or videoconference or telephone? How many Dems (since no repug would bring this suit) meet with Chimpy anyway?

onenote

This is interesting: Today a fellow Du'er posted a Latest Breaking News brief that strangely mirrors this story.

Found here at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1426840#

A snip:

WH Briefly Goes on Security Alert (Bush has to move)

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBLVC4P18E.html

On Edit.. the links not working from the post. If proper one comes up, will repost here.

NA has been linked to rense, so they are obviously holocaust deniers

http://rense.com/general64/gannonvisitsraiseissues.htm

:sarcasm:

g