The Death of the Constitution
Posted by Paul Wilden in Political Commentary |
In an ironic twist of fate, a long time public servant was recently forced into early retirement for refusing to lower the flag to half-mast in honor of his state’s deceased senator, Jesse Helms,
This is in no way a political decision. I simply do not feel it is appropriate to honor a person whose epitaph of government service was to have voted against or blocked every civil rights issue that came before the US Congress. His doctrine of negativity, hate, and prejudice cost North Carolina and our Nation much that we may never regain.
What makes this ironic is, the flag should be lowered, not in deference to a racist bigot but in memoriam to our Constitution which was dealt a serious blow today.
The controversial update to FISA was passed by the Senate today in a 69 to 28 vote. Three amendments designed to mitigate some of the worst aspects of this bill were all defeated so the bill moves, intact, to a gleeful president eager to sign it into law.
Theoretically, when it’s discovered that the president has broken the law heads roll, especially when the law in question is as serious this. Violating FISA was not only a felony; it violated the fourth amendment to the Constitution that prohibits unwarranted search and seizure. When a president commits this level of lawlessness, impeachment is in order, especially given that we impeached a president for lying about an extra-marital affair, something that wasn’t anybodies business to begin with and had absolutely no effect on the American people, whereas Bush’s crimes were in direct violation of the Constitution and the rule of law in general. So what are the consequences for this egregious breach of the public trust? The oppositional controlled Congress passes legislation that not only legalizes his actions after the fact, they provide full, retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that helped Bush violate our rights.
Is it any wonder that Congresses approval ratings are even lower than the president’s,
The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.
It would be bad enough if this was simply another example of cowardice from the Democratic Party, but even worse, rather than passing this legislation to avoid accusations of being weak on terrorism, it seems that they actually agree with this bill. The Republican brand is in the toilet, voters gave control of Congress to the Democrats in protest of the Republican style of governing, Democrats recently won three special elections in districts that normally go to Republicans, all of this demonstrates rather clearly that voters are no longer buying the Republican scare tactics so why then are the Democrats so eager to capitulate to Bush? Fear may account for a small portion but with no real price to pay, (Democrats are poised to pick up Congressional seats rather than lose them), the only logical conclusion is that many Democrats actually wanted this bill to pass. It’s not as if the tremendous grassroots opposition to this bill went unnoticed in the Senate. This is what Chris Dodd, one of the most strident opponents, along with Russ Feingold, of this bill, (h/t Glenn Greenwald)
Lastly, I want to thank the thousands who joined with us in this fight around the country — those who took to the blogs, gathered signatures for online petitions and created a movement behind this issue. Men and women, young and old, who stood up, spoke out and gave us the strength to carry on this fight. Not one of them had to be involved, but each choose to become involved for one reason and one reason alone: Because they love their country. They remind us that the “silent encroachments of those in power” Madison spoke of can, in fact, be heard, if only we listen.
And for all those who have pinned their hopes on Obama to bring about change to Washington, Obama has proven yet again he’s a part of the problem rather than the solution. Obama did vote in favor of the amendment that would have stripped telecom immunity from the bill but he did so with the certainty that it was going to fail anyway. And if he was so genuinely opposed to this why then did he vote in favor of the bill’s passage. And even more telling, prior to the vote on the bill, Obama voted in favor of cloture thus ending all debate on the floor and shutting down the possibility of a filibuster, a filibuster he once unambiguously pledged to support. This is from an Obama spokesperson, (h/t Glenn Greenwald) (emphasis original)
To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
As hopeless as it may seem, now is not the time to give up the fight. The ACLU has vowed to bring this to the courts as soon as it’s signed into law and they’re soliciting signatures for a full page ad they’re planning to take out in protest. Additionally, money is being collected to help challenge the Democratic candidates who have been so eager to trash our Constitution. “Now is the time for all good men [and women] to come to the aid of the party [and the Constitution]” so please help support this cause, there may be none more important.
–Paul Wilden
Digg buttons brought to you by diggZ-ET (WordPress Plugin)
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:44 am
That’s an artful segue at the beginning Paul–very fine.
It is a characteristic of our particular system of government that almost all bills put up for vote contain additions that either have nothing to do with the declared purpose or function of the bill and thus in almost every case representatives weigh the value of a particular part of a bill to which they might object against the value of the bill as a whole, or indeed vice-versa.
For example if the Feeding Glue to Babies is Wrong bill contains an amendment or clause that provides a grant to research exactly how much glue babies can consume before they suffer ill effects, the politician is faced with a Hobson’s choice–the devil is usually in the details, not the title yet the politician must often vote one way or another or abstain with a ‘present’ vote which is as good as a ‘Nay’–thus Rep.X’s opponent can claim that Rep.Y approves of feeding glue to babies!( relative to the TITLE of the Bill, not its content).
There’s some real hand-wringing going-on around the liberal blogosphere about Obama and this FISA Update. A few seem to be rationalizing his actions in political terms but they aren’t convincing me, for one .This is one bill that appears quite straightforward to me.
Your 5th and 6th paras explain what I believe to be the national political landscape quite pertinently and accurately. In short whatever subtle voter gains Obama might hope for come November amongst ‘independents’, he is surely losing amongst his own Democratic supporters let alone the Clinton camp). Even if Obama is playing ’six moves ahead’ as it were (perhaps he’s planning to power use signing statements as Bush did to reverse or just deny the application of the powers the bill provides?) he’s still risking getting to the Oval office in the first place by alienating informed old and new Democrats.
I can;t think of a single reason, given the polls and the stats why Obama would even bother to have his actions guided on this bill by some political calculation–it seems unnecessary and stupid. That being the case then Obams isn’t as smart and his team isn’t as smart as his fans have been claiming. On the other hand if this is some incredibly deep strategy, then he is a lot more calculating than Clinton was ever accused of being, so again his fans have been fooled. Finally if his actions in this regard are actually personal and sincere, then we’ve ALL been fooled.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:41 am
@5th Estate -
I get your point about choosing between pragmatism and principle, it’s not always a clear cut choice. In the case of FISA howver, both Obama and the Democrats in general have way crossed over the line.
What is so completely baffling about this is that it’s so unnecessary. The political cost for standing up for the Constitution is nil, in fact it could even help them. As Glenn Greenwald is so fond of pointing out, and I agree with him, is that Democrats are seen as weak not because they’re seen as being soft on terror, that dog won’t hunt, they’re seen as weak because they won’t actually stand for anything and FISA just proves the point.
And what is equally baffling is why the centrist Obama feels he needs to run to the center (read: right). I know that’s the “conventional wisdom,” play to your base in the primaries and move to the center during the election but it is completely undermining his campaign. Is he being over handled? I suspect Nancy Pelosi got to him. His tuned seemed to change when the House capitulated.
In the final analysis, why are the Democrats behaving this way? Are they so used to being beat up over security that they’re afraid to fight back or do they actually believe this bullshit? I think it’s a little of both. The “Blue Dog Democrats” need to be weeded out and the rest of the party needs to grow a spine.
That’s an artful segue at the beginning Paul–very fine.
Thanks for that. I was a little concerned I was being too clever for my own good.
Cheers
July 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
paul..we seem equally baffled at the situation. The Blue Dogs are a problem of course, and it seems Obama is one as well–or at least managing a fair imitation. As the apparently the de-facto leader of the Democrats, Obmama seem s to be as conservative as the Dogs and as spineless as everyone else ( except Waxman, Kucinich, Wexler, and Feingold).