The Constitution: The REAL Contract with America

[arendt]

My original posting had a too cute intro with lots of historical and scientific crap that really stepped
on my message. So, here it is, minus the cute. Tough luck that I splatter my Greatest points over
three threads. (But, hey, as they say in Chicago: vote early and often.)

I am serious about this. I would stand on a street corner and ask people to sign up to save the
Constitution. And I would be fearless, because if I can't do that, we are already in jail.

What I love about this, is that we can wrap ourselves in the mantle of true CONSERVATISM, and
denounce anyone who opposes this as an enemy of our government, someone who has broken
his solemn oath of office.

I want to spend my time on something positive, not on Dem-on-Dem flame wars.

arendt

----------

The Constitution: The REAL Contract with America
by arendt

It is finally time to admit that the traditional two-party system has failed. We are at a juncture much like 1860,
when four contending parties, two of Northern and two of Southern origin, competed in a free for all. Except
that today, we don't have four parties, we have one party: the GOP extremists and their punching bag opponents,
the Democrats, who have one hand tied behind their back by corporate donations.

In spite of a torrent of unprecedented calls to get out of Iraq from current and former ambassadors, former
Reagan and Bush officials like NSA General Odom, and conservative theorists like Francis "End of History"
Fukuyama, both party leaderships have announced their intention to "stay the course" in Iraq. Despite massive
outcries over the trampling of our civil rights, despite the administration's stonewalling of its own Supreme Court
on the issue of habeus corpus, the leadership of neither party is willing to stand up and say that the ever more
intrusive (while ever less productive) intrusion of the boondoggle Department of Homeland Security is beyond the
pale of democracy.

But plenty of individual Congressmen and civil servants have stood up on one issue or another from one
party or another. Public opinion polls show that 52% of Americans say Bush should be impeached if
he lied about NSA wiretapping and/or WMDs in Iraq. And the evidence on both those subjects is getting
to the public, despite the frantic damage control efforts of the corporate media. Bush's approval rating has
been stuck at 40% for months. Every day, more and more GOP voters give up on idiocy like handing our
ports to Al Quida supporters, deputizing school bus drivers to look for terrorists, and providing body armor
to police dogs in Ohio while our soldiers go without it in Iraq.

Therefore, I have a modest proposal to make:

There should be a new political party formed, call it the Bring Back the Constitution (BBC) Party or just
the Constitution Party. The conditions for joining this party are simple and, in the current scheme of things
non-partisan. In a sane country, they should be motherhood and apple pie. But we are no longer a sane
country.

All U.S. government officials and military members swear an oath to Preserve, Protect, and Defend the U.S. Constitution
from all enemies, foreign and domestic. They do not swear an oath to defend a "unitary executive", a commander-
in-chief, or the Bible. Sadly, many officials and members by their actions and/or by their acquiesence have violated
their oaths.

The sole purpose of the party is to get control of the government, throw out every single supporter of the current
dismemberment of the Constitution, and restore the rule of Constitutional law to America. After that, it should
get out of the way as fast as possible. Unfortunately, the fumigation of our government will probably require the
kind of "Test Act" loyalty oath for officials, familiar to students of English Parliamentary history. Nevertheless, that
is not such a bad precedent to follow in times of incipient Religious War. Furthermore, the loyalty oath would merely
require adherence to, and avoidance of weasel-wording on, the fundamental points of the U. S. Constitution stated
in the Constitution Party's platform - plus a few corrective actions designed to prevent the whole sorry mess from
happening all over again in a few years.

Without further ado, here is my first cut at a program:

1. The immediate restoration of habeus corpus, and its application to all places on earth where the U.S. government
and its military currently hold control. It can be military habeus corpus, but it has to be habeus corpus. It is against
800 years of common and statute law in the Anglo Saxon world to suspend habeus corpus without end date to
defend against a stateless, faceless tactic - especially when such suspensions are applied selectively, and not
to people making threats against domestic opponents of the current administration.

2. The immediate renunciation of the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare, which is violation of the Geneva Convention,
to which we are a signatory, and the prosecution of those officials found to have facilitated this violation and the
violation of its convention on torture. As a treaty, this convention is United States Law, and we are bound by it. If we are
to be bound by international agreements like the WTO, which is also run from Switzerland, then we must be bound
by the Geneva Convention.

3. The immediate restoration of the Constitutional Separation of Powers.

....A. There is no such thing as a "unitary executive" within U.S. Constitutional history. It is but a euphemism for
....dictatorship. It is an abomination. Signing statements shall be expressly banned by Constitutional Amendment.

....B. The Supreme Court shall be reprimanded for declaring Bush to be President in a sui generis decision that
....was a blatant violation of both States Rights and the Separation of Powers.

....C. Provision shall be made in both houses of Congress to prevent bills and information from being withheld from
....the minority party or presented in such a manner as to effectively withhold them.

....D. The rules on holding votes open shall be rigidly enforced, and bribery and other arm-twisting
....shall be kept off the floor of Congress.

4. The immediate restoration of the Separation of Church and State, as mandated by the First Amendment and
testified to by the writings of our founding fathers and subsequent court decisions. If we are forced to abide by
the fiction that corporations are people (inserted in a decision by a court reporter rather than decided by the
Court) then we very well must abide by the court decisions beginning two hundred years ago drawing a bright
line between Church and State. So-called faith-based initiatives of fungible cash grants, and the operation of
government programs in explicit violation of civil rights laws, violate that separation and must be ended.

Beyond that restoration of separation within the government, the de facto violation of that separation and the tacit
condoning of that violation by the un-Constitutional regime (e.g., voter guides, gathering of church attendance lists) has
demonstrated that there is no fair way to make some religious activities "privileged" (i.e., tax exempt) under the law.
Therefore, we shall undertake to adopt the European approach of treating churches' financial and employment
transactions as any other business - that is, treating them equally under the business laws of the land.

5. The nationalization of electronic voting machine companies, and the conversion of all such electronic voting
to open source software with paper trails and recount information provided. It has been demonstrated that the
existing systems are so flawed that they seem to have been designed to be hacked. Voting is simply too important
to be left to politically-involved and highly ideological private control.

6. The immediate and full funding of national elections by the government and the complete ending of the
corrupt system of legalized bribery known as "campaign finance". The provision of free TV, radio, and
internet airtime in a fair and proportional manner to all significant political parties, along the lines of countries
such as the Netherlands.

7. Balance the Budget by Repealing all Bush Tax Cuts. Repeal the Estate Tax giveaway, and the Oil Extraction
Giveaway, and the $120 Billion hit from blowing off the Tobacco Settlement. We also have to repeal the (corporate)
Welfare Prescription Drug disaster. And we should clearly define Corporate Welfare, and make them get off it.

8. The rollback of weakening of ownership caps on media outlets, the de-conglomeration of the media, and
the immediate review of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and other violations of the right of first sale and
the right to own, rather than rent, personal copies of media. The restoration of some version of the Fairness Act,
and post facto fining of explicit agitation to violence, such as Pat Robertson's call for assassination of foreign
leaders and Ann Coulter's call to "kill the liberals". We can't stop codewords, but we can stop outright verbal assault.

9. The disclosure of significant (perhaps, conglomerated or otherwise protected) information on the $30
Billion black budget of the armed forces and intelligence agencies. The U.S. taxpayer is paying blindly for
services that increasingly are being turned against the U.S. taxpayer. We have a right to information about the covert
actions we are funding, since we as individual soldiers and individual citizens will be liable to the consequences
and retaliations for these actions. Increasingly, we see dedicated career civil servants and ranking military
lawyers blowing the whistle on out of control intelligence. We are deeply concerned and demand more transparency.

----

Any sitting politician who cannot agree to these propositions, which, at best, roll back the situation to about where
it stood in 1990, should be vigorously opposed by the Constitution Party. Any politician, Republican, Democrat,
Green, or Libertarian, who can agree to this declaration as the platform to implement should join the Constitution
Party.

Or, maybe, we just ask them to publicly "take the pledge" to support our 9 point (or more) program of restoration.

We should fund this party on the internet, ala the Dean Campaign, turning down corporate donations, and running
solely on personal contributions of less than $1,000.

[Demeter]

1. The Green Constitution Party

If you want to have a real impact, the two should combine. That's where the thinkers and activists want to go. Even the most conservative anal retentives think that polluting your own nest is a bad idea, even for money.

[arendt]

2. I'm trying to avoid "mission creep", but here's a shot at it...

I'm trying to claim that my goal is CONSERVATIVE.

Maybe we could add:

10. The strict enforcement of environmental laws by dedicated environmental
professionals. And the input of scientific information from national science
bodies, like the NAS, instead of from unqualified or political appointee scientists.

Work with me on this.

arendt

[arendt]

3. Offline while I commute to work. Then, long silence. Please keep alive.

[woodsprite]

4. Kick! and

Arendt, If it's OK, I'd like to spread your info around to some people here at the office and in my family. Wanted to ask first though. Even some of my pubbie, gun-toting relatives would like this line of thought.

[ewagner]

5. I think you've discovered something

I think the phrase: The Real Contract with America and displaying the constitution (or at least the first page) has a profound impact....I think that in itself could be useful

[serryjw]

75. I agree, I copied it

To make a T-Shirt

2nd line READ IT NOW, before it’s gone OR Read it NOW, before it's TOO LATE!

Which do you like better?

[Arkansas Granny]

6. I think you're on to something here. This would probably

appeal to a lot of people and the idea of personal, not corporate, contributions would keep it of, and by, the people, not special interest groups.

k&r

[arendt]

7. Lunch-time kick

I am shocked at the utter lack of serious response to this.

Do people on this board want to do something? Or just yammer?

What is it about:

.......Enforcement of the Constitution is the program of my party.

that turns you off?

Don't you get how strategic offensive/tactical defensive this
stance is? We get to frame ourselves as the conservatives -
and it really is true!

Come on, people, respond to this.

arendt

[arendt]

8. After Lunch kick n/t

[radio4progressives]

9. please keep this kicked and rated up..

:applause:

[Harald Ragnarsson]

10. Now that is a bumpersticker I could put on my car

A statement like that is true patriotism to me.

[arendt]

11. You mean "enforcement of the Constitiution is the program of my party"?

Tell me what you like and don't like.

I'm begging for feedback.

arendt

[Harald Ragnarsson]

12. I guess I meant what post 5 said too

I think this phrase is a sloganeering goldmine, personally.

Who could not agree that the Constitution is the real contract with America and the one that we SHOULD BE following?

Only traitors, that's who, and when they spoke out against it they would expose themselves for what they are.

If you're not in advertising, you'd be a natural.

[arendt]

14. I hear you. It helps to hear what works...

I'm too deep in the writing to feel the impact.

arendt

[radio4progressives]

65. wow.. this is excellent arendt... glad to see all these responses!

:applause:

[Virginian]

13. K & R

The Constitution: The REAL Contract with America
Your birthright as an American.

[Genki]

16. Kick!

[Catrina]

15. That is excellent, Arendt ~ you mentioned 'habeas corpus' ~ how about

abolishing the Patriot Act altogether, and then fixing any laws that might not have covered how to deal with this terrorism 'war' (in case it's real).

Also, who wrote the Patriot Act? Shouldn't any laws like this which so profoundly change the Constitution itself be written with input from both parties?

Another thing. The reason why they are able to get people to agree to 'giving up their freedoms in order to save them' is, imo, the deplorable lack of education on what the Constitution means to us in our daily lives. So, I would include requiring intensive study of the history of how this Democracy was founded and why ~ starting in elementary school. I have done so with children even younger, and they love it.

I know that Sen. Byrd got some legislation passed requiring schools to at least talk the Constitution recently, but more needs to be done, imo, to ensure that all Citizens understand how important these rights are.

I love the phrase 'The US Constitution is the real Contract with America'.

There is an existing Contitution Party btw. So maybe the 'America First Party' or something like that, might sound 'conservative'?

I tried to recommend this, but got an 'error' message again, saying I already did so, which I did not. I've been having this problem a lot lately. But I do rec. it, for the record.

And :kick: because this is so important. As Rep. Conyers says, the Constitution is in crisis.

Thanks for the work you did on this ~ :-)

[arendt]

17. I agree. It is a mark of the amount of damage these people have done...

that the Patriot Act didn't make my top 10.

Yes. Repeal the whole rotten thing and start over.

Thanks for jump starting my vapor-locked brain.

arendt

[serryjw]

76. Let's get this Professional Printed as a DU fundraiser

I'd buy it and give it out. Packages of 10 shrink wrapped for distribution!

[arendt]

77. Please, not yet, its still too raw...

Let me cycle around on the order of the points,
the wording, the indenting, etc.

I mean, for example, there is nothing in the original
list about the Patriot Act.

We almost need to run a DU poll to have people rank
the order in which the items go on the list.

We should publish, but not this second.

arendt

[serryjw]

78. Great..perfect it and then

send to Skinner. I would love to have this printed.

[PhilipShore]

18. No one reads it anyway-- lets just burn it and write a new one.

[arendt]

19. It still is a useful prop in any BS debate with the hard right...

let them say in public that they have no respect for it.

Hell, the controversy alone will make people read it;
and the whole thing would fit in a corner of a newspaper
page.

If the attention span of the American people is that low,
we have lost anyway.

arendt

[radio4progressives]

20. kicking (people don't you care?)

:kick:

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. sign me up

[EuroObserver]

22. May I suggest a couple of edits (at first sight):

1. Though I see "habeus corpus" is not infrequently used, I believe the correct (Latin) term is "habeas corpus"?

2. Doesn't the "BBC Party" sound a little too, well, British :think: ? Maybe brainstorm a better, clearer name? eg. Constitutionalist Party - or even Conservative Party (seeing already some heads explode)?

3. Where you say "We are at a juncture much like 1860, when four contending parties, two of Northern and two of Southern origin, competed in a free for all. Except that today, we don't have four parties, we have one party..." - where is the similarity, then (unless you're implying a pending civil war)? I'd suggest this needs to made clearer.

Otherwise, I'm surprised there isn't already a big movement over there working on this - except I understand the cozy two-party system is supposed to be, somehow, almost sacred?

[arendt]

25. Thank you for the feedback

1. I will check the spelling. It may have been corrupted in the U.S. (no surprise.)

2. Again, I was being too cute. Constitution Party is short and to the point.
If it already exists, we talk to them.

3. What I meant was that the entire party structure disintegrated under the stress of the Civil
War. The Whigs and Democrats split into N & S factions. After the war, the Whigs ceased to exist;
and the brand new Republican Party was dominant. So, I should clarify that the entire structure
of parties is about to change.

Why no big movement? Because a two-party system automatically inhibits third or fourth parties.
Splinter parties drain votes from the very party you are trying to pressure/reform and elect
your worst opposition. Two party systems are the logical outcome of winner-take-all voting,
which we still have here, unlike Proportional Representation (PR) in Europe.

In an earlier draft of this, I had PR as a reform, but in the end I jestisoned it by my
rule that the statement should be as Conservative of the American tradition as possible.
Your inquiry points out that, if a Constitution Party gets to enact its program, PR is going
to have to get put on the agenda, or we will go right back to the same rotten two-party system.

Thanks for you thought provoking questions.

arendt

[arendt]

26. Based on someone trying to call it "new constitution"...

which would destroy the whole Conservative frame of this,

I suggest we call it the Restore Our Constitution Party,
or "The Rock".

Well, that could be mis-construed as just a bunch of drunken teenagers.

How about Restore The Constitution Party.

Can't use: Constitution Restoration Party = CRaP

Or: Party to Restore Constitution = PRC = People's Republic of China

Shit, I am not an advertising guy.

It needs to be short, conservative, without negative acronymns, and using the word "constitution".

Help.

arendt

[EuroObserver]

27. Glad to be of help.

...Respect the Constitution Party (RCP)
Protect the Constitution Party, Patriotic Constitutionalist Party (PCP)
Rule of Law Party (RLP)...

--> or maybe it doesn't (yet, at the start) have to be a new party: just a list of pols (from whatever party) who sign up, or not, to support such a basic set of policies/principles?

ed. Ah, there is this: http://www.constitutionparty.com/ ("abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive.") - and many others - just google.

[arendt]

28. Thank you, but...

Protect Constitution Party = PCP = street drug, Angel Dust

Rule of Law has real reactionary connotations over here (Law and Order, hang em high)

"Respect" is weaker than "Restore", and the same letter.

So, I still need a writer.

Regarding just "taking the pledge", that was suggested in an earlier incarnation
of this thread. I have no problem as long as the pledge is LEGALLY BINDING and
compels people to vote for the principles they ran on as they are codified into law.

arendt

[yellowdogmi]

23. I think it is a very good start!

I think that we would also have to add some amendments to the constitution. First i think we need to demand an amendment for the right to privacy. I also think that you meant to roll back corporate charters but I am not sure. I don't think corporations deserve the same rights as citizens to the detriment of our public well being. They should be held to act in what is the best interest of the communities where they operate. If we addressed those two issues I think we would have something I can support. You have done very well and it is very close! Just my two cents.

[Dhalgren]

24. A beautiful idea!

The American Constitution Party! We stand for the Constitution! The Constitution is what makes America, America. The Constitution IS our country!

I am ready to join and work for a party like this...

[Catrina]

30. That sounds like a good name ~ and lot's of PR to make the Constitution

popular ~ such as, little blue flags to wave at rallies, with 'We The People' on them, maybe ~

Advertisers can make anything popular ~ children love stories from history, if presented properly, the are as enthusiastic about historical figures as they are about action or sports figures.

The Constitution needs to be 'marketed' again, imo. I just read a history of the documents that gave birth to this nation, particularly the Declaration of Independence and I was really surprised at how much I didn't know, and how thrilling it was to read of the efforts to protect the original document, the risks taken by those who signed it, and those who posted it all over the place. The King ordered that they be caught and executed for treason, and had they not prevailed, I wonder where we would be now?

It is an action movie waiting to be made, imo ~ or a TV series or both. The whole history of that period, and how the ideals expressed in the DOC and afterwards, the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is exciting. Most importantly though, the basic tenets that were fought for and won, are as important today as they were back then.

It's fascinating too, how young some of the Founding Fathers were, some in their 30's and at least one of the signers, only 26. And sad, and probably not even known to many Americans, that at least five of them were tortured and executed for their role in supporting the Revolution ~

To the OP, I think I would add an amendment that forbade lobbying. Congress is supposed to lobby for all the people ~ imo, and I may be wrong, lobbyists for the most part are not representing the people, they are distracting Congressional members from doing the work of the people.

Also, loopholes in laws should be addressed somehow, such as when the US passes a law that forbids people from doing business with dictators, but leaves a loophole such as the one Halliburton and others often use, going through a third country. That was not the intent of the law, so maybe there needs to be language that addresses that. If it is not specifically mentioned, it should be understood that once such a law is passed, you better not be using loopholes to do what the law forbids.

This really bothers me, because only corrupt individuals will take advantage of, allowing them to proceed with little competition, while violating the intent of the laws ~ this is how people like Cheney have amassed their fortunes.

[arendt]

31. We're the AC Party, not the D.C. Party :-)

What do you think?

arendt

[Dhalgren]

41. Ooooh, I like that! "We're the AC Party, not the DC Party!"

"Tries of supporting DC? Vote AC, instead!"

[arendt]

32. The loopholes and other weasel wording cannot be legislated out of...

existence.

What you are asking for is the legislative equivalent of censorship.
The vigilance level and lawsuit level would bring the system to a
total halt. Any rule you write would be used to jam the machinery
by the lawyers who want to scuttle the rules.

You just have to keep shining the light, keep fighting.

Regarding the story of the Revolution, have you ever read "The
Cousins' Wars" by Kevin Philips (the ex-GOP strategist and current
Bush-basher)? He points out that there was a real strong pro-colony
contingent among the British military and government. Apparently,
Admiral Howe put to sea from NYC with a fleet and an army. He took
one month to sail that army to Philadelphia. Talk about dragging
your feet.

thanks for the thoughts.

arendt

[Catrina]

33. *lol* ~ I guess we'd be the AC party ~ I see your reasoning, I suppose

it just really bothers me that these weasels KNOW what the laws intend, but go ahead and 'deal with the enemy' anyhow, get rich, accumulate more power, and end up ruling over and against, decent people.

No, I have not read 'The Cousin's Wars' ~ that's interesting, I had not heard that before either ~

I did think of another change I would make in the Constitution I think. That is the lifelong appointments of Supreme Court justices ~ I'm not sure what the thinking was behind that ~ maybe I should read more about it before coming to any conclusions ~

[Dhalgren]

42. The reasoning behind the lifelong appointments was that the

justices, once on the bench would be beholden to no person or party. They, in theory, would be beholden to the Constitution, alone. It's not a bad idea, as long as true constitutionalists are placed on the bench...

[arendt]

43. Interesting point...the AC party will put "true constitutionalists" on SC

Using the Constitution is the simplest, most powerful, most conservative
meme there is for the oppositon to the unlawful, irrational, un-Constitutional
Bush Gang.

arendt

[Genki]

45. Absolutely ~excellent thinking

Check this out~this little pin may be just the perfect symbol for this new party.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/7/134958/018

[Raksha]

29. Excellent post!

:kick:
Kicked, recommended, bookmarked.

[Hosnon]

34. Pre-emptive warfare is embodied in the U.N. Charter. Not illegal and

should not be illegal.

[arendt]

35. Citation please! Are you sure you haven't confused preventative war...

with pre-emptive war?

Preventative is like what Israel did in 1967 -
enemy tanks at your border, enemy leader threatening you.

Pre-emptive is like -
we think in the future these guys might not like us,
so while they are weak or unarmed, we will attack them.

Two different animals.

The latter is "aggressive warfare", and it is forbidden
by the UN Charter, I believe.

arendt

[Hosnon]

36. Article 51:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations..."

The doctrine has been understood to mean that you don't have to wait till tanks are amassed on your border to respond. There is a continuum.

The Bush Administration said that there were WMD's that Saddam would pass to terrorists. A bit of a stretch to fit within the acceptable area of the continuum but that was the argument.

You describe two different types of war that I don't think Bush is describing regarding Iraq. What you call preventative war is more accurately what the Administration is relying on.

[arendt]

37. There is no "armed atttack against" the U.S. by Iran

that is a fucking joke.

If anyone has the right of pre-emption in this case, its Iran. We
are overflying their borders; our soldiers are incurring into their
territory.

I am so sick of bullshit provocation. The nazis shot Polish prisoners
and claimed that the Poles had attacked a German outpost. Then they
invaded Poland.

The U.S. is right down there.

arendt

[Hosnon]

38. Right. But that has been understood to include imminent threats.

Are you seriously saying that a country, any country, has to wait until an army crosses its borders to defend itself?

(EDIT)

Just saw your qualification about Iran. I was merely speaking about the general concept of preemption and the UN Charter.

[arendt]

39. The general concept of America (not the UN) used to be that we...

are the good guys. We don't strike first. We don't
provoke people like some black hat gunslinger in a
spaghetti western.

There isn't a conqueror in the 20th century who
didn't claim his attack was "defensive".

The facts of the case of Iraq and Iran simply never
justified a pre-emptive attack. Colin Powell said
Iraq was no threat six months before he drank the
Kool Aid.

It is the same garbage with Iran.

We didn't use to lie and cheat our way into wars.
We used to try to stay out of them.

That is the traditional America I would like to
return to with my Constitution Party. I really don't
see what the UN Charter has to do with that.

We didn't use to pre-empt. Lets return to that.
Besides, we spend more on the military than the
rest of the world combined. And we still need to
pre-empt? No way. Read the PNAC plan - "we will use
our superiority to eliminte any potential adversaries".


arendt

[PaganPreacher]

48. Did you sleep through history class, arendt?

We don't strike first...We don't provoke people...we didn't use to pre-empt.

Bullshit. We have over 200 years of history that says "bullshit", too.

Here is a small list of "first strikes", provocations, and pre-emptive strikes by the US military:
**The Northwest Indian War (1785-1795)
**The Quasi War- which included plans to invade France(1798-1801)
**The First Barbary War ("...to the shores of Tripoli"), which included the blockade of Tripoli Harbor and the burning of civilian ships in the harbor- neither of which was truly necessary to stop Muslim piracy in the Mediterranean (1801-1805)
**The War of 1812- the US declared war on Great Britain and invaded Canada (1812-1815)
**The First Seminole War-Jackson invaded west Florida (1817-1818)
**The Indian Wars (1865-1890)
**The Phillipine-American War (1899-1902)
**The "Banana Wars" in Cuba, Mexico, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua between 1898-1935. The US military was used to protect commercial interests in Central America.
**The Polar Bear Expedition- during the Bolshevik Revolution at the end of World War I, US troops invaded Russia (1918)

It is the REAL history of the United States that our military has been deployed for first strikes whenever the President and/or the Congress decided it was in the national interest to do so.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[arendt]

50. Oh, I see. I am responsible for all this that happened before I was born..

I've read about Smedley Butler.
I know this country has some rotten history.
Guess what? So does everyone else on the planet.
(I'm sure you will inform me of a group of Bahai monks living on
an island who never harmed even a blade of grass.)

I don't see how saying we have been hijacked by our leadership in the past
justifies letting our leadership hijack us again today - this time forever.

The best I can make out, you have a serious case of disgust with anything to
do with the US or anyone trying to fix it.

I would love to hear you say something positive about this country. In fact,
I dare you to list as many positive things as the list of negatives you just
reeled off.

arendt

[Hosnon]

56. I don't think s/he was saying it justifies what is going on today - simply

that your claim that what is happening today is contrary to our history was false. It's the same with conservatives who long to return to a better time that never actually existed.

And s/he wasn't listing those things to be "negative" about the U.S. S/He was simply citing evidence to counter your claim that the U.S. before Bush was a bastion of international law and an enemy of pre-emption.

[arendt]

57. I only long to return to the year 1999, when some semblance of...

democracy existed.

I call upon the laws of the land to help me; and
you beat me up because the very types of people
who are ruining our reputation today had also
ruined our reputation many times in the past.

Just what exactly are you defending?

arendt

[Hosnon]

58. I'm defending against you attacking someone for providing evidence

countering a claim you made in a post.

[arendt]

60. No, you are turning a nitpick into a lot of soundbite opportunities. n/t

We are now arguing about something secondary.

I refuse to play this kind of tit-for-tat game.

arendt

[Hosnon]

61. I'm just trying to keep you consistent. I would rather talk about the

larger issue but sometimes in discussions tangential points need to be cleared up along the way.

My original post was that pre-emption can be (and is) reasonably deduced from Article 51 of the UN Charter.

You countered by saying that pre-emption has never been the policy of the United States and UN. Your argument implied that there was a better, simpler time in this country that you would like to return to.

PaganPreacher pointed out that your claim about the existence of that time is false.

Then you attacked him for being negative towards the U.S. and being an America-hater.

I simply was defending the fact that PaganPreacher was providing evidence to counter your claim about the history of the U.S.

So having returned from that rabbit-hole: The "general concept" underlying the US and UN has historically included pre-emptive war. The ultimate point that I want to make is that pre-emption is not a new idea regarding the US and UN and that idea is reasonably implied from Article 51 of the UN Charter.

[arendt]

69. "Mindless consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." - A Einstein

What is your claim,e.g.that we should say to the U.S.:

our history is rife with slaughter, join our party
and we will continue it - only this time you will
not be on the losing side?

I just don't understand what tactical political
value there is in dissing the vast bulk of Americans
who are willfully or unwillfully clueless about
all the violence committed in their name.

----------

My intention is to break this thread out into one for
each topic. When we get to that point, you can try
to make a constructive suggestion about how we deal
with pre-emptive warfare with WMDs.

BTW - it used to be called Mutually Assured Destruction.
And it worked when the politicians actually understood
the stakes involved, instead of being rapture/jihad
raving suicidal lunatics.

arendt

[Hosnon]

83. The consistency I am trying to promote is not mindless. I'm not

insisting that you be consistent for no reason. And in any event, perhaps "consistent" was not the proper choice of word..."on topic" would probably be better.

When I post about a particular topic, I am constraining any affirmative statements to the topic in which I am engaged - and I like to stick to that topic. No one has to take me up on what I say but I will not be dragged into different arguments that I never intended to engage in or that have no substantial relation to what I intended to engage in.

My original post asserted that pre-emptive warfare is not contrary to the UN charter. Therefore, I will tend to only want to discuss that topic and things necessary to discuss that topic or things closely related.

We devolved into a discussion about whether or not the idea of pre-emptive warfare is historically American or not. Another poster pointed out examples showing that it is a part of our history.

I in no way see how this comment fits into that discussion: "I just don't understand what tactical political value there is in dissing the vast bulk of Americans who are willfully or unwillfully clueless about all the violence committed in their name."

You say your intention is to fragment the topic. I am only going to participate in those that I intended to with my original post (or are related).

Also, how do you get that my claim about anything would be: "that we should say to the U.S.: our history is rife with slaughter, join our party and we will continue it - only this time you will not be on the losing side?" I am as confused about that comment's relevancy as I am about the MAD comment's.

In this discussion, I want to stay on topic. I will not be baited into other discussions that I have no stake in at the moment. Please either respond to comments I make with relevant replies or do not respond.

[Hosnon]

55. Exactly. We have done this throughout or entire history. Right or wrong is

of course another question but what we are doing now is not contrary to our history as a country.

In fact, that the Administration tried to justify Iraq LEGALLY to the international community can be seen as a step forward towards the rule of law. In the past, a President would not feel obligated to justify his actions to the world.

Of course the argument was a foregone conclusion but it was made nonetheless.

[arendt]

59. Oh, Please - Bush "tried to justify Iraq LEGALLY" - with lies???

You are an apologist for the Bush campaign of lies
to start a war of agression.

Why are you posting on this board?

Bush doesn't feel "obligated to justify his actions"
to anybody, and he has said so many, many times.

Paraphrasing: "I am the commander in chief. I don't
have to justify anything."

Your postings are bordering on my pushing the alert
button.

arendt

[Hosnon]

62. Push the alert button - I've been around here for long enough to have

credibility. I'm not an apologist for Bush - I am trying to point out that it is a relatively new development that an American President even feels obligated to justify his actions within the framework of international law.

Yes, Bush tried to justify his war legally. Why did Powell go the Security Council? It may have been justified with lies but international law was still given attention it has not received in the past.

We all know all he had to do was invade Iraq. No one was going to stop him even if they wanted to. Yet the Administration attempted to justify the invasion on international legal principles.

It may be a baby step but I prefer that to him not attempting to justify it and going regardless.

I never supported the war and still don't - but read by quote - you only hurt yourself by closing your mind.

[Catrina]

46. I don't think that the UN Charter advocates pre-emptive war, but it

points out that any nation is not prohibited from defending itself ~ that is in line with the US' policy (at least it was supposed to be). Nations that are members of NATO that are threatened, will have the backing of the other member nations. But as I recall, NATO is supposed to resolve controversies among other nations whenever possible.

The UN and NATO are supposed to work to bring about resolutions, which the UN tried to do in the Iraq situation. Bush's Iraq war is illegal according to most experts, because he refused to wait for the vote in the Security Council and went ahead, violating the resolution signed in 1991 which was specific that no signatory to the resolution would act alone, should Iraq violate its the ceasefire agreements.

We now know (many of us knew then) that not only did the US violate the resolution (something they accused Saddam of doing) but they acted without waiting for the UN to try to resolve the conflict peacefully.

I like the idea of a Constitution Party which focused on the rule of law and which would hold rogue leaders like Bush very, very accountable, something neither of the current two parties have done, except for a few.

[Hosnon]

53. I wouldn't say that the UN Charter "advocates" pre-emptive war but its

wording definitely allows for that argument to be reasonably made. It is a continuum and the Bush Administration simply pushed it further than before and probably beyond what it allows.

NATO and the UN are not part of each other - two separate organizations. Action by a UN member nation does not require action by a NATO member.

Based on the defense aspect of Article 51, the Administration argued that is what it was doing invading Iraq. If valid, it is legal, internationally, and legal until the UN takes over - which it has yet to do.

Again, I don't think their idea fits into the "defensive" exception. All I'm saying is the argument exists, is valid, and is what the Bush Administration attempted to use.

[Catrina]

72. I am aware of the difference between Nato and the UN. In the case of

Iraq, the administration's argument, as you outline it, was not accepted by most legal scholars, both national and international.

The threat, first of all, has to be 'imminent' ~ of course Bush used the word, but no one ever saw an imminent threat from Iraq ~ from the beginning, their 'evidence' as presented by Colin Powell, was considered to be questionable at best, false at worst.

The solution, rather than call the US government liars (although many did) the UN Security Council decided to vote to either extend the time for inspections, or end them. Once Bush et al learned (and don't forget that other illegal act they were caught doing, spying on the members) they refused to wait for the vote. That was in violation of resolutions signed by the US.

I already mentioned the cease fire agreements, signed by members of the Gulf War Coalition, of which the US was just a member. According to those resolutions, no member was to act alone should Iraq appear to be in violation of the same resolutions. In fact, it was the US who violated them in the end.

The interpretation the administration attempted to make of the UN charter, did not hold up to scrutiny because there was no evidence of an imminent threat. That would have been the only excuse for a nation to act alone. Where was the threat?

Otoh, Iraq had ever reason to believe it was under a very grave, and imminent threat from the US. As a member nation, they too went to the UN to resolve the conflict first showing they had no intention of resolving it militarily ~ so there is simply no way for the US to ever argue that Bush acted legally by international law.

Our Constitution recognizes all treaties signed by the US. At the time of the invasion, those treaties were in effect ~ they were violated. Iraq was right, it was they who were threatened, and we can now see the result of the illegal actions of one country's aggressive act against another.

If our Constitution had been acted upon, Congress would have done its job and denied the administration the funding for the war. They would have insisted that Bush uphold the agreements signed and wait for the UN Security vote. Had that happened, no WMDs would have been found, as all the experts had predicted. That is the job of the Security Council.

Iow, both international law, and our laws (Constitutional) were violated by the Bush administration. We know even more now, that documents were forged, 'evidence fixed around the policy'. Someone should be impeached over this, imo.

[Hosnon]

82. I agree that the Administration's argument does not hold much water. But

the argument, in general, is accepted by most scholars.

I'm not arguing that Iraq posed an imminent threat. I'm merely saying that it is a legally valid argument to make to justify war under Article 51. Again, I don't think it flies in this particular case.

Also, treaties signed under the Constitution cannot contravene anything already set out by the Constitution. Therefore, a treaty cannot take away any President's authority to act in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. And again, I don't think this President had the authority as Commander-in-Chief but the general argument is valid.

As to whether both international and constitutional law were violated...that is a factual determination that must be made in the public arena. The Supreme Court will probably shy away from that issue as a political question. International law was broken if there was no imminent threat. Constitutional law was broken if the President was not justified in acting as Commander-in-Chief, a constitutional grant of power that cannot be usurped by a treaty. I think there is a very strong argument that international law was broken. The argument that the Constitution was violated via Article VI is a little weaker given the deference traditionally given to the President in foreign issues.

[Toots]

40. So... we are still killing and that excuse no longer cuts the mustard

What possible way to describe our "war" other than aggressive. We are not claiming self defense are we? We are claiming the excuse of "Nation Building" or "Spreading Democracy" but not Defense....

[Hosnon]

52. I'm not positive but I think the Administration used the argument that

if we didn't invade Iraq that we would be hit very soon by resources given to terrorists by that country - they were claiming imminent threat. I don't know if it was imminent or not, I'd think not but that was the argument made and it is valid.

[Dhalgren]

44. There is absolutely nothing that even hints at "preemption" in

Article 51 - "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations..."

"...if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations..." clearly implies post hostilities, not preemption, which, by definition, means prior to any "armed attack". The idea that any nation can attack any other nation preemptively, without a genuine casus Bell runs counter to the very idea of the UN. The US may trump up any excuse its masters wish for an illegal war of aggression, but don't drag the UN into it...

[Hosnon]

51. See my post above. The doctrine has been understood to include

imminent threats. A nation does not have to wait until tanks are at the border or crossing the border to defend itself.

Again, not saying that Iraq was such an imminent threat but the argument of defense against an imminent threat is valid.

[Dhalgren]

63. Who has "understood" this? Is there some sort of a documented

establishment of this "understanding"? Where is this "understanding" made in an elaboration of Article 51? I am not being merely argumentative, I would really be interested in reading the argument for this "understanding". TIA...

[Hosnon]

64. One example is the Six Day War. There was not a physical armed attack

on Israel yet nobody entertained the idea that Israel had violated the UN Charter.

Lunch is about over so I'll get back to you on this in greater detail later today and if not tomorrow.

[arendt]

71. UAR divisions were at the border, reserves were mobilized...

that's live enough for pre-empmtion.

The vague possibility that Iran will have a nuke
someday doesn't justify nuking them today.

The whole policy is mendacious and insane.

arendt

[Hosnon]

84. I'm not talking about any particular situation. Just the validity of the

argument that pre-emption is valid under the UN Charter.

[Dhalgren]

73. The Six Day War is not a good example for you. Armies were

massed on three of Israel's borders. Attempts at defusing the situation were completely useless. This was more of a first strike in an existing war, than a preemptive war. I think when three of your bordering neighbors mobilize their armed forces and mass on your borders, you are not considered "preemptive" if you strike first. Or, if what Israel did in 1968 is considered "preemptive", then what the US did in 2003 should be called something else - unwarranted, brutal, imperialistic attack, maybe? Murder? Rape? Something like that?

[Hosnon]

85. Right. I understand that the Six Day War is not the best example but I was

in a rush and it was the first thing that came to mind. However, it does show the existence of a continuum...that there is no bright-line rule in Article 51. You characterize it as a first strike in an existing war and I agree with that assessment. The idea of justified "defense" under Article 51 is stretched along the continuum with the Six Day War being about as close to on end as possible without actual physical intrustion.

I don't think that the the U.S. invasion of Iraq fits along the continuum. However, the argument to justify the war based on the idea that it does is completely valid. It then becomes a question of whether or not the threat is imminent "enough." Again, I don't think it was.

I need to run again to eat lunch. I hope to be back later on today with more examples to show the existence of the range of actions that can, and have, legally been justified under Article 51 even though there was no physical armed attack.

[Dhalgren]

87. Interesting discussion.

Of course Hitler could have used (had it existed) Article 51 to justify invading Poland, because HE SAID Poland attacked first. We know, now, of course (and most people did then as well), that Poland never attacked Germany. Hitler's argument, however, is valid IF you accept his lie as truth. Hmmmm... I'm still not sold on Article 51 justifying a preemptive attack, but it is a valid point of argument...

[arendt]

88. Calling this kind of hair-splitting sophistry a "valid point of argument".

is exactly how American democracy has arrived at death's door.

These are the same patently absurd, but logically tractable
talking points that keep people distracted while the dirty
work is going on.

In the current situation, I have no time for people who want
to argue that Article 51 could have been used by Hitler.

The whole Article 51 thing is navel-gazing.

Since when did the right wing of this country care anything
about the UN except to burn it down.

This is as classic as GOP KKKers calling people who oppose
the port deal "racist".

No time for this. Will not discuss any more.

arendt

[radio4progressives]

80. I think the obvious abuse of Pre-Emptive Warfare clearly warrants change

at the minimum, given that we have engaged in so many illegal "pre-emptive" warfare, coups, black operations, regime changes of democratically elected leaders - jeebus - our history in this is so severly tainted as to make it a mockery of the intention of the statute.

yeah, it's time to knock that one down.

[Hosnon]

86. Or perhaps it needs to be more clearly defined in international law. nt

[PaganPreacher]

47. I see a few problems here:

The name "Constitution Party" is already taken. See http://www.constitutionparty.com. That party is dedicated to "work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations." It is twice as whack as the religious right wing of the Republican Party- a true American Taliban.

That is small potatoes, though. The major problem is that you do not appear to know what the Constitution actually says. You are talking about the United States Constitution, right? :+

According to your proposal, "The sole purpose of the party is to get control of the government, throw out every single supporter of the current dismemberment of the Constitution, and restore the rule of Constitutional law to America." Ignoring the fact that you offered three purposes, and not one (hint: "sole", from the Latin solo, means "one"), your platform contains numerous violations of that same Constitution, as well as several proposals that are extra-Constitutional. To be specific:

1. The immediate restoration of habeus corpus, and its application to all places on earth where the U.S. government and its military currently hold control. At no time in the history of the United States did habeas corpus apply outside the actual "United States" or its territories. Your suggestion is extra-Constitutional, and blows the idea of "restoring the rule of Constitutional law to America" all to hell.

2. The immediate renunciation of the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare, which is violation of the Geneva Convention, to which we are a signatory, and the prosecution of those officials found to have facilitated this violation and the violation of its convention on torture. As a treaty, this convention is United States Law, and we are bound by it. The Geneva Convention is a treaty, as you said. A treaty is a contract between two or more parties to engage in specific behavior, or to refrain from engaging in specific behavior. As in any contract, it takes two parties for it to apply, and then it applies to both parties. In other words, if I agree to sell you a car, your neighbor cannot expect I will sell him a car, too, just because I contracted with you; and I cannot expect your neighbor to pay me for a car I am not obligated to sell to him. That principle is actually found in the plain language of the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War; read Part 1, Article II.

Please, take some time to read the real Geneva Conventions: http://www.genevaconventions.org/

You will also find that no part of any of the Geneva Conventions prohibits "pre-emptive warfare", as you asserted.

3. The immediate restoration of the Constitutional Separation of Powers....B. The Supreme Court shall be reprimanded for declaring Bush to be President in a sui generis decision that was a blatant violation of both States Rights and the Separation of Powers. Who will perform this odd chastisement of the Supreme Court, and by what authority? Certainly not by any authority found in the Constitution! You just advocated separation of powers, yet you want another branch of government to act as superior to the Supreme Court in a judicial matter. You have contradicted yourself!

4. The immediate restoration of the Separation of Church and State, as mandated by the First Amendment and testified to by the writings of our founding fathers and subsequent court decisions. If you are calling yourself a Constitutional Restoration party, you may not legitimately use extra-Constitutional sources to "restore the Constitution". "The writings of (some of) our founding fathers", subsequent court decisions (except for those that support "the free exercise thereof", I surmise), and "the European approach" all fall outside of "restoring the Constitution".

5. The nationalization of electronic voting machine companies, and the conversion of all such electronic voting to open source software with paper trails and recount information provided. The Constitution doesn't say anything about voting machines. In fact, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution places the power with each state legislature to select Electors in the manner it chooses. That is why Bush v. Gore went the way it did in 2000- because the plain language of the Constitution placed that power with the state legislature, not any state court. Since you ignore, or worse- intend to supplant- the Constitution, your proposal is definitely not one of restoration.

As an aside, the nationalization of private business is a hallmark of fascism; is that what you propose, Benito?

6. The immediate and full funding of national elections by the government and the complete ending of the corrupt system of legalized bribery known as "campaign finance". The provision of free TV, radio, and internet airtime in a fair and proportional manner to all significant political parties, along the lines of countries such as the Netherlands. You won't find "government financing of campaigns" in the Constitution. Government pay means government control- that, dear children, is called "censorship", and is frowned upon in most societies.

Do you know that you proposed to destroy that part of the First Amendment that says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"? Was that your intention, after demanding the enforcement of that same Amendment with regard to separation of church and state? You can't have it both ways, you know. Either the whole Bill of Rights is "in", or it's "out". If you call yourself a "Constitutional Restoration Party", your only option is "in".

8. The rollback of weakening of ownership caps on media outlets, the de-conglomeration of the media...The restoration of some version of the Fairness Act... Free speech and free press- aw, fuck em! You're 'restoring the Constitution" and you have no time for little things like that!

We should fund this party on the internet.. Good luck on getting those contributions, Benito!
:eyes:

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[arendt]

49. Wow! Serious logic-chopping flack. Looks like I've ruffled some feathers..

I never said it was perfect.
I asked for suggestions, not insults.

0. I never claimed the name. It was highly likely it was taken. It was also
highly likely to be taken by RW loonies. Nice Straw Man.

00. This is so high school - ooh ooh Mista Kottah - you said "sole" but then you listed three things.
Like "you said hand, and then you listed five fingers." Utterly juvenille.

1. At no time did the US try to pretend that there was no legal authority of
any kind to be find on territory that it has occupied for over 100 years.
It is a brand new power grab, and it requires a brand new response.
They extend the dungeons, we send the cops down into them. Your objection
is classic Original Intent selective enforcement. I'm not talking Original
Intent.

2. The Geneva Convention says no torture. We signed it, we are bound
by it. I have no idea what your used car example refers to. Explain your
unconnected analogy or I'm ignoring it

You may be right about the Geneva Convention and pre-emption. I'm still
against it. America never did it. We are spending more than the rest of
the planet. When the biggest bully "pre-empts" its called aggression.

3. You are correct that "reprimand" is bullshit. I was trying to be soft. Here
is what I really want, but it is too inflammatory to get accepted: Impeach the five
traitors who conducted a partisan coup. Read Vincent Buglosi's book
on why it is treason. By attacking what was obviously a deliberate deflection,
you show your intention to harden my proposal and thereby break it.

4. I call myself a patriot. (Yeah, yeah, I know - so does George Bush. That's the
problem with the Big Lie - you can't tell patriots from weasels.) Your weasel worded
bullshit is exactly how America got into the current mess. You are as bad as the
Federalist Society. The Constitution is explained by the Federalist Papers. They
were written by the Constitution's authors to sell it to the public. If you think the Federalist Papers
aren't Constitutional sources, you are as looney as Scalia.

5. I have to nationalize it because the GOP just privatized it. Never before in history
have there been NO PAPER OR MECHANICAL RECORDS. The GOP wrote
this obscene law and gave away our right to a recount, the same way both
parties gave away our right to self government to the WTO and GATT. No
other civilized country in the world allows this. Australia has Open Source Code
software that has been publicly tested for tamper resistance. We have a bunch
of religious nuts, ex-criminals, and partisan politicians telling the citizenry to
butt out. It is a criminal enterprise, and I would prosecute it that way if I had to.

Benito - You just lost - first one to call the other guy a Fascist loses.

6. You won't find "money is speech" or "corporations are people" in the Constitution
either. But that is the crap we have to deal with. Public financing is the only way to
restore some semblance of the "one man, one vote" democracy of the founders.
Now we have "one dollar, one vote" democracy. Which you are apologizing for.

Calling equal time "censorship" is the kind of nonsense that William F. Buckley
stooped to at the time of the 1976 Buckley vs Valleo decision (and before you
jump on me, I know it wasn't William F. Buckley on the lawsuit.) Next you'll attack
me for leaving off the ",Jr.".
'
It isn't free speech when one man has a megaphone and the other has nothing.

8. No argumentation, just whining. Restoring the regulations to where they were settled for fifty years
is something you don't like?



---------

In summary, you totally rigidified my position and then proceded to score nitpicking points
on that straw man. I never said to throw away the laws we passed in the last two hundred years.
I just said put the foundation back under them so these ridiculous assertions of "unitary executive"
wind up getting labeled the treason they are.

I'm sure you will argue that I have to expect the GOP to throw these kinds of arguments
at me. Well, I expect them to behave like smartass fraternity boys. I do not expect it from DU.

I bet you have lots of friends.

arendt

> The Pagan Preacher
> I don't turn the other cheek.

Well, then, this one is going to get pretty beaten up.
More like the Sophist Screacher.

[Common Sense Party]

54. Can someobody explain this whole "unitary executive" thing?

Who has said they are for it? What did they say it means?

[radio4progressives]

81. uh.... Samuel Alito

i don't have the link but you should be able to bring that up in Google pretty quickly. just type in the word "unitary executive or untiary executive authority" - and you'll find the so called "Federalist Society" and a sub-group of that org, "constitutional reconstructionists" which Alito was a part of - do a google, i'm sure you'll find what you're looking for.

And the white house counsel, the AG are basing all their unitary authority bs regarding domestic spying etc on this theory.

[radio4progressives]

66. kicking again - people need to read this great post

:applause:

[radio4progressives]

67. people, this is the issue..

get on this train now, or forget about ever restoring our constitution and our democracy by either party.

[Dhalgren]

68. Kick! arendt, I wish I could recommend this one again!

Don't let the silly nitpickers get to you; you knew they would crawl out at some point.

We must never forget that the Constitution is what makes us, us. Our nation IS the Constitution!

[arendt]

70. Thanks for pulling me out of the brambles

Yes.

Let the nitpickers carp. They never do much except
play gotcha anyway.

arendt

[Catrina]

74. And don't forget, that the founding fathers did not agree on

everything in the beginning. Obviously they had to have a draft first, which they then debated and argued over for a long time, before finally coming up with something that those who eventually signed it, could agree on.

That's what you did ~ and then asked for suggestions ~ and since the Constitution is a 'living document' ~ it can always be amended so I'm not sure why any of the suggestions shouldn't be discussed and then maybe added as amendments or discarded ~

I'm still bothered by the lifelong appointments of Supreme Court justices. I know someone explained the thinking of the FFs on that, and it does make sense. And I know there is always the impeachment option. I suppose I'm thinking of justices like Scalia, eg, who has not done what the FFs hoped and risen above partisanship, nor do I think he ever will ~ still, that is bound to happen every once in a while. Overall, I suppose they are right ...

And thanks again for trying and actually doing something worthwhile, such as presenting ideas instead of just complaining ~ it has given me a lot to think about ~ :-)

[serryjw]

79. 545 members of Congress are

going to be surprised when they don't have a job! What does he NEED a 'balance of power for? He does what he wants and doesn't listen to the Congress or the 'will of the people' by their representatives
How much money can Bushit save by not having a Congress? $100 million/yearly?

[Blue_Tires]

89. ttt n/t