How We Can Take the Constitution Back From the Brink

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted August 9, 2007.

A new organization is leading the fight to stop Bush from trampling on our Constitution and our rights. Find out how to join them.

At no time in our country's history has the abuse of power by the executive branch been more flagrant and more dangerous to democracy.

In just the past month, the Bush administration has ordered employees to ignore congressional subpoenas, asserted broad new parameters for executive privilege and issued an executive order that could permit seizing assets of Americans deemed at its discretion to be hurting the war effort in Iraq. Meanwhile, the administration continues to spy on its own citizens, including widespread data mining of telephone records and emails.

Since taking office, Bush has pushed his authority past the bounds of the Constitution, and now a new group is ready to push back.

The American Freedom Campaign has stepped up to the plate and is working to build bipartisan grassroots support "to reverse the abuse of executive power and restore our system of checks and balances."

The group was spearheaded by Wes Boyd, the founder of MoveOn.org; David Fenton, the executive director of Fenton Communications; William Haseltine, a scientist and social entrepreneur; and Naomi Wolf, author of The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.

They've been joined in their efforts by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, MoveOn.org: Democracy in Action, and other partner organizations.

"The Bush administration's 'war on terror' is not making Americans safer. It's making Americans less safe," said Carroll Bogert, associate director of Human Rights Watch. "What's more, these policies are a gift to dictators everywhere. They significantly undermine America's moral credibility, which should be the cornerstone of any effort to combat terrorism."

The American Freedom Campaign is designed to be an online hub for Americans concerned about the country's democratic system and who are ready to act to protect the Constitution.

The campaign is asking all Americans to take the American Freedom Pledge to "fight to protect and defend the Constitution." The pledge begins, "We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people's phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any president unchecked power."

The campaign is also asking all presidential candidates to take the pledge as well. "This campaign responds to the unconstitutional behavior of the current administration," said Wolf. "Therefore, our first order of business is to get commitments from those running to be the next occupant of the White House. The American people need to know that executive power will not be similarly abused in the future."

Past administrations have led America through much scarier times without taking away personal freedoms, Boyd said. "This is not about a trade-off," he added. "It's about principle. All political parties know they have nothing to gain by having a monarchist president."

The campaign expects to build a grassroots base of hundreds of thousands of Americans who will make their voices heard when issues of excessive executive power arise.

"If there was ever a time for a true grassroots movement in America, it is now," said Boyd. "With our leaders in Washington failing in their constitutional roles, the people need to band together to defend the democracy established on their behalf over 200 years ago. Through the online component of this campaign, hundreds of thousands of Americans will fight to protect our freedoms and our liberties."

Steve Fox, a spokesman for the campaign echoed why he thought their work was so important and the involvement of the public so necessary at this time. "This is not just about civil liberties in general but really specifically focuses on restoring the system of checks and balances," he said. "We were losing the system that made America great."

The American Freedom Campaign endeavors to preserve the vision of the nation's founders -- that no president shall be above the law. In doing so, AFC seeks to protect Americans' constitutionally guaranteed liberties and ensure that this nation demonstrates respect for human rights.

"For the last six years, we have been taking the Bush administration to court to hold them accountable for the many ways they have broken the law," said Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

"In case after case, they have tried to hide behind 'state secrets,' create loopholes to make themselves immune from prosecution, and treat the prohibitions on torture and coercive interrogation the way a particularly creative tax lawyer might treat the tax code. The American Freedom Pledge is an opportunity for everyone to stand up and say we have had enough of an executive branch that thinks it is above the law."

To put America back in the hands of the people, the AFC has outlined 10 clear goals:

  • Fully restore the right to challenge the legality of one's detention, or habeas corpus, and the right of detained suspects to be charged and brought to trial.
  • Prohibit torture and all cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
  • Prohibit the use of secret evidence.
  • Prohibit the detention of anyone, including U.S. citizens, as an "enemy combatant" outside the battlefield, and on the president's say-so alone.
  • Prohibit the government from secretly breaking and entering our homes, tapping our phones or email, or seizing our computers without a court order, on the president's say-so alone.
  • Prohibit the president from "disappearing" anyone and holding them in secret detention.
  • Prohibit the executive from claiming "state secrets" to deny justice to victims of government misdeeds, and from claiming "executive privilege" to obstruct congressional oversight and an open government.
  • Prohibit the abuse of signing statements, where the president seeks to disregard duly enacted provision of bills.
  • Use the federal courts, or courts-martial, to charge and prosecute terrorism suspects, and close Guantanamo down.
  • Reaffirm that the Espionage Act does not prohibit journalists from reporting on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution.

More than 130,000 people have already signed the theAmerican Freedom Pledge. You can join the campaign here.
 

ViRedd

New Member
I read the very first sentence and realized that it was useless to read any further:

"At no time in our country's history has the abuse of power by the executive branch been more flagrant and more dangerous to democracy."

If the author truly believes this, then she has fallen victim to our government monopolized school system. The woman is completely devoid of a knowledge of FACTUAL history.

Staying on topic, if we really want to save/restore our constitution, then we need to elect presidents who will appoint constitutionalist judges to the federal bench ... including the Supreme Court. So far, George W. Bush has done an excellent job of it in my estimation.

Vi
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Then your the only one who thinks Bush has done an excellent job except maybe 420worshiper and wavels. Bush has even abused his power more than Nixon ever thought of doing. And No he hasn't put in constitutionalist judges to the supreme court, he has stacked the supreme court more lopsided than it has been in decades. Before Bush started appointing judges the supreme court was balanced. 4 Liberals, 4 conservatives and one swing vote.
Now the supreme court is lopsided to the right.
So if you think Bush has done a fine job of fucking up this country got the next 30 years then you would be correct in your assumption.
Try again....
 

UncleSunny

Well-Known Member
Part of the issue is that every single president who has ever been in office has been called "the worst president of all time" by someone. What happens is that the angry voice of America gets ignored; it's all just put up to political discontents. I agree with the author that Bush is abusing his power and is deciding for us that his war in the middle east is worth bankrupting our country and violating our personal liberties.
George W. is doing what every president has done so far, he is issuing the strategy that he and his cabinet decide is the best course of action. However, much of what George has done that most other presidents have not is violated the very essence of our Consitutional liberties. he has signed numerous bills limiting our freedoms in a way that we have not seen since Wilson made it legal for the post office to open mail with German last names on it during his big war, or Roosevelt throwing Japanese American citizens into camps. I'm not ready to say that Bush is on par with these actions, but it seems pretty close to me.
I think that many people who wave their 'impeach now' signs are misguided. You are not going to make soild social change by wearing a ty-dyed shirt and Pachouli oil...let me be clear that I am generalizing and not pointing a finger at Dank or the AFC here...people-the ones who actually vote and have a voice DO NOT listen to hippy liberal crap about right and wrong. Your sit ins and drum circles for peace might get you laid, but you will not be taken seriously.
Secondly, where I agree that our president is breaking the law much moreso than those troublesome kids with their Refer addictions, I do not think that a total flip of the system to a liberal front would be anything but disastrous at this point in time. Stating that 'Bush is bad' all too often becomes the rally flag that people get behind, without realizing getting rid of him is only the first step...there needs to be a thought out, broad plan. You restore our liberties, and terrorists can move more easily. It's just that simple. Do you think most Americans today are willing to risk losing their lives or their family just so the constitution can remain intact? I personally don't think so.
Now, I am a laid back Cali stoner who believes in accepting diversity and paying attention to our environment. However, I would never vote for someone with a stringent agenda, whether that agenda is getting all the godless muslims baptised, or saving all the trees and bunnies from commercial development.
I share the opinion that we have a bad president that is causing serious damage to the infastructure of the Nation. I don't, however, agree that flipping everything on it's ear in the middle of a war is wise. The Patriot act, and other policies of this administration, no matter how you spin it, are unconstitutional. I wish the AFC the best of luck, but I just think in order to restore checks and balances, it will take a light touch, as well as a move to more personal responsibility. George W gets away with what he does because most Americans want to be safe and have gas in their cars. If the AFC can issue a strategy on Homeland Security that sounds viable, well, then, maybe they will get my support. Till then I'm staying on the fence.
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
The Problem with staying on the fence is that you get stabbed in the balls by one of the boards.
 

medicineman

New Member
Uncle Sunny, so glad to see you are commited to, What? Fence sitting, or staying stoned. Hey, pick a position and tough it out. How can I yell at you if you have no position. Without a position on a political site, you might as well stay home. Of course if you truly have no position then read all the posts and make a decision. I leave the cut and paste to those with more interest than I, then make comments regarding them. Every once in a while I'll throw out a paster, but generally, I just comment on them, so welcome and get involved.
 

krime13

Well-Known Member
Well uncle Sunny your post brings a quote to mind "Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety", so I dont think you are remaining neutral since your neutrality costing me my freedoms...
 

UncleSunny

Well-Known Member
I was not abdicating fence sitting, people. perhaps I should explain. I meant stay on the fence when it comes to a decision on this AFC issue. Too many people just want to bash Bush without a real plan...What I meant to say was that I'll do some more research than this lady's article...
And that I have to be liberal or conservative...pick one...no thanks. The truth is that I am a liberatarian who does a lot for the causes I believe in. I believe that a compromise is the only solution. and that the picture is too big to blame it all on one incompetent man.
I'm sorry if you all misunderstood, I believe in action, but with caution. Just because someone claims to be a liberal and on the side of Freedom, it doesn't mean that they are. And the only fence I was talking about was concerning this AFC.
Thank you, come again.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Then your the only one who thinks Bush has done an excellent job except maybe 420worshiper and wavels. Bush has even abused his power more than Nixon ever thought of doing. And No he hasn't put in constitutionalist judges to the supreme court, he has stacked the supreme court more lopsided than it has been in decades. Before Bush started appointing judges the supreme court was balanced. 4 Liberals, 4 conservatives and one swing vote.
Now the supreme court is lopsided to the right.
So if you think Bush has done a fine job of fucking up this country got the next 30 years then you would be correct in your assumption.
Try again....
The judges on the U.S. Supreme Court are not there to win a popularity contest. They are not there to promote a political agenda either. If you think we should have a political litmus test for federal judgeships, Dank, then you are missing the entire point of the duties of the U.S. Supreme Court. They are there to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by the Legislature and the Executive branches. In other words, they are part of the checks and balances. That's it. Well, that's it, unless you can find a clause in the Constitution that says anything about liberal and conservative balances among the judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. Start digging, Dank ... it will be awhile before you find such a clause. ~lol~

Vi
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Bush intentionally stacked the supreme court, this is a fact. the court is lop sided when before it was balanced. if there is no balance to the supreme court either side (conservative or liberal) can and will take away constitutional rights.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Bush intentionally stacked the supreme court, this is a fact. the court is lop sided when before it was balanced. if there is no balance to the supreme court either side (conservative or liberal) can and will take away constitutional rights.
Did you miss my point, Dank? There isn't anything in the Constitution about POLITICAL balance on the Supreme Court. Judges are supposed to be NON-political in their decisions. Their decisions should consist of one thing: "Is the law before us constitutional or not constitutional?" The Ultra-Left believes the court should be political. Conservatives believe the court should be neutral and rule on the law only. Big difference.

And by the way, the term "Stacking the Court" came about when FDR couldn't get his UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws through a U.S. Supreme Court who knew what its duties actually were. So, FDR tried to ADD more members to the court who would rule in favor of his UNCONSTITUTIONAL programs. In other words, FDR was trying to politicize the USSC. Conversely, the appointments Bush has made will try to DE-politicize the court. In which case do you think our constitutional rights are safer?

Vi
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Yup I noticed the point, Bush passed a shit load of unconstitutional laws and he put those people in place to make sure his Unconstitutional laws are upheld. (you and I both know that the supreme court rarely reverses itself)
By the same token as you say Abortion is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court make it the law of the land back in the early 1970's. What I am saying is that you say that all the liberal Judges are activist... (bullshit from the religious conservatives) So-called Conservative Judges can be just as activist as you and the religious right accuse the Liberal judges of being.
When the liberal Judges from the 9th Circuit Court ruled in favor of Medical Marijuana you said it was the right thing to do. I'm saying that once the conservative Judges start to take away your personal right to use marijuana as an alternative form of medicine you will be the first to raise holy hell.

Think before you have to win an argument with me at all cost, there are advantages to having liberal judges on the bench. We would not have a lot of the civil rights we have now with out them.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Yup I noticed the point, Bush passed a shit load of unconstitutional laws and he put those people in place to make sure his Unconstitutional laws are upheld. (you and I both know that the supreme court rarely reverses itself)
By the same token as you say Abortion is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court make it the law of the land back in the early 1970's. What I am saying is that you say that all the liberal Judges are activist... (bullshit from the religious conservatives) So-called Conservative Judges can be just as activist as you and the religious right accuse the Liberal judges of being.
When the liberal Judges from the 9th Circuit Court ruled in favor of Medical Marijuana you said it was the right thing to do. I'm saying that once the conservative Judges start to take away your personal right to use marijuana as an alternative form of medicine you will be the first to raise holy hell.

Think before you have to win an argument with me at all cost, there are advantages to having liberal judges on the bench. We would not have a lot of the civil rights we have now with out them.
Name the "shitload of unconstitutional laws" that Bush has passed, Dank. Last I heard, the Executive doesn't pass laws, but only enforces them. The Legislative Branch passes laws, Dank, and the President either signs them into law or vetos them.

I agreed with the 9th circuit and disagreed with the "conservative" court. Although, I DO believe the 9th circuit is the looniest bunch of liberal hacks to come down the pike. I'm not alone on this either. They are the most overturned federal court in the land.

On your last comment, Dank ... liberals (as the term is used today) have been the leaders of discriminatory practices throughout our history. They still are. Aren't they the ones who believe minorities don't have the personal fortutude to raise themselves out of poverty without government programs?

Vi
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Your so full of shit your eyes are brown vi.
If I didn't have to go pick my son up from work, I'd pick your comments apart. But Time is not on my side at this point.
You better check your scources vi, White Supremist identify themselves as republicans.
The Unconstitutional laws that were passed is called the Patriot act. Which John Ashcroft pushed through congress under Bush's Orders. Now This is all I have to say on this subject for tonight as I have to leave to pick my son up.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Well, better luck in refuting my points tomorrow, Dank.

Vi

By the way ... If White Supremists identify themselves as Republicans, is that any more serious than Communists identifying themselves as Democrats?
 

medicineman

New Member
Not to interfere in a good fight, But the gist of bush's constitutional malfeasance comes with the hundreds of signing statements he has added to bills going through the political process. If Bush doesn't like a law, he writes on the bill that it doesn't apply to him, a signature, confirms this, thus signing statements, he also changes the meaning of the bills to suit his needs, an absolute constitutional violation. This alone is grounds for impeachment, let alone all the other evil things he's done.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Not to interfere in a good fight, But the gist of bush's constitutional malfeasance comes with the hundreds of signing statements he has added to bills going through the political process. If Bush doesn't like a law, he writes on the bill that it doesn't apply to him, a signature, confirms this, thus signing statements, he also changes the meaning of the bills to suit his needs, an absolute constitutional violation. This alone is grounds for impeachment, let alone all the other evil things he's done.
Link, please. And ... please don't refer me to moveon.org or the uscp website.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Link, please. And ... please don't refer me to moveon.org or the uscp website.

Vi
What, you only believe cut and paste? Open your eyes and look, it is right in front of you. You don't have to lick boots anymore, you're old enough to think for yourself.
 
Top