Third Party & Independents: Archives

David:
Well said.

For years we have been beating the drum of accountability. When Cheney held his secret meetings with Enron officials to draft this nations energy policy, Americans should have stood up to demand a transparent government. When the Patriot Act was pushed through in the middle of the night, signed without reading and contains so many horrifying examples of abuse of power against its own citizens, Americans should have demanded its representative government to rectify the law. And when a President uses signing statements as a way to execute a personal agenda, the American people should have loudly objected this illegal practice as a declaration of war on the constitution and laws of this land.

The expansion of executive powers to dictator powers has happened. We need something to happen quickly.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 13, 2007 08:32 AM

All that you’ve said is true. So what will WE do? What will it take to challenge the status quo? March on Washington? Say when and I’ll be there!!!

Posted by: Don Perkins at December 13, 2007 09:24 AM

Don, thank you for your comment, and as I say at the end of the article: “We can revolt at the ballot box and through support of anti-incumbent organizations, or commit our children to having to die in revolution, fought in the streets and alleys of tomorrow in the name of liberty and freedom from authoritarian rule.”

A demonstration in D.C. is no longer sufficient.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 13, 2007 09:35 AM

John, thank you for your comments. You are right, authoritarian rule is already here. As Edmund Burke said: “All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 13, 2007 09:40 AM

Well after numerous months of hearings, and legal battleing, a scape goat will be thrown out(usually lower level), for the public to see that it was not the higher up’s that did it or told someone to due it.
But in the end it will end up like Ollie-gate, with someone getting pardon for breaking the law, and then made out like they are the most honorable american around.

Another debacle by the current King and his court

Posted by: KT at December 13, 2007 10:39 AM

Authoritarian rule is not already here, it has been here for decades.
And, while it is nice to see leftists concerned about it, history shows they will soon forget all about it once they are the one’s imposing their version of it again.

Come 09, those concerned with authoritarian rule will once again be silenced, mocked and labeled as nuts. Govt will grow, taxes will soar, rights will be taken and militia membership will increase by tens of thousands again.

The time for revolution IS now and I will vote for hillary in 08 to help get us to that point faster.

Posted by: kctim at December 13, 2007 10:45 AM

David,

How many times have I addressed the impeachment of Bush question?

Nothing has changed.

Congress (controlled by Dems) will not impeach. I have posted the reasons why here several times.

To revolt at the ballot box is one thing. That’s do-able.

To incite open revolt is to run afoul of the 14th Amendment…and if you don’t think the Federal Government WON’T roll tanks over your sorry ass like Russia did to Poland…you’re sadly mistaken.

To incite open revolt (either at the ballot box or otherwise) will raise the spector of Congresspersons actually loosing power…and that’s what they fear the most.

If there appears to be a revolt at the ballot box…look for the corrupt, criminal 2 party system to try to make it even harder for 3rd party people to get elected.

Posted by: Jim T at December 13, 2007 01:54 PM

There are no practical legal limits on this White House Administration. The destruction of the CIA recordings of torture in light of the documented clear legal language outlawing waterboarding in 2005 (1), the Army Field Manual (2), and in precedents established before G.W. Bush’s presidency (3), now make obvious and plain that the Bush Administration has reserved the powers of authoritarian unto itself.

What nonsense.

Why don’t you research when this “clear language outlawing waterboarding” was put in the Army Field Manual? Laws cannot be broken before they’re made.

And in any case, does the CIA have to follow the rules of the Army? Are they part of the Army? Uh, no. Like I said, nonsense.

Your statements reveal even less of an education on these issues when they try to to hold the administration responsible for the actions of the CIA in destroying tapes that the White House had advised them NOT to destroy.

So, to summarize your absurd statements: the White House is authoritarian and its occupants should be impeached because the CIA disobeyed its recommendations in destroying video tapes which might show the CIA violating rules that weren’t made yet and which don’t even apply to the CIA.

Uh—right.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 13, 2007 02:08 PM

David R. Remer wrote: Revolution: The Time IS Now ! There are no practical legal limits on this White House Administration. The destruction of the CIA recordings of torture in light of the documented clear legal language outlawing waterboarding in 2005 (1), the Army Field Manual (2), and in precedents established before G.W. Bush’s presidency (3), now make obvious and plain that the Bush Administration has reserved the powers of authoritarian unto itself.

David, Keep it up, because:

“Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.” - Edward Everett

Those that trivialize it are gambling with the future and security of the nation.

The best way to prevent tyranny is to not allow its beginnings.
And the beginnings of it are not even recognized by most Americans.

David R. Remer wrote: We might expect these actions of an authoritarian dictator whose Congress and Courts exist for public relations appearance purposes, only. But, this is happening in America, not Pakistan, Cuba, or China. This perversion of the oath of public office MUST NOT STAND! The oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, not to protect public servants from the very laws they violate.

Those that trivialize all of it are not only permitting it, but empowering the perpetrators to increase it.

If the prevailing apathy, complacency, and disinterest continue, citizens should not be surprised when they are the new target.

“The strength of the Constitution, lies in the will of the people to defend it.” - Thomas Edison

Already, we have the following violations:

• (1) torture, spying on citizens without civil oversight, no Habeas Corpus;


• (2) blatant violations of the Constitution (e.g. Article V);


• (3) starting wars based on a complex web of lies;


• (4) legal plunder via eminent domain abuse, unfair and regressive taxation, inflation and dishonest monetary policies;


• (5) oligarchy; control of the government by a very few that abuse vast wealth to control and influence our government, which is clearly and inarguably FOR-SALE; a mere 0.15% of 200 million voters make 83% of all federal campaign donations, while the remaining 99.85% of eligible voters have no chance of out-spending them;


• (6) unenforced laws that despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes;


• (7) economic warfare, corporatism, corpocrisy, corporate welfare and graft, and legal plunder via massive debt heaped onto future generations.


• (8) …m o r e …

David R. Remer wrote: The Congress’ refusal to impeach Bush and Cheney and imprison others who have defied and destroyed the checks and balances of our Constitutional government, …

Hoping for Congress to do something about corrupt government is like expecting a bear to not $#!+ in the woods.

David R. Remer wrote: … make the case for revolution of, by, and for the American people. This case for revolution is now every bit as clear, unmistakable, and dire as that of the Colonialists who revolted against King George in the 18th century. The Congress’ refusal to impeach insures that the powers of authoritarian erected by this administration will be passed on to future presidents, regardless of political party affiliation. This cannot be allowed.

We have a feedback problem.

By the time enough voters realize the results of their apathy, complacency, and disinterest (40% to 50% that don’t even bother to vote; and too many with misplaced and blind loyalties for THEIR party, etc.), it may be too late. At least, probably too late to avoid the painful consequences. And the economy will be the first casualty.

David R. Remer wrote: Our American Constitution isn’t worth the parchment it is written on if the people do not revolt against this broken government, and I mean now, tomorrow, and everyday thereafter, until the integrity of our Constitution is raised from the dirt, cleaned, and reinstated as the law of the land applicable to all persons, not just the common people.

And a good place to start is to ask Congress why it is violating Article V.

When Congress controls the amendatory process, it controls the Constitution.
It doesn’t get much more serious than that.
Especially when that Congress has a clear conflict of interest.
Congress likes giving itself a raise every year (9 times in the last 10 years).
Congrees likes giving itself cu$hy perks, retirement plans, and opportunities for self-gain.
Congress is not about to do anything that will reduce its power, opportunites for self-gain, or reduce the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbences.
Especially when the electorate rewards it for all of it with 95% to 99% re-election rates.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” - Lord Acton

David R. Remer wrote: How did Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, and other dictators achieve such complete power over the people of their nations?

Tyrants and their accomplices slowly chipped away at it, like the current administration is doing. To trivialize it and rationalize it is exactly how it begins.

And look how far it has gone in only a few years (see list above: 1 throught 8).

David R. Remer wrote: By the quiet consent of their people. The American people must not consent to these ‘officials’ perversion of power in this manner if we are to remain a free people who choose liberty and justice through the equal application of the law to all.

Already, the majority of people oppose the war, oppose illegal immigration, oppose abuse of eminent domain laws, oppose torture, oppose violations of the Constitution.

Yet, they sit idly by and expect someone else to do something about it.
What they don’t understand, but should have learned from history long ago, is that their worst and most dangerous enemies are not from the outside; but from within.

David R. Remer wrote: So how is it, my countrymen and women sitting in the Congress refuse to impeach and try this President and his subordinates who have broken the very same law that would imprison me for the same act?

Apathy, complacency, and self-interest.

At least, until enough of the citizens are finally victims too.
Sadly, too few people care, until it affects enough of them directly.
But they will learn (again).
They always do (the smart, peaceful, responsible way, or the hard and painful way).

David R. Remer wrote: These are rules by which the Bush Administration now operates… . This constitutes a defacto authoritarian regime above and beyond any laws which the so called ‘president’ does not write for himself.

We are most definitely seeing signs of it (see list above).

David R. Remer wrote: And the Congress is complicit… . But, the Congress is creating the impression it is acting on this issue, when in fact, they are covering up their refusal to impeach White House administrators.

Congress is FOR-SALE. All three branches of government are increasingly corrupt.

The only silver lining is that the pain and misery that will (and already has begun) result from it will hopefully provide the motivation to enough people to finally stand up to it. And that most certainly will never occur by repeatedly rewarding irrespnsible, corrupt, incompetent, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-elecion rates.

David R. Remer wrote: Obviously, if Congress were to exercise their obligation under the Constitution to impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors, the outcome of the elections in 2008 would be less predictable. Therefore Congress’ motivation to circumvent their Constitutional obligation is designed to sham the public for purely political gain. The Congress is now complicit in erecting this authoritarian regime for purely personal political reasons. Democrats know impeachment would divide the Independent voters, risking their majority status in the 2008 elections. Republicans know that impeachment would divide their party like the Rocky Mountains and end what political power they have left at the polls. And so, they turn their heads to the destruction of our Constitutional form of government.

That’s an very good anaylsis. It’s the “don’t rock the boat” syndrome, and very common when the majority of those in government are bought-and-paid-for (as evidence by the fact that 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more) come from only a very tiny, tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters).

David R. Remer wrote: It is time for all Americans to become conservative, as in conserving the meaning and intent of our U.S. Constitution: one law for all, equally applicable to all, regardless of station, wealth, or position. To tolerate this White House’s soiling and trampling upon OUR U.S. Constitution, for no other reason than to avoid the consequences of that law, and to tolerate this Congress’ dereliction of duty for political gains, is precisely how the powers of authoritarians are erected. This is precisely how names such as Stalin, Castro, Musharraf, and Bush become historical names of infamy.

Absolutely.

If we allow portions of the Constitution to be violated, what’s next?
What’s next are your individual rights?
Perhaps your property?
Perhaps your right to vote, or get an accurate vote-count?
Perhaps your right to Habeas Corpus?
Perhaps your right to amendments? (which has already been usurped)
Perhaps your right to not be spied on without civil oversight?
Perhaps your right to fair and honest taxation?
Perhaps your right to equal opportunity?
All of these are already being slowing chipped away at.
And we have only ourselves to thank for it.

David R. Remer wrote: We can revolt at the ballot box and through support of anti-incumbent organizations, or commit our children to having to die in revolution, fought in the streets and alleys of tomorrow in the name of liberty and freedom from authoritarian rule. It is up to us to rout these lawmakers who except themselves from our Constitution and laws emanating from it. Or bear, for all time, the guilt and responsibility our children shall surely lay at the foot of our graves.

Learn the smart, peaceful, responsible way, or learn the hard, painful way (again).

Look to see the economy be the first casualty, which will have widespread adverse affects on most Americans. The 30+ year disparity trend is real, and worsening.

“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” - George Santayana

Posted by: d.a.n at December 13, 2007 02:17 PM

Don Perkins wrote: All that you’ve said is true. So what will WE do? What will it take to challenge the status quo? March on Washington? Say when and I’ll be there!!!

Don, Education is part of the solution.

Help educate other that repeatedly rewarding corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates is one big step in the right direction.

Congress is FOR-SALE !

Rewarding it for it doesn’t make sense, does it?
Unfortunately, too many voters have misplaced loyalties for THEIR party, and excessively partisan politicians (Cheaters) are all to happy to capitalize on it and use it for their own nefarious purposes.

That is, loyalty and partisanship is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is misplaced, excessive, or blind loyalties, which most (if not all) corrupt politicians are all too happy to abuse.

For two years, no one has been able to name 10, 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, much less 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are not FOR-SALE, aren’t corrupt, aren’t irresponsible, don’t carry the water for their big-money donor puppeteers, aren’t selling American citizens out almost daily, don’t lie, don’t despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes, etc., etc., etc.

Yet, the two-party duopoly in Congress has enjoyed a seat-retention rate of 96.5% since year 1980. Therefore, it is no mystery at all why it is corrupt … especially when most voters reward them for it.

Loyal Opposition wrote: What nonsense.

Are you not aware that the Constitution is being voilated?

Or that George W. Bush (43) considers it “… It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” (source: Capitol Hill Blue)?

Do you not think the Supreme Law of the Land is not important?

Posted by: d.a.n at December 13, 2007 02:47 PM

CORRECTION (poorly worded): Help educate others that part of the problem is repeatedly rewarding corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 13, 2007 02:51 PM

Loyal Opposition wrote: What nonsense.

Are you not aware that the Constitution is being voilated?

Yes, I am acutely aware that the Constitution is being violated right and left. As with “campaign finance” restrictions which punish political speech and give the bulk of political influence to the media. Or with “hate crime” legislation, which seeks to police thoughts as well as actions. The list goes on.

But I’m also aware that there are (to mix some metaphors here) a lot of people running around like Chicken Littles with their heads-chopped off who blame (in extremely half-baked fashion) George Bush for violating the Constitution when and where no such violations exist.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 13, 2007 03:17 PM

30 to 40 percent of the voters would vote for Bush again if they could and if Jeb were to announce he was a candidate, he would get the Republican nomination.

While a majority of the people may be unhappy with their government and think that the government is not responsive to the will of the people. When the question arises of how the government should be responsive to the people, you will get about a hundred million different responses.

Ask a progressive liberal how the government should be responsive to the people.

Ask a libratarian conservative the same question.

Ask a middle of the road independent.

The name of the game is divide and conquer and you have been conquered.

Posted by: jlw at December 13, 2007 03:44 PM

Loyal Opposition: But I’m also aware that there are (to mix some metaphors here) a lot of people running around like Chicken Littles with their heads-chopped off who blame (in extremely half-baked fashion) George Bush for violating the Constitution when and where no such violations exist.

Such as:

• starting wars based on lies (not to mention the myriad of deadly blunders)?
• Complicity in violating Article V?
• Torture?
• Spying without civil oversight?
• Habeas Corpus (Article 6, 7, and 8)?
Just to name a few? Not to mention that George W. Bush (43) called the U.S. Constitution “… It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” (source: Capitol Hill Blue)?

“It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.” - Sandra Day O’Connor

Posted by: d.a.n at December 13, 2007 03:45 PM

Yes, Dan. Your list represents exactly the kind of baloney claims I’m referring to.

Not one thing on your list holds water. The worst of all, probably, being your complaint about Article V, which is Congress’s responsibility and not the President’s.

The rest of what you mention has to do with issues you obviously personally disagree with, but you also disagree with the courts and with Congress about them because not only have they NOT prevented the administration from doing any of these things (which Constitutionally they could if they wanted to), they have actually UPHELD these measures in findings from the bench and through Congressional acts.

So I’m sorry. YOU are the one seems to favor authoritarian power here. The authoritarian power to reject the power of the President, the Courts, and the Congress when they don’t interpret the Constitution according to your viewpoints.

But I’m sorry. The Constitution also provides them (Congress, the Presidents, and the courts) with the authority to decide what IS Constitutional. That was never an authority granted in the Constitution to liberal bloggers and other unelected complainers.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 13, 2007 03:57 PM

Loyal Opposition:
Yes, Dan. Your list represents exactly the kind of baloney claims I’m referring to.

The only baloney is the contortions, squirming, and twisting the facts to shift responsibility everywhere but where it truly lies.

Loyal Opposition: Not one thing on your list holds water.

They all hold water, which is why it is so upsetting.

They are all very applicable. So you don’t think lying is an impeachable crime? Especially lies use to start a pre-emptive war?

Loyal Opposition: The worst of all, probably, being your complaint about Article V, which is Congress’s responsibility and not the President’s.

Nonsense?

So, what is that oath the President, Vice President, Congress persons, and members of the Supreme Court all take to uphold and protect the Constitution all about?
It’s the duty of ALL branches to uphold the Constitution, which they all took an oath to uphold.
Didn’t you know that?

Loyal Opposition: The rest of what you mention has to do with issues you obviously personally disagree with,

Nonsense.

I didn’t write the Constitution.

Loyal Opposition: … but you also disagree with the courts and with Congress about them because not only have they NOT prevented the administration from doing any of these things (which Constitutionally they could if they wanted to), they have actually UPHELD these measures in findings from the bench and through Congressional acts.

False.

Please show the law, court ruling, or Supreme Court case that trumps the Constitution of the United States. Good luck.

Loyal Opposition: So I’m sorry. YOU are the one seems to favor authoritarian power here.

Nonsense.

Resorting to such nonsense is always a sure sign of a very weak (if not ridiculous) argument.

Loyal Opposition: The authoritarian power to reject the power of the President, the Courts, and the Congress when they don’t interpret the Constitution according to your viewpoints.

More nonsense.

You should read the Constitution and Supreme Court cases regarding the Constitution before making statements that have no merit or truth.

Loyal Opposition: But I’m sorry. The Constitution also provides them (Congress, the Presidents, and the courts) with the authority to decide what IS Constitutional. That was never an authority granted in the Constitution to liberal bloggers and other unelected complainers.

False.

They can not legally violate the Constitution.
No other laws or opinions trump the U.S. Constitution.
The government is legally bound to follow, and uphold it.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 13, 2007 04:19 PM

d.a.n, Loyal Opposition’s name reveals his/her position. S/He is loyal to Bush, ergo, there is nothing Bush can do that would justify in Loyal Opp’s comments Bush’s removal. Nothing. Loyalty is like that. As with the Loyalists of America’s first Revolution. There was nothing that King George could do to justify the Loyalists rejecting his rule, either. It is a prejudged position that will not be budged by fact, evidence, or demonstration.

A position held in place by cognitive dissonance. To accept that the leader one supported is not worthy, casts doubt on the judgment of the supporter for having supported them in the first place. A peculiar sense of integrity prevents the loyal from ever being disloyal, regardless what the object of their loyalty does.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 13, 2007 05:08 PM

Good point.

Loyalty and partisanship are not necessarily bad things, unless they are granted blindly without regard to reality or the worthiness of the recipient.

That’s when the contortions, squirming, and twisting begins, as the blind loyalist tries to fit real events into their perverted model.

And there are plenty of irresponsible incumbent politicians that are all too willing and skilled (masters, in fact) at abusing those loyalties for their own nefarious purposes.

A little skepticism and questioning the status quo is healthy. Even patriotic. Especially when there are so many glaring reasons for it (as noted in your Foot Notes): FootNotes:

• (1) ” No person in the custody or in the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by or listed in the United States Army Field Manual on intelligence interrogation”. — Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.


• (2) “If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include but are not limited to …’water boarding’…” —-US Army Field Manual


• (3)— U.S. conviction of Japanese Officer for waterboarding one of our citizens in 1947.
  —1992 Army Training Manual states “It is critical that the GC [Geneva Convention] provisions concerning protected persons be strictly adhered to in the quest to identify legitimate threats and gain intelligence.” The Geneva Convention states: “…prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation… ” [As a signer to the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. is legally bound by its signatory status signifying its laws and actions shall conform to this international agreement.]

Posted by: d.a.n at December 13, 2007 05:47 PM

I’d like to know what is on those destroyed tapes. We already know about the water-boarding. That makes me wonder if there wasn’t something worse than water-boarding on those tapes.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 13, 2007 05:55 PM

No amount of blind support for Bush could ever defend him as well as his opponents do. Bush becomes immunized from criticism when his critics demonstrate that they can’t be taken seriously.

Whenever you offer up knee-slapping howlers in a tone of grave seriousness, as if you believe you are actually making instead of muddling a point, then you are falling right into Bush’s lap. My reason for objecting to this is that I have a LOT of problems with Bush’s actions and want to preserve the possibility of actually attacking him on substantive issues. That is, without being associated with all the arguments against him that ARE and DESERVE TO BE be ignored and subjected to disdain.

D.A.N., you’re just not getting it. When the President does something and the courts and Congress uphold it, then it is BY DEFINITION Constitutional. That doesn’t mean it can’t be declared unconstitutional or modified down the road, but it does mean that the President of the United States is not going to get impeached for it because at the time he was acting under the law.

Your opinions about what SHOULD be legal are one thing—like anyone else, you have a right to your opinion. But your opinions about what is “Constitutional” are also that—just opinions. And they have very little weight when they contradict the findings of the courts, the laws passed by Congress, and the actions of the President. Because THAT is ALSO in the Constitution. The very stipulation that these people, our representatives, are the ones who INTERPRET the Constitution and thereby DECIDE what is and what isn’t “Constitutional.”

When the Supreme Court rules then something is Constitutional, then it IS. When you object and say that it is not… well, that is a blog entry.

David, you can attack the messenger all you want by dwelling on my screen name. That is, if you find it a convenient diversion from the facts. Such as the fact that you have quite absurdly blamed the White House for the CIA’s failure to live by rules written for the Army. And to live by them BEFORE they were even written.

You can just keep on saying that anyone who questions such a ridiculous argument is blinded by party loyalty. But that doesn’t change the ridiculousness of your argument. Attacking my screen name instead of defending your argument is very telling as to the merits of that argument.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 13, 2007 06:06 PM

Loyal Opposition: No amount of blind support for Bush could ever defend him as well as his opponents do. Bush becomes immunized from criticism when his critics demonstrate that they can’t be taken seriously.

Notice in the statement above that there are generalities only. While specific reasons a logic are provided by others, only conclusions are offered in this sentence. Also, it presumes that a majority of Americans can’t be taken seriously, since a majority of Americans give Bush some of the lowest approval ratings of any Presidents throughout history.

Loyal Opposition: Whenever you offer up knee-slapping howlers in a tone of grave seriousness, as if you believe you are actually making instead of muddling a point, then you are falling right into Bush’s lap.

Again, notice the attempt to subsitute silly back-woods proverbs for facts and evidence. Avoidance of the facts is the goal. It is easier to resort to circular logic than present facts and data to refute the points they find unsettling.

Loyal Opposition: My reason for objecting to this is that I have a LOT of problems with Bush’s actions and want to preserve the possibility of actually attacking him on substantive issues.

Fascinating. Really?

Yet the follow are not substantive:

• starting wars based on lies (not to mention the myriad of deadly blunders)?


• Complicity in violating Article V ?


• Torture?


• Spying without civil oversight?


• Habeas Corpus (Article 6, 7, and 8)?

Just to name a few?
Not to mention that George W. Bush (43) called the U.S. Constitution “… It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” (source: Capitol Hill Blue)?
Those are not substantive?
Hmmmmm, then what is?

Loyal Opposition: That is, without being associated with all the arguments against him that ARE and DESERVE TO BE be ignored and subjected to disdain.

Huh?

Loyal Opposition: D.A.N., you’re just not getting it.

Funny how some people’s conclusions of others in fact apply to themselves the most.

Loyal Opposition: When the President does something and the courts and Congress uphold it, then it is BY DEFINITION Constitutional.

False.

Just because a law is allowed to be broken does not mean it is Constitutional.
But I understand how that convoluted logic is necessary to fit reality into a perverted model of government that permits what ever one pleases.

Loyal Opposition: That doesn’t mean it can’t be declared unconstitutional or modified down the road, but it does mean that the President of the United States is not going to get impeached for it because at the time he was acting under the law.

Since when were lies not impeachable offenses?

Clinton was impeached for purgury for much less offenses.
Thus, your statement has no credibility at all.
Just because a president is not impeached, or no one seeks it, does not mean it is not deserved.

Loyal Opposition: Your opinions about what SHOULD be legal are one thing—like anyone else, you have a right to your opinion.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

It’s not about my opinion.
Laws have been violated.
Just because no one is held accountable does not change the fact that laws have been violated.
But I understand the motivation to turn it into a personal attack; a sure sign of a week and unsustainable argument.

Loyal Opposition: But your opinions about what is “Constitutional” are also that—just opinions.

Nonsense.

You should read the Constitution before makking statements that have no merit or truth.

Loyal Opposition: Because THAT is ALSO in the Constitution. The very stipulation that these people, our representatives, are the ones who INTERPRET the Constitution and thereby DECIDE what is and what isn’t “Constitutional.”

No doubt that some interpretation is required, but not when it is “plain and obvious”. Then the Constitution is being violated.

Loyal Opposition: When the Supreme Court rules then something is Constitutional, then it IS.

And where did the Supreme Court rule that Article V can be violated?

Loyal Opposition: When you object and say that it is not… well, that is a blog entry.

Nonsense.

Just because a law is being violated does not justify it, or make it legal. It merely means the law is being broken.

Loyal Opposition: You can just keep on saying that anyone who questions such a ridiculous argument is blinded by party loyalty.

OK. I will.

Thank you so much for permission to do so.
Especially when it is true.
Blind loyalties exist.
When someone is incapable of acknowledging reality, and blindly grants loyalty regardless of the recipient’s worthiness, it is blind loyalty.
It’s also are large part of the problem in this nation.
Many voters blindly pull the party-lever without even knowing the candidates on the ballot, which the two-party duopoly is all too willing to capitalize upon.

(1) Bush defended water-boarding.
(2) Water-boarding is torture.
(3) Torture is illegal.
(4) Not just by U.S. law, but by treaty (e.g. Geneva Convention)
(5) If the law is not being violated, where is the law that allows Bush to allow water-boarding?
(6) Just because the law is violated does not mean it is legal.
(7) However, this pales in comparison to the lies that led to the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of people.

(1) Article V is being violated.
(2) All branches of government (President, VP, Congress, and the Supreme Court) gave an oath to uphold the Constitution.
(3) All branches of government are violating Article V.
(4) All 535 Members of Congress explicitly signed their names to a law suit (Walker v. Members of Congress) to violate Article V.
(5) Since when did all 535 members of Congress (which isn’t only statistically strange) ever agree unanimously on anything ?
(6) If Article V is not being violated, where is the law, Supreme Court case, or Supreme Court statement that trumps Article V of the Constitution?
(7) Just because the law is violated does not mean it is legal.

That irony is, you are doing the very thing you accuse others of; offerring opinion only, but you have offered no laws, cases, or Supreme Court cases to support your opinions. Just rhetoric.

On the other hand, others have provided evidence, facts, articles, laws, the text of the Constitution, Supreme Court cases.

At any rate, if voters want more responsible and accountable government, it ain’t gonna happen by repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, corrupt, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians with 95% ot 99% re-election rates.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 13, 2007 06:59 PM

Loyal Opposition: What are the substantive issues you refer to when you speak of our country eventually challenging the Adminstration (possibly)? I would like to know because they do seem to somehow be able to get the Congress and the Courts to go along with whatever they do - no matter how incomprehensible to me… I do feel hopeless with what I know. I would like to hear more of what you dangled out there but didn’t say.
Thanks in advance
Christine

Posted by: Christine at December 13, 2007 11:52 PM

YES! It is time for a true “peaceful” revolution!

A good place to start would be the abolition of the electoral college. What’s become a “two-party” system would then fall by the wayside.

The so called parties are the only ones partying anyway. I’m sick of both parties.

GW is the worst POTUS EVER, but Pelosi is worse yet, and Reid may as well be in a coma for all the good he’s done.

Time to toss out the whole damn bunch PERIOD!

Posted by: KansasDem at December 13, 2007 11:59 PM

Why, exactly, would the two-party system fall by the wayside if the electoral college were abolished?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 14, 2007 12:49 AM

KansasDem wrote: Time to toss out the whole damn bunch PERIOD!

I agree, because I think rewarding them with 95% to 99% re-election rates for many decades (i.e. the two parties enjoy 96.5% seat retention rates since year 1980) is one of the reasons they have become so irresponsible. It’s like rewarding a child for bad behavior. It spoils them rotten. And D.C. is rotten to the core.

We can only hope enough voters also discover that in time. The sooner the better, because later translates to more pain and misery.
Enough voters will probably come to understand it eventually, when the economy becomes the first casualty of decades of malfeasance.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 14, 2007 12:50 AM

Loyal Opp, The management of the CIA is by the White House Administration. A fact you may wish to brush up on. Ergo, fault for CIA actions falls to the President. Remember Iran Contra, Bay of Pigs disaster, and now torture by the CIA all fall within the responsibility and direction of the POTUS. The CIA doesn’t make such breaches of law without approval and direction from the White House. No one there wants to guarantee their own firing that directly.

Your arguments reflect loyalty alright, the kind which will not budge in the face of fact, evidence, or any other kind of knowledge.

And please, quote me if I attacked the messenger. That is something that needs serious attention by the owner of WatchBlog and I will direct such evidence to him personally. You chose the handle, not me, and I simply commented on how it matches neatly with the gist of your comments. Whether your handle were Loyal Opposition or not, your comments certainly reflect Loyal opposition. Critiquing other’s comments and message is entirely fair game here.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 14, 2007 05:35 AM

Loyal Opp. said: “When the President does something and the courts and Congress uphold it, then it is BY DEFINITION Constitutional.”

Neither Congress nor the Courts have upheld Bush’s end run around the FISA law, that I am aware of. The S.Ct. has overturned a number of Bush’s actions and acts of illegitimate power; and if you cared, you would know this.

Congress never authorized torture and still doesn’t. And since the Geneva Conventions and the 1992 US Army Field Manual predate Bush’s presidency, he has indeed violated treaty, law, and regulations in publicly authorizing and defending that such constrictions do not apply to his prosecution of the war on terrorism.

The fact that Congress has not impeached, is not evidence that impeachable offenses have not occurred. It is only evidence of Congress’ refusal to act on these, for rather obvious political partisan reasons.

This comment is only sort of directed to you, as it seems clear your replies will attempt to deny the facts in defense of Bush. But, it is important that others not so ‘Loyal’ read the rebuttals to your erroneous defenses of Bush for the sake of clarity and understanding.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 14, 2007 05:50 AM

LO,

By your reasoning, Hitler was duly elected and fully justified in becoming the Fuhrer. Furthermore your logic leads us to the conclusion that Japan was justified in attacking Pearl Harbor and that Roosevelt therefore, was completely wrong about entering WWII.

Only a fool believes that Bush hasn’t usurped his powers beyond the Constitution. You rightly recognize Congress’ role in this as well.

While I don’t expect or encourage a revolution or mean to equate Bush with Hitler, your blind loyalty, as David points out, is the same asleep at the wheel, sheep herding mentality that the German and Japanese people engaged themselves in in the 30’s and 40’s. Wake UP!!!

Posted by: googlumpus at December 14, 2007 07:56 AM

‘sheep herding mentality’
Posted by: googlumpus at December 14, 2007 07:56 AM
-to anyone claiming this….

Seeing the ‘herd mentality’ when one can’t see the forest for the trees.
Why is it that those complaining about this don’t realize they are in the opposing herd?
Most ‘voters’ believe they are voting for the winning ‘team’.
Our TWO parties have this scam down pat.
If you are going to the polls to vote so your ‘team’ can win - you have a ‘herd mentality’.
Neither ‘team’ is really working for you - they are more interested in winning and will promise whatever you want to hear and claim they coudn’t get anything done because of the bad guys on the opposing team.
It’s the same game every couple years.
When will the majority of voters on BOTH sides ‘WAKE UP’?

Posted by: Marie at December 14, 2007 08:34 AM

Marie,

Thank you !
Thank you !
Thank you !

Isn’t it fascinating the way some incumbent politicians (i.e. those that love to fuel and seduce voters into the circular partisan-warfare) have such a large number of voters actually cheer-leading for them, throwing money at them, stumping for them, making excuses for them, and ultimately rewarding them with their votes ? And all the while, the nation’s problems continue to go ingored while Congress gives itself a raise almost every year (9 times between 1997 and 2007), while our troops go without armor, adequate medical care, and promised benefits (not to mention being sent to a war based on a complex web of lies and exaggerations).

It is refreshing and encouraging to see the growing number of people that understand that most (if not all) bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way, do-nothing, in-it-for-themselves, incumbent politicians are not working for the voters, but working for themselves, as evidenced by the nation’s ingored and worsening problems that are growing in number and severity, and threatening the future and security of the nation. The massive debt alone is threatening our childrens’ futures.

The severity of the problem can not be understated.

You are right, Marie …

Marie wrote:
When will the majority of voters on BOTH sides ‘WAKE UP’?

ANSWER: When not doing so becomes too painful.

The danger is that it comes too late.

The most dangerous part of this situation is a delayed-feedback problem. Most people learn from mistakes, but when the consequences are years away, the majority of voters fail to see the direct consequences of government malfeasance and the voters’ complacency, apathy, and disinterest (e.g. 40% to 50% of voters don’t bother to vote, and too many of those that do blindly pull the party-lever without even knowing the candidates on the ballot, much less those candidates voting records).

That is, due to the delayed feed-back problem, by the time the painful consequences of decades of corrupt government are finally crystal clear, and the painful consequences are felt by enough voters, the painful consequences have grown much more difficult to resolve. The longer these pressing problems are ignored, the more dangerous the situation becomes. We are not invincible, and education and history makes this clear. The first casualty of our fiscal and moral bankruptcy will be our economy, and recovery from recession (or depression) will become increasingly difficult as problems continue to go ingored by a corrupt, FOR-SALE, Do-Nothing Congress that is repeatedly rewarded for it with 95% to 99% re-election rates. Rewarding corruption will simply breed more of it, and history shows us this over and over.

Education is part of the solution. Otherwise …

“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” - George Santayana

Posted by: d.a.n at December 14, 2007 10:29 AM

d.a.n… let me start by saying I don’t disagree with you, for the most part… but, a point of clarification is needed because you bring up an argument that the left tends to lean on a little too heavily, and while I agree in a pragmatic way that the argument is valid, we also live in a system with the rule of law…

d.a.n. said:

Since when were lies not impeachable offenses?

Clinton was impeached for purgury for much less offenses.

Lies in and of themselves are probably not an impeachable offense. There are no laws on the books that says citizens (including the president) cannot simply lie.

Clinton was impeached for lying while under oath. I know it may seem a small point (especially to the left), and it was probably something about which he should have never been placed under oath, but the fact that it was under oath makes it clearly illegal.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at December 14, 2007 01:01 PM

and it was probably something about which he should have never been placed under oath

The irony is that he wouldn’t have been able to have been questioned about his past sexual history had he himself not signed into law the ability for prosecutors to ask those very questions in a sexual harassment case…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 14, 2007 01:15 PM

Rhinehold… I am unfamiliar with the law to which you refer, but yes… rather ironic!

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at December 14, 2007 02:01 PM

Doug Langworthy wrote: Clinton was impeached for lying while under oath. I know it may seem a small point.

Precisely.

That is why I wrote above in Comment #240688:

[Bill] Clinton was impeached for perjury for much less offenses.

Yes, lying is not always illegal, unless it is under oath, or fraud.

However, Bill Clinton’s lies pale in comparison to the complex web of lies and exaggerations used to start a pre-emptive war with Iraq (based on a myriad of lies by: George Bush (43), Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleza Rice, etc.). Lies that were contradicted many times. Lies were told (watch this video) and many numerous blunders and cover-ups followed that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands. It’s pretty damning when you see their statements back-to-back (see partial transcript below):

• Donald Rumsfeld stated: There are a lot of people that lie and get away with it.


• Donald Rumsfeld stated: We will in fact find, uh, weapons, or evidence of weapons programs that are, are conclusive.


• Donald Rumsfeld states: We know where they are. They’re around the area of Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, west, south, and north.


• Donald Rumsfeld stated: I don’t think we’ll discover anything, myself.


• Donald Rumsfeld stated: It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction.


• Reporter says to Donald Rumsfeld: You said you knew where they were. Donald Rumsfeld responds: I did not.


• Donald Rumsfeld stated: Well, first of all, I, I haven’t lied.


• Donald Rumsfeld stated: I don’t know of anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons.


• Dick Cheney stated: And we believe he has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.


• Colin Powell stated: Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb.


• George Bush (43) stated: We can not wait for the final proof.


• George Bush (43) stated: It could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.


• Donald Rumsfeld stated: Colin Powell did not lie.


• Colin Powell stated: My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources; solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.


• Colin Powell previously stated in February of 2001: He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capabilities with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.


• George Bush (43) stated: The [Saddam] regime is seeking a nuclear bomb.


• Dick Cheney stated: I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 911. Reporter states: You have said in the past that is quote “pretty well confirmed”. Dick Cheney responds: No, I never said that.


• Dick Cheney stated Dec, 1, 2001: “It’s been pretty well confirmed that he [Osama Bin Laden] did go to Prague and he did meet with, a, senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service.


• George Bush (43) stated in 28-Jan-2003: Saddam aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al-Qaeda.


• Reporter asks George Bush (43): [What did Iraq have to do] with the attack on the world trade center. George Bush (43) responed: Nothing.


• George Bush (43) stated: I, I don’t think we ever said, I least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September 11th and, and, and, and Saddam Hussien.


• Condoleza Rice stated: Of course, it was information that was mistaken.


• George Bush (43) later joked about it: Those weapons of mass destruction gotta be somewhere… Nope, no weapons over there… Maybe under here [his podium]?

Then, it appeared (based on the report about Iran) there may have been attempts to do the same thing with Iran (as happened in Iraq); beating the drums of war and talking about World War III? Yet, reports show that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons systems in year 2003?

With so many lies, and so many bludners, and so much incompetence, if Bush (and his administration) were telling the truth about something, who will believe them?

Posted by: d.a.n at December 14, 2007 02:27 PM

Marie,

I agree, and was not avering for either side, just bothered by LO’s apparent blindness.

In fact, I haven’t voted for an elected president, ever, if that tells you anything about my anti-herd mentality.

Posted by: googlumpus at December 14, 2007 03:57 PM

“Only a fool believes that Bush hasn’t usurped his powers beyond the Constitution”

Factual not opinionated proof, that would be upheld in a court of law, of this would be?

Posted by: kctim at December 14, 2007 04:26 PM

Congress (controlled by Dems) will not impeach. I have posted the reasons why here several times.

David,

Congressman Robert Wexler wrote an OP/ED to be published today regarding impeachment hearings of VP Cheney. No newspaper would publish the OP/ED. Is this the liberal media the right is always harping about?

A CASE FOR HEARINGS By Representatives and Members of the Judiciary Committee: Robert Wexler (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

On November 7, the House of Representatives voted to send a resolution of impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee. As Members of the House Judiciary Committee, we strongly believe these important hearings should begin.

The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

Now that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has indicated that the Vice President and his staff purposefully gave him false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent to report to the American people, it is even more important for Congress to investigate what may have been an intentional obstruction of justice. Congress should call Mr. McClellan to testify about what he described as being asked to “unknowingly [pass] along false information.” In addition, recent revelations have shown that the Administration including Vice President Cheney may have again manipulated and exaggerated evidence about weapons of mass destruction — this time about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Some of us were in Congress during the impeachment hearings of President Clinton. We spent a year and a half listening to testimony about President Clinton’s personal relations. This must not be the model for impeachment inquires. A Democratic Congress can show that it takes its constitutional authority seriously and hold a sober investigation, which will stand in stark contrast to the kangaroo court convened by Republicans for President Clinton. In fact, the worst legacy of the Clinton impeachment – where the GOP pursued trumped up and insignificant allegations - would be that it discourages future Congresses from examining credible and significant allegations of a constitutional nature when they arise.

The charges against Vice President Cheney are not personal. They go to the core of the actions of this Administration, and deserve consideration in a way the Clinton scandal never did. The American people understand this, and a majority support hearings according to a November 13 poll by the American Research Group. In fact, 70% of voters say that Vice President Cheney has abused his powers and 43% say that he should be removed from office right now. The American people understand the magnitude of what has been done and what is at stake if we fail to act. It is time for Congress to catch up.

Some people argue that the Judiciary Committee can not proceed with impeachment hearings because it would distract Congress from passing important legislative initiatives. We disagree. First, hearings need not tie up Congress for a year and shut down the nation. Second, hearings will not prevent Congress from completing its other business. These hearings involve the possible impeachment of the Vice President – not our commander in chief – and the resulting impact on the nation’s business and attention would be significantly less than the Clinton Presidential impeachment hearings. Also, despite the fact that President Bush has thwarted moderate Democratic policies that are supported by a vast majority of Americans — including children’s health care, stem cell research, and bringing our troops home from Iraq — the Democratic Congress has already managed to deliver a minimum wage hike, an energy bill to address the climate crisis and bring us closer to energy independence, assistance for college tuition, and other legislative successes. We can continue to deliver on more of our agenda in the coming year while simultaneously fulfilling our constitutional duty by investigating and publicly revealing whether or not Vice President Cheney has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

Holding hearings would put the evidence on the table, and the evidence – not politics – should determine the outcome. Even if the hearings do not lead to removal from office, putting these grievous abuses on the record is important for the sake of history. For an Administration that has consistently skirted the constitution and asserted that it is above the law, it is imperative for Congress to make clear that we do not accept this dangerous precedent. Our Founding Fathers provided Congress the power of impeachment for just this reason, and we must now at least consider using it.

For more info on this campaign go to www.WexlerWantsHearings.com

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at December 14, 2007 04:37 PM

Dr. Gnostic, thanks for the Wexler op/ed. Politics trumps Constitution, law, and the general welfare of the nation, yet again. It is why a ballot box revolution is absolutely necessary.

History demonstrates that violent revolutions and civil wars generally do not occur unless and until approximately half of the 20 to 25 year old males of the society are unemployed and see no hope of becoming adequately employed.

That is where we are headed if our Congress and White House cannot effectively address and resolve the looming entitlement crisis, good paying job losses to overseas nations, dramatic improvement in education, and appropriate fiscal management which both meets young workers expectations and ends this unprecedented growth in the national debt.

It is a tall order: one the current lot of politicians has proven it is unwilling to deal with out of fear of the political consequences for their party and personal re-electability. Which puts the ball directly in the voter’s court to hit or miss. They can vote for party and incumbents, or they can vote for results. The former is the road to ruin, the latter the road to hope.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 14, 2007 05:06 PM

“Why, exactly, would the two-party system fall by the wayside if the electoral college were abolished?”

Rhinehold,

I believe the average American voter would feel more empowered …… I certainly would. Just consider that while Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992 he garnered a whopping 0% of the electoral vote.

OTOH where members of the House and Senate are elected by popular vote you do actually see the occasional indy win a seat. Look at Lieberman. (Poor example …….. I know)

Of course abolishing the electoral college is only a start. A nationwide “super-primary” would, I believe, also further empower the individual voter. And I think you’d see many more voters actually turn out at the polls on election day.

Posted by: KansasDem at December 14, 2007 05:10 PM

Googlumpus, this isn’t about “defending” Bush or even saying that Bush is right. It’s about having some minimal balance and perspective to a viewpoint.

I strongly disagree with Bush on immigration, healthcare, education, and much of what has gone on in Iraq. But calls for “revolution” and “impeachment” are not, in my opinion, reasonable viewpoints. This practice of dragging in comparisons to Hitler and saying that anybody who doesn’t favor impeachment or revolution is a “blind follower” is just silly. One can be 100% against Bush without adopting such extremist viewpoints.

When it comes to the Constitution, I have a number of beliefs about how it should be interpreted. But I’m no so arrogant as to believe that when others interpret it differently (especially when the courts and legislatures do not agree with my opinion) that they are breaking the law and in need of punishment.

If the Supreme Court were to rule tomorrow that smoking marijuana is protected by a Constitutional right to privacy, would that mean that every judge, mayor, president, police officer, or representative who had previously voted against or enforced drug laws is a criminal who now needs to be removed from office and possibly tossed in jail themselves? Absolutely not.

There are many who disagree with Bush’s interpretations of his Constitutional duties. Fine. In some of these cases, however, the courts and Congress have actually supported these Bush policies. In a few cases, they have not—and when that has happened, they have been able to CHANGE Bush’s policies by exercising their own powers. That is how it’s supposed to work. And in fact, how it has worked.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 14, 2007 05:13 PM

That is how it’s supposed to work. And in fact, how it has worked.

Just because some in any branch of government violate the Constitution, that does not make it legal.

Your argument is basically that because a law is allowed to be violated, it is OK ?

You talk about Supreme Court rulings. Where are they?
How about Article V ?
Please show us the law, Supreme Court case, or Supreme Court Statement trumps Article V ?
Again, you are not providing one shred of evidence to back up your conclusions. Just rhetoric and unsubstantiated conclusions.

Don’t you find it strange that Congress is VERY silent on Article V ? What it states in one small paragrah is pretty damn simple and clear.

And that is not the only violation.
We also have abuse of eminent domain laws.
Where is the law that permits torture?
Where is the law that trumps the Geneva Convention Treaty?
Where is the law that allows Cheney and the Bush administration to (out of spite) out CIA agents?
Didn’t Bush say the persons responsible for that would be held accountable?
But Bush then pardoned Libby for doing it.
How about starting a war based on lies and exaggerations?
How about persisting in the lies and saying “we found the Weapons of Mass Destruction”?
So, commiting perjury about an affair will get a president impeached, but lying about WMD and starting a pre-emptive war resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of people is OK?

Ask you Congress persons almost anything, and you’ll likely get a response. Ask they why Congress has not obeyed Article V, and observe the silence.

Don’t you find it strange that ALL 535 members of Congress are 100% unanimous in violating Article V ? That’s because they all gave their signatures to a law suit (Walker v. Members of Congress) to actively violate Article V.

Clinton was impeached for perjury, which pales in comparison to the lies and exaggerations from this administration.

There are many who disagree with Bush’s interpretations of his Constitutional duties.

Damn right. And with good cause. Unfortunately, most (if not all) in Congress are too gutless, FOR-SALE, and distracted with self-interest and self-gain to give a $#!+. And the voters can expect it to get worse, and the economy to get worse, if they continue to blindly reward irresponsible, FOR-SALE, corrupt politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates.

You may think it is business as usual, but there are many Americans that strongly disagree with you. Have you not noticed the record low approval ratings for Bush and Congress (as low as 11%) ?

Cheney outed Plame. That’s a definite violation of the law. Libby lied about it, and Bush promplty gave him a pardon. The entire administration wreaks of corruption, cronyism, graft, lies, abuse of the Presidential pardon, and fear mongering (such as the statements of World War 3 and Iran, when Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003).

Did you watch that video?
All of those lies, all strung back-to-back, are pretty damning. You don’t see a problem with that? No WMD? And the myriad of blunders that followed?

OK, you say you don’t like Bush either? Then why defend him, and his administration?
And please provide evidence (good luck) that Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch can legally violate Article V. If you can, you will have done what no one else has yet. Just because a law is violated, doesn’t mean it is OK. Just because the gutless, do-nothing Congress won’t seek accountability, doesn’t mean it is acceptable.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 14, 2007 06:23 PM

D.A.N., the choice is not between approving of Bush or his policies and condemning him as a criminal.

This is a principle that is true not only of politics but of all human interactions. When two people disagree about something like a fact, a Constitutional issue, or a matter of public policy, one side (even if that side is in error) is not necessarily “corrupt” or deserving of punishment. You seem to want to make it illegal for anybody to not share your opinions.

And please provide evidence (good luck) that Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch can legally violate Article V.

Since the Executive Branch has NO role in Article V and that is entirely the responsibility of Congress and the State Legislators, it makes no sense whatsoever to blame Bush for anything having to with Article V or listing that among your complaints against Bush. You’re just firing in all directions here—and firing blanks to boot.

Cheney outed Plame. That’s a definite violation of the law. Libby lied about it, and Bush promplty gave him a pardon.

Again, you’re just firing blanks. A definite violation of the law? Not according to the legal investigation into just this matter. What do you mean by “law”—your opinion? There’s no evidence that Cheney “outed Plame,” and as you well know (or should know) Libby was NOT convicted for outing anybody. I can understand you taking a position (if that is your position) that the legal system didn’t find justice in this case, but the result IS the result of legal proceedings. You don’t have to agree with the result, but that is the result.

Eminent domain? I don’t like the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision either, but again, why is such a matter on your laundry list of complaints about
the administration? What do you expect Bush to do about it? Sack the Supreme Court like Musharaff did in Pakistan?

When you talk about “lies” regarding Iraq, you’re once again presenting a simplistic formula: either something is the truth or it is a lie. But it’s just not that simple. Not every error is a “lie” or an attempt to deceive. During WWII, we sped up our nuclear weapons program because we believed Germany was close to acquiring nuclear weapons. This turned out to be false, but it doesn’t mean that Roosevelt was a “liar.” The reason Bush will never be held to account for this “lie” (beyond the political damage done to him personally as a result) is that if he lied, then so did a great majority of those who would actually be trying him in impeachment proceedings. We’re simply not going to see a spectacle like that—Bush being brought up on articles of impeachment by people with lengthy records of saying all of the same things he did.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 14, 2007 07:45 PM

Loyal Opposition: D.A.N., the choice is not between approving of Bush or his policies and condemning him as a criminal.

False.

The issue is not a mere disagreement about policies.
The issue is violating the law.
Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and he is violating it in more way than one.

Loyal Opposition: This is a principle that is true not only of politics but of all human interactions. When two people disagree about something like a fact, a Constitutional issue, or a matter of public policy, one side (even if that side is in error) is not necessarily “corrupt” or deserving of punishment.

Again, we are not talking about a different interpretation of the laws or the U.S. Constitution. We are talking about laws that have been clearly and definitively violated. Torture, wire-tapping without civil over-sight, outing Plame (a CIA agent), and Article V are all very good examples of laws that were not merely misinterpreted, but blatantly violated. There’s a difference.

Loyal Opposition: You seem to want to make it illegal for anybody to not share your opinions.

Nonsense.

It is not about my opinion, despite the attempts to turn it into a personal issue.
It is about laws that have clearly and blatantly been violated.
If not, please show us the laws, Supreme Court cases, or Supreme Court cases to support your weak (actually ridiculous) arguments that it is OK to violate these laws and that it is all a matter of interpretation.

Loyal Opposition: Since the Executive Branch has NO role in Article V and that is entirely the responsibility of Congress and the State Legislators,

False.

The President, Vice President, all Members of Congress, and all members of the Supreme Court all take an oath to uphold the Constitution.
ALL of them.
To violate that oath is a felony.
So, where is the law, Supreme Court statements, or Supreme Court case(s) that trump the U.S. Constitution?
Proof please?

Loyal Opposition: … it makes no sense whatsoever to blame Bush for anything having to with Article V

Sure it does.

What is that oath to protect the U.S. Constitution all about?
Just for fun?
Read the Constitution, and the laws regarding violations of the U.S. Constitution.
It applies to the President of the United States too.
The President does not have immunity or free reign to violate the U.S. Constitution.
Violating the Constitution is not a small or trivial matter.

• Executive Order 10450:


• In order to instruct investigating federal officials such as the FBI as to what is a violation of the oath of office under 5 U.S.C. 3331 and 5 U.S.C. 7311, Executive Order 10450 was issued to serve as a guideline for determining what actions constituted a criminal violation of the oath of office by federal officials. The order affirms thelaw of 5 U.S.C. 7311 that is a criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. 1918 for a member of the government, which includes members of Congress, to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.”


• Executive Order 10450 states (in part): “Whereas the interest of the national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in…the Government shall be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States… it is hereby ordered as follows:


• (a) The investigations conducted pursuant to this order shall be designed to develop information as to whether the employment or retention in employment…of the person being investigated is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security. Such information shall relate, but shall not be limited, to the following:
  
• (4) Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States, or of the alteration of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional

Loyal Opposition: … or listing that among your complaints against Bush. You’re just firing in all directions here—and firing blanks to boot. Again, you’re just firing blanks.

Not true. If they are all blanks, then why get upset about it?

No, those are all solid issues (i.e. torture, Article V, spying without civil oversight, lies to start a war, abused Presidential pardons, etc.). Only one is needed.

Loyal Opposition: A definite violation of the law? Not according to the legal investigation into just this matter.

False.

What investigation?
One of the Supreme Court rulings that over-turned Bush’s illegal wire-tapping without civil over-sight?
Many laws are violated, and many law breakers are never prosecuted.
That does not justfify it or mean it was legal (much less moral and just).
Just because the law is violated, and no one is (yet) held accountable, does not mean a law was not violated. There’s a difference.

Loyal Opposition: What do you mean by “law”—your opinion? There’s no evidence that Cheney “outed Plame,” and as you well know (or should know) Libby was NOT convicted for outing anybody.

Excuse me. CORRECTION: Libby’s sentence was commuted by G.W. Bush (43), and Libby (former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney) was indicted and convicted of perjury.

As for Cheney, it is Libby himself who said Vice President Dick Cheney directed him (Lewis “Scooter” Libby), on July 12, 2003 to leak to the media portions of a then-highly classified CIA report that Cheney hoped would undermine the credibility of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, a critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. This is according to Libby’s grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case and sources who have read the classified report.

As for G.W. Bush commutating Libby’s sentence, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll taken in March asked if Bush should pardon Libby. 69% said NO. 18% said YES.
It is somewhat interesting that Bush did not give Libby an outright pardon.
Fortunately, most Americans see that whole thing for what it is. Corruption, cronyism, and violations of the law (despite the President’s power to abuse the Presidential pardon).

Loyal Opposition: I can understand you taking a position (if that is your position) that the legal system didn’t find justice in this case, but the result IS the result of legal proceedings.

True. Libby was convicted, and Bush (43) has the power to abuse the Presidential pardon. A privilege that perhaps needs an amendment to remove?

Loyal Opposition: You don’t have to agree with the result, but that is the result.

I do agree with Libby’s conviction. And, so did the jury, obviously.

I do not agree (though legal) with Bush’s abuse of the Presidential pardon powers to commute Libby’s sentence.
It doesn’t surprise me.
Clinton pardoned 546 felons (140 on his last day in office; including Dan Rostenkowski who even pleaded guilty).
But the law is the law, until it is changed.

Therefore, why is Article V being violated?
Why are laws against torture being violated?

Loyal Opposition: Eminent domain? I don’t like the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision either, but again, why is such a matter on your laundry list of complaints about the administration? What do you expect Bush to do about it?

We should expect all branches of the government to honor their oaths to uphold and enforce the laws of the U.S. Constitution.

Loyal Opposition: When you talk about “lies” regarding Iraq, you’re once again presenting a simplistic formula: either something is the truth or it is a lie.

Did you not watch the video? Or see the transcript?

We’ve all seen the lies.
It’s not just a mere matter of an “error”.
But the attempt to portray blatant and repeated “lies” as mere “errors” doesn’t surprise me at all.

Loyal Opposition: But it’s just not that simple.

Of course it is. That is, unless it upsets the loyalists viewpoint, in which all sorts of rationalizations and excuses are required to rewrite history.

Loyal Opposition: Not every error is a “lie” or an attempt to deceive.

True.

But that’s not the case here. Lies were told repeatedly, and some lies still persist. And how about those World War III comments about Iran?
Also, there is little doubt that Bush is well versed on the Article V subject.
It’s a touchy subject, and that is why there is such a strange silence about it from all three branches of the government.
They know damn well they are violating the U.S. Constitution.

Loyal Opposition: During WWII, we sped up our nuclear weapons program because we believed Germany was close to acquiring nuclear weapons. This turned out to be false, but it doesn’t mean that Roosevelt was a “liar.”

Non-sequitur.

We were already at war with Germany, who attacked us, who declared war (along with Japan) against the U.S., was sinking our ships, sinking our allies’ ships, and attacking England, France, Poland, and other countries in Europe.

Therefore, your example is nonsensical.
But, again, I understand the deep rooted desires of blind loyalists to reshape and rewrite history to fit everything into the loyalists’ version of reality.

Loyal Opposition: The reason Bush will never be held to account for this “lie” …

Interesting? Are you now agreeing there was one “lie” (or more)?

Loyal Opposition: The reason Bush will never be held to account for this “lie” (beyond the political damage done to him personally as a result) is that if he lied, then so did a great majority of those who would actually be trying him in impeachment proceedings.

Now that is probably the smartest thing you wrote in this entire thread.

Loyal Opposition: We’re simply not going to see a spectacle like that—Bush being brought up on articles of impeachment by people with lengthy records of saying all of the same things he did.

Maybe not.

But, it in no way means that impeachment is not well deserved.

In closing, take a look at Article V. See if you can determine how Congress can legally refuse to obey it.

At any rate, if Americans want government that is more responsible and accountable, it ain’t gonna happen by repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way, do-nothing incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 14, 2007 09:39 PM

D.A.N., your arguments are surreal. If I actually was interested in offering a blanket defense of Bush and discrediting his detractors, I think I would make this last post of yours Exhibit A.

Again, we are not talking about a different interpretation of the laws or the U.S. Constitution. We are talking about laws that have been clearly and definitively violated. Torture, wire-tapping without civil over-sight, outing Plame (a CIA agent), and Article V are all very good examples of laws that were not merely misinterpreted, but blatantly violated.

I’ll start with the easiest one, this Article V question. You wrote:

Also, there is little doubt that Bush is well versed on the Article V subject. It’s a touchy subject, and that is why there is such a strange silence about it from all three branches of the government.They know damn well they are violating the U.S. Constitution.

George Bush has no more power to either begin or prevent an Article V Convention than he has the power to make or prevent the sun from coming up in the morning. Whatever the merits of this Article V question, it is utterly ABSURD to lay it at the feet of Bush because he is “well versed” on it. Are you well-versed on it too? Then blame yourself, because you have just as much authority in the matter as Bush does.

This “outing” of Plame nonsense is truly wearying. We know exactly who “outed” her—Armitage at the State Department. I’m truly sorry if this doesn’t fit with the narrative you’d like to spin about laws that have “clearly” and “blatantly” been violated by the Bush administration, but the KNOWN facts at the very least do not square with what you call “clear” and “blatant” and “definite.” You can choose to cling to an imaginary set of facts and conspiracy theories if that’s what you find convenient—hell, you can also say that the moon landing was staged if you want to. I don’t know how to convince you otherwise. I realize that there’s a willing and receptive audience for such stuff among many (and many who post here) but you’ll wait a very long time for a majority of the others to succumb to the same baseless viewpoints and begin demanding impeachment and criminal proceedings. Actually, there have ALREADY been criminal proceedings, and we all know where those led—to nobody being accused of “outing.”

Lies? Frankly, I’m somewhat closer to your views on this one in that I think Bush, like most of the rest of the world, selectively believed what they wanted to believe out of an excess of caution when it came to somebody who had actually used WMD before and who had been found in material breech by the UN of an inspections regime. But even if something is not true and someone believes it, that’s a far cry from proving that there were “lies.” If Bush lied, then so did a whole lot of Democrats, foreign intelligence services, and Iraqis themselves.

It is totally impossible to prove that a mistake constitutes a lie. For example: while I believe you are completely mistaken about blaming Bush over Article V, I simply think you are mistaken. I am not going to say that you are “lying” simply because you are obviously wrong.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 14, 2007 10:42 PM

Loyal Opposition: D.A.N., your arguments are surreal.

Nonsense.

Loyal Opposition: If I actually was interested in offering a blanket defense of Bush and discrediting his detractors, I think I would make this last post of yours Exhibit A.

Then why continue to do it?

There have been violations by Bush and his adminstration.
Just becasue they haven’t been held accountable doesn’t prove violations haven’t occurred.
You have already admitted as much and the reason being: many in Congress are culpable too.

Loyal Opposition: I’ll start with the easiest one, this Article V question… .

George Bush has no more power to either begin or prevent an Article V Convention … Wrong.

So, if Congress were to tell Bush he can not bear arms (a Constitutional right), he would be powerless to do anything about it?
So, if Congress were to tell Bush he can not go to a Christian church (another Constitutional right), he would be powerless to do anything about it?
So, if Congress were to tell Bush the Congress is willingly violating Article V, he would be powerless to do anything about it?
Wrong. At the very least, he can inform the people.
The problem here is that NO branch of government wants to obey Article V, because they all have an obvious conflict of interest.

Also, remember that little thing called an oath to uphold the Constitution.
That does not mean they can simply ignore any Constitutional violations.
The President, of all, has the highest and most important responsibility to live up to that oath.
He could at the very least mention it. But that won’t happen, because he is complicit in violating Article V with all three branches of government.
You will probably be hearing more about this later.
Again, don’t you think it is statistically strange that ALL 535 members of Congress are silent on Article V?
Part of the reason for it is because they all know they are violating it, and Bush is complicit in violating Article V.

Loyal Opposition: Whatever the merits of this Article V question, it is utterly ABSURD to lay it at the feet of Bush because he is “well versed” on it.

Do you even know what it is about?

Perhaps you should read it?

Loyal Opposition: Are you well-versed on it too?

I am now.

Loyal Opposition: Then blame yourself, because you have just as much authority in the matter as Bush does.

I do blame myself to some degree for not knowing about its violation much sooner.

But it is all three branches of government that are now actively and intentionally violating it.
Still, citizens are responsible for protecting the Constitution too.
And it is being violated today in more than one way (e.g. torture, Article V, spying without civil oversight, Article 6,7,&8, etc.).

Loyal Opposition: This “outing” of Plame nonsense is truly wearying. We know exactly who “outed” her—Armitage at the State Department.

OK. Maybe. But Libby was convicted of perjury. And it was Libby himself who said Vice President Dick Cheney directed him (Lewis “Scooter” Libby), on July 12, 2003 to leak to the media portions of a then-highly classified CIA report that Cheney hoped would undermine the credibility of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, a critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. This is according to Libby’s grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case and sources who have read the classified report. Regardless of exactly who in the administration commited crimes, crimes were committed. But that’s a crime. Not necessarily a Constitutional violation, as with Article V.

Loyal Opposition: I’m truly sorry if this doesn’t fit with the narrative you’d like to spin about laws that have “clearly” and “blatantly” been violated by the Bush administration, but the KNOWN facts at the very least do not square with what you call “clear” and “blatant” and “definite.”

The only spin is here is ignoring the violation of Article V, and other crimes, and making excuses for all of them.

Loyal Opposition: You can choose to cling to an imaginary set of facts and conspiracy theories if that’s what you find convenient—hell, you can also say that the moon landing was staged if you want to.

Resorting to personal attacks is always a sure sign of a weak argument, and you still have provided no evidence to refute that laws have been broken and the Constitution has been violated (specifically, Article V).

Loyal Opposition: I don’t know how to convince you otherwise. I realize that there’s a willing and receptive audience for such stuff among many (and many who post here) but you’ll wait a very long time for a majority of the others to succumb to the same baseless viewpoints and begin demanding impeachment and criminal proceedings. Actually, there have ALREADY been criminal proceedings, and we all know where those led—to nobody being accused of “outing.”

Plame was outed.

Bush said the culprits would be held accountable.
Were they?

Loyal Opposition: Lies? Frankly, I’m somewhat closer to your views on this one in that I think Bush, like most of the rest of the world, selectively believed what they wanted to believe out of an excess of caution when it came to somebody who had actually used WMD before and who had been found in material breech by the UN of an inspections regime.

Sounds like more excuses for a complex web of lies. Not a mere “error”.

Loyal Opposition: But even if something is not true and someone believes it, that’s a far cry from proving that there were “lies.”

Sounds like more excuses for a complex web of lies.

Loyal Opposition: If Bush lied, then so did a whole lot of Democrats, foreign intelligence services, and Iraqis themselves.

True with regard to Democrat and Republican politicians. I am not speaking for the Iraqis or any foreign intelligence, but I do recall most of them saying Iraq did NOT have WMD, and when that was discoverd to be true, Bush and his administration looked more than a little foolish. Especially since tens of thousands of people are now dead as a result of it.

Loyal Opposition: It is totally impossible to prove that a mistake constitutes a lie.

Nonsense.

If it was a mistake, that would be one thing.
But there was a pattern of behavior, a long history of lies, followed by a long list of blunders.
And what about Article V?
Are you saying they don’t know about it?
Playing dumb doesn’t cut it.

Loyal Opposition: For example: while I believe you are completely mistaken about blaming Bush over Article V, I simply think you are mistaken.

Think? But you follow it with “obviously” ?

Loyal Opposition: I am not going to say that you are “lying” simply because you are obviously wrong.

Obviously wrong?

Prove it.
Rhetoric and opinion isn’t proof.
Show us the law, Supreme Court statements, ruling, or case that trumps the U.S. Constitution?

We are all somewhat responsible for out Constitution.
But especially the President, Vice President, members of the Excecutive Branch, Congress, and the Supreme Court all take oaths to uphold the Constitution.
To knowingly allow the Constitution to be violated is a violation of their oath.
Especially when many are pressing them on it and they are strangely quiet about it.
They won’t be able to avoid it forever.
And all three branches are knowingly violating the Constitution.
Perhaps you should research it before tell others they are “obviously wrong”.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 15, 2007 12:47 AM

To go beyond the fact that the president has no role in Article V, you realize, don’t you, that this Article V “controversy” is based on an absolutely ridiculous reading of the Constitution and deserves only be laughed at? You should look into it—you’ll be shocked at what these people actually believe.

Article V reads:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…

Those who want to make this an issue go all the way back to the 1700s and try to claim that since at one time or another, all the state legislatures have called for an Article V convention, that it doesn’t matter if there has NEVER been two thirds calling for one at the same time.

The word “whenever” in Article V is pretty clear. It means at a specific point in time. The black helicopter Article V conspiracy people like to tell us that “whenever” means a total sum over the history of the United States.

But these folks probably also think that they can claim a lottery jackpot if they show up with five different tickets that have all the right numbers on them. Totally silly.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 15, 2007 01:28 AM

Loyal Opp, your interpretation flunks basic reading skills. ‘Whenever’, refers to the U.S. Congress qualification. Note the ‘, or,’ separating that path to a convention from the application of the State legislatures, which stipulates no time frame whatsoever.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 15, 2007 03:38 AM

Loyal Opposition: To go beyond the fact that the president has no role in Article V, …

No?

Then why do they take an oath to uphold the Constitution?
Thus, that comment has no credibility.

Loyal Opposition: … you realize, don’t you, that this Article V “controversy” is based on an absolutely ridiculous reading of the Constitution and deserves only be laughed at?

What is laughable is watching someone come up with new definitions for words and claim the President of the U.S. has no role in upholding the U.S. Constitution.

The Article V “controversy” is not complicated.
Article V is simply not being obeyed?

Yet, you consider a violation of the Constitution “absolutely ridiculous”?
But then, what is to be expected from any person(s) who support and defend a President that says the U.S. Constitution: “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” — George W. Bush (42) (source: Capitol Hill Blue) ?

Loyal Opposition: You should look into it—you’ll be shocked at what these people actually believe.

I have. It’s not complicated, despite the typical and clever attempts to cloud the issue, obscure the facts, and twist reality to fit into a viewpoint that is anything but reality.

Loyal Opposition:

• Article V reads: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…

So, you’ve finally read it, eh?

However, reading comprehension and vocabulary is not your strong suit is it?

Loyal Opposition:
Those who want to make this an issue go all the way back to the 1700s and try to claim that since at one time or another, all the state legislatures have called for an Article V convention, that it doesn’t matter if there has NEVER been two thirds calling for one at the same time.

Obviously, you do not understand the simple meaning of the word: “whenever”.

Where are these time limits you allude to?
Since when did “whenver” mean “same time”?
Please read the meaning of “whenever” in the dictionary.
Whenever does not mean “comtemporaneously” or “simultaneously”?
Besides, expecting all of the states to do anything simultaneously is what is truly ridiculous.
Are you aware that it took 203 years before the 27th Amendment was ratified?
Many amendments took many years to be ratified.
But, if that is not enough to convince you, then please read the following Supreme Court rulings and statements, several of which are very specific with regard to Article V:

United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true. It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them.”

Thus, again, your excuses and circular rationalizations have no credibility.

Loyal Opposition: The word “whenever” in Article V is pretty clear. It means at a specific point in time.

The word “whenever” means:

• (1) At whatever time.
• (2)When.

So, having demonstrated a complete lack of credibility on other topics, you are now going to twist the meaning of the word “whenever” too?

Loyal Opposition: The black helicopter Article V conspiracy people like to tell us that “whenever” means a total sum over the history of the United States.

False.

“whenever” means “when” (see definition above) two thirds of the states have submitted amendments applications.

The definition of “whenever” is not my interpretation.
The meaning of “whenever” does not require any interpretation or any reconstruction.
Courts have often, over time, established general rules of “legal construction” or interpretation when reviewing legal documents.
When ambiguities exist, the general rules of the Supreme Court are to interpret the language literally without construction.
To interpret “whenever” as “whenever contemporaneously” requires construction; it requires new words that completely and drastically change the meaning of the word “whenever”.

Such construction goes against the many Supreme Court statements below about interpretation, and it goes against the general rules of the court of “legal construction” or interpretation when reviewing legal documents.

The Supreme Court has already (many times) dealt with cases in interpreting the Constitution (including Article V) and its provisions:

• #01 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.”


• #02 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Words of [the] Constitution are to be taken in natural and obvious sen