Ye Olde Constitution
Don't be too quick to pooh-pooh Alan Uthman's contention that we're on the road to totalitarianism. As the subhead says, "From secret detention centers to warrantless wiretapping, Bush and Co. give free rein to their totalitarian impulses." Here are a couple points from his piece:
5. Touchscreen Voting MachinesDespite clear, copious evidence that these nefarious contraptions are built to be tampered with, they continue to spread and dominate the voting landscape, thanks to Bush's "Help America Vote Act," the exploitation of corrupt elections officials, and the general public's enduring cluelessness.
In Utah, Emery County Elections Director Bruce Funk witnessed security testing by an outside firm on Diebold voting machines which showed them to be a security risk. But his warnings fell on deaf ears. Instead Diebold attorneys were flown to Emery County on the governor's airplane to squelch the story. Funk was fired. In Florida, Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho discovered an alarming security flaw in their Diebold system at the end of last year. Rather than fix the flaw, Diebold refused to fulfill its contract. Both of the other two touchscreen voting machine vendors, Sequoia and ES&S, now refuse to do business with Sancho, who is required by HAVA to implement a touchscreen system and will be sued by his own state if he doesn't. Diebold is said to be pressuring for Sancho's ouster before it will resume servicing the county.
Stories like these and much worse abound, and yet TV news outlets have done less coverage of the new era of elections fraud than even 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is possibly the most important story of this century, but nobody seems to give a damn. As long as this issue is ignored, real American democracy will remain an illusion. The midterm elections will be an interesting test of the public's continuing gullibility about voting integrity, especially if the Democrats don't win substantial gains, as they almost surely will if everything is kosher.
Bush just suggested that his brother Jeb would make a good president. We really need to fix this problem soon.
6. Signing Statements
Bush has famously never vetoed a bill. This is because he prefers to simply nullify laws he doesn't like with "signing statements." Bush has issued over 700 such statements, twice as many as all previous presidents combined. A few examples of recently passed laws and their corresponding dismissals, courtesy of the Boston Globe:
--Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
--Dec. 30, 2005: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
--Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Essentially, this administration is bypassing the judiciary and deciding for itself whether laws are constitutional or not. Somehow, I don't see the new Supreme Court lineup having much of a problem with that, though. So no matter what laws congress passes, Bush will simply choose to ignore the ones he doesn't care for. It's much quieter than a veto, and can't be overridden by a two-thirds majority. It's also totally absurd.
Here's more on signing statements from this Charlie Savage Boston Globe article.
Despite legal scholars' skepticism about the expansive theory of presidential power Cheney has long promoted, Bush's legal team has used the theory to target every law that regulates the military or the executive branch.Kmiec, one of the only scholars who has testified that Bush might have the authority to set aside the warrant law, said he thinks the administration's use of signing statements has gone too far, needlessly antagonizing Congress. Arlen Specter , Republican of Pennsylvania and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, recently announced hearings into the matter.
``The president is not well served by the lawyers who have been advising him," said Kmiec.
Well, it looks like I have a hefty slice of Humble Pie to eat regarding this "signing statement" outrage.
My beloved husband and I were at a dinner party last night when this subject came up. DeWitt (the beloved) was spoke of the egregious nature of Cheney et al, Our Puppet President, and these "signing statements" ; I didn't believe they could be real and said as much. I even mildly accused him of subscribing to a conspiracy theory and chided him for it.
Good Lord.
How can this possibly pass constitutional muster? Where's the hue and cry from the House of Representatives and the Democratic Senators?
Regarding that "outrage" I mentioned a bit earlier: can I get back to you on that? I don't have the time to be outraged right now-- I've got work to do so I can pay my medical bills.
Deirdre B. at May 29, 2006 1:12 PM
Dang-- missed the incomplete change of usage above.
The line should read:
"DeWitt (the beloved) spoke of the egregious nature...."
deirdre B. at May 29, 2006 1:15 PM
These signing statements are, in an of themselves, without the force of law. While the President's lawyers often rely on constitutional authorities to interpret (or in certain of the cited instants, refute) how to execute legislation, make no mistake about it: without solid underpinnings, these statements have about as much legal force as a campaign speech.
snakeman99 at May 30, 2006 3:51 PM
Leave a comment