'08 Candidates Must Sign the American Freedom Pledge
Is it still America if the president ignores or deliberately eviscerates the Constitution?
And if the president himself is doing this, who will protect the Constitution?
This is the oath of office: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
On what history will confirm was a very dark day for the nation, George W. Bush took that oath. Within a year, he had launched a methodical effort to undermine the very document he swore he would protect.
He has suspended habeas corpus, tapped the phones and opened the e-mails of Americans without warrants, defied congressional subpoenas, and declared through "signing statements" that the administration can pick and choose which parts of the bills passed by Congress to execute. No president in history has come close to these actions.
We have to get it that this is not a set of departures from business as usual in a working democracy. This is becoming a different game with a different set of rules.
Is it theoretical if America disembowels its own Constitution? Or do those sets of checks and balances protect you and your family -- on the most personal, visceral level? With every violation of the Constitution that the president engineers -- in the face of a craven, compliant Congress -- you and your family face greater risks. The president says he can imprison ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN HE WANTS TO IMPRISON on his say-so alone. Today it is a bona fide `terrorist' -- but let's notice that now environmental activists who targeted property, not people, are being called "terrorists."
History shows that the definition of "terrorist" -- enemies of the state, traitors, and "saboteurs," which has just made its predictable appearance in the arsenal of the White House's more extremist allies -- metastasizes when there is a power grab intended to close down a society or crack down on a democracy movement; eventually such language and the laws that go with it target critics, dissidents, opposition leaders. Now he can seize the assets of those who object to his prosecution of the war in Iraq and has new powers to declare a state of emergency.
History demonstrates unequivocally that these are the things that would-be despots always do when they want to shift the system away from democracy and toward a repressive regime. When a commentator says "tyrant" or "despot" in a democracy, he or she is being rhetorical; we have to get it that these kinds of strategies are literally classical steps in the closing down of democracies and that we have to start to understand such language technically and not rhetorically.
Yes, even here. Yes, even now. As we watch. As we try to figure out what to do.
At this critical time in our nation's history, when the very foundation of our democracy is under attack, we must be certain that the next president will be constrained by the checks and balances of a living Constitution. It is hard to overstate the danger to us if he or she is not. And citizens have to confront what they must do when an acting president assaults the very rule of law he has sworn to defend.
Toward this end, the American Freedom Campaign, a new grassroots and grasstops democracy movement, has asked each of the presidential candidates to sign the American Freedom Pledge. It reads:
"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."I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from assault by any President."
Any candidate unwilling to sign this pledge during the campaign clearly does not deserve -- or cannot be trusted -- to be our next president. A sitting president who will not adhere to this commitment should be confronted.
A couple of days ago, while blogging on Daily Kos, Elizabeth Edwards, in response to a question about whether her husband would end the abuses of executive power undertake by the Bush administration, provided the following response:
"None of the nonsense of avoiding constitutional and legal requirements for executive branch activities by issuing executive orders.None of these signing statements intended to undermine legislative intent.
None of the refusal to enforce laws that have been passed.
Under John, the constitution returns."
Thank you, Mrs. Edwards, for those heartening words -- but words are easy in a presidential campaign, and leadership is harder. Congress is sitting it out or rolling over when this fight is brought to its doorstep -- leaders are confiding off the record that without a grassroots movement to press them into action, they can't resist these encroachments because they are afraid of being tarred as "soft on terror."
Every period of repression that led to a closed society has used the threat of an external enemy to strip citizens of liberties, and history will judge such leaders harshly. Meanwhile, let me invite Mrs. Edwards to urge her husband to make good on her faith in him -- let me invite him to do it right here on the front page of the Huffington Post.
Mr. Edwards, will you prove your leadership and your fitness to guide this nation by being the first of the candidates to sign the American Freedom Pledge? If so, will you then publicly challenge the other candidates to do so?
If you are the first presidential candidate to take the pledge here on this page, the 10,000 Americans who signed the pledge in its first 10 days -- and all other Americans who honor the Constitution - will applaud you. You will deserve our gratitude.
If not, why not?
I look forward to your response. Within a week. Here. Or your wife's -- on your behalf.
As for the rest of the Huffington Post's readers -- we need your help in leading this charge. "They" -- the political classes, the pundits, Congress -- are not going to redeem the rule of law without you. You have to save your own country now.
The American Freedom Campaign has set up an action page so that you can send a quick e-mail to the presidential candidates, urging them to sign the pledge.
The White House needs to hear that it can't get away with violating our system. That those who commit crimes against the Constitutional must be held accountable by the American people.
Congress needs to hear our contempt for their inaction and our demand that they act boldly in a time of crisis.
We need to hear each other and remember that the first American revolution was begun by a handful of people who saw tyranny, called it by its proper name and took action.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you for doing this Naomi! Sadly it has to be done . .. I also think every member of Congress should be forced to sign up too! They have let America down .. . they have aided and abetted in the destruction of our civil liberties ... they must get off their complacent backsides and impeach gonzo, cheney and the chimp . . . if not they are (with very few exceptins) the backbone of this totalitarian regime which is destroying the Constitution . . . they have enabled this regime . . . impeachment has to begin as soon as they return from their summer vacations . . .
This is fantastic,but it is a sad comment on how far we have to go. Bush and many members of Congress from both parties have betrayed the oath they took to defend the Constitution.
We need accountability in government and Americans have to stay the heck out of other peoples business.
If a person is not free to do with themselves as they see fit then they are not free.
We have seen with this presidency how fragile our constitution is. We used to think that its checks and balances would insure our democracy, But as the president appoints more Federalist Society judges who support unfettered executive powers and the Congress continually rolls over, we lose our faith in the role of checks and balances. Even with an unpopular President at 27% in the polls, when Bush asks for additional unchecked powers like the ability to listen to our phone calls without a warrant as long as one party to the conversation is abroad, Congress concedes. How is it so easy to steal our Constitution from under us? Where is the public and legislative backlash? The system doesn't seem to have the self-correcting powers we may have anticipated. It is also ironic that Bush claims to be the 'freedom' President at the same time he rapes our Constitution.
(As an aside, I think Naomi Wolf is an excellent debater- amazingly literate. I like how she eviscerates conservative talk show pundit and lunatic Melanie Morgan whenever the two square off on television
No way should the next President give up the False Powers that Cheney has Orchestrated through the white house! that is IF we do not puut another Bush Family covert Fascist in the offices of either POTUS or VPOTUS oor the Speaker of the House or Senate Leader. That new President needs to fully instruct and fund ripping open all the secrets and activities that has been going on for decades and this last bunch of Mobsters in our control must be fully prosecuted. As well as the members of congress, aids and lobbyist and corporate heads and bankers that we all know are behind Our America being held hostage! Then the powers should voluntarily be relvoked and aThe New Congress specifically address the laws to prevent them from being usurped ever again under penalty of Death.
The concepts of your oath have merit, but I don't like these loyalty oaths on the Right so I sure as hell don't like them on the Left.
The oath of office the next president takes covers all your concerns, and what we need is the real threat of impeaching any president who breaks His/Her oath.
I agree. Any president who blithly ignores the constitution would not be stopped by any loyalty oath he took while campaigning. And forcing candidates to take a pledge sounds McCarthyistic.
Ditto. Follow your oath of office or be impeached.
That's the way it should be done.
This isn't Stalinist Russia. If I have any say in the matter, there will be NO loyalty oaths other than the traditional oaths of office.
I find the very idea repugnant.
Bush is a criminal. He has defiled his office. He should be impeached. The only reason he has NOT been impeached is that other Republicans have defiled THEIR offices as well, and would never vote to impeach.
Asking people to sign loyalty oaths in advance won't change this sorry state of affairs. The only thing that will change this is CRUSHING the neocons (and their corporate masters) politically, once and for all.
The congressional oath of office reads:
"I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." Perhaps it time our great leaders changed their oaths so that they wouldn't have to lie under oath at the inception of their terms.
Wonderful, Madam. I hope everyone passes this on, calls all 100 senators, and everyone calls their congressperson, and demonstrates.
Ms. Klein, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get a petition going with this demand. Write Moveon.org and write Global Exchange, and democrats.
Get some attention. Burning the constitution is what Bush does. Stop the assualt on our sacred papers.
I like both you Ms. Wolf AND Naomi Klein. I do know the difference. My mistake, sorry.
Do you have a link for others to sign the petition and sign?
We must impeach.
me too. you go girl. cjw
I am with you 100%.
I really wanted to comment to tell you how impressive your sensible answers and calm demeanor on Hardball amplified how absolutely crazed Melanie Morgan and the rest of the Bushies have become.
I am sure I am not the only fan you made on that appearance.
Even Chris Matthews couldn't pretend to be tough with you.
You were that good.
I hope we see more of you on MSNBC and other channels.
Due to length I will edit the article "Clinton's Record on Civil Liberties" from TalkLeft http://www
We did a Lexis search on the topic (using the database of news articles more than two years ago) and found Nat Hentoff to be right on target in this column written right after the 1996 elections, published in the Washington Post. In 1798, only seven years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, John Adams triumphantly led Congress in the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which imprisoned a number of journalists and others for bringing the president or Congress into "contempt or disrepute.
No American president, however, has done so much damage to constitutional liberties as Bill Clinton -- often with the consent of Republicans in Congress. Unlike Lincoln, for example, Clinton did a lot more than temporarily suspend habeas corpus. One of his bills that has been enacted into law guts the rights that Thomas Jefferson insisted be included in the Constitution. Moreover, the Clinton administration is -- as the ACLU's Laura Murphy recently told the National Law Journal -- "the most wire-tap-friendly administration in history."
We're not trying to bash Clinton and Gore here. We're pointing out why many on the left (e.g. the ACLU and criminal defense lawyers) bond with the right on privacy and civil liberties issues. The centrist dems and republicans are the ones to fear.
My thoughts: In reality we are ending 16 years of assault on the Constituti
This is why we need a president and congressmen that are not power driven. (Carter was such an individual, but I believe he lacked the true support fromthe rest of the Democratic Party) I submit that Clinton's peccadilloes were more about power than sex. Bush is more Cheny & Co.'s pawn although he believes he is in charge. He is also drawn to power and maintains it by rationalizing that the Neocon ideas are his own. "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely
I like it!
A test of leadership and integrity with a pledge.
Not a bad idea.
Here is a real chance for a Senator to act. To act on behalf of the American people.
A chance to lead, to show courage and to make a difference today.
Would any of the big three Hillary, Obama or Edwards take this opportunity to show us that they have the courage to back up their words?
I sure hope so.
http://www
Our good friend David Sirota spells out a simple effective move that can be made by any SENATOR to undue the damage done by the FISA law debacle earlier this month.
Why all the angst about signing statements? The Congress writes the law, and the President says yea or nay. If he chooses to comment extemporaneously during the signing ceremony, so what?
The real problem here is NOT Bush commenting. The real problem is that Congress refuses to pass anything explicit. They refuse to come out and put their true intentions into writing, because then they would be exposed as the anti-American, anti-Military cowards that they are.
Instead, they try to pass nebulous bills that could then be skewed by a liberal extremist judge to accomplish their true goals. Bush simply makes his own interpretation of what he interprets the nebula to mean, and states very explicitly how he intends to follow the law, and also states explicitly where the law lacks power or jurisdiction.
Don't blame Bush for being detail oriented. Blame the Dems in Congress for not being.
Your statements make sense, however may I add let's include those political appointments the president makes after taking office should be also addressed up front with the names of people he wishes to serve in his cabinet. It's one thing 'hiring' a president (an employee) but you don't support just the engine without considering the cars the engine pulls along the track. That can be serious baggage sir!
OK genius, how many bills passed from 2001 through 2006 had signing statements? How many of those were introduced by Dems?
You made a very broad generalization which is patently false. I dare you to actually try to prove it. Congress was controlled by Rs for 6 years (minus a year or so when the Senate was not) and the ratio of Dem-authored bills to Rs is a simple matter of record. How about you go find those facts?
You continuously post comments here based on pure opinion and the only reason they make it through moderators is because you don't rant as venomously as the standard troll population.
signing statements are not verbal ... they are additions that bush has added to a pending bill for his signature. it has nothing to do with bush being detail oriented..
whether you wish to acknowledge this or not, mormondude, the constitution and the bill of rights still mean something to us...
please keep up, mormondude.
Thanks for the clarification. I suppose that even before the Democratic Congress, the Democratic influence of lawmaking was so strong that the President needed to dismantle the laws as a pre-emptive measure. The real problem is Congress and the entire Democracy, not being able to anticipate the desires of the President.
You know that almost all bills signed into law by Bush and accompanied by signing statements were written and passed by a Republican Congress, right?
Chance for a Senator to act? It's time for the people to act! Contact your representatives and let them know you want to impeach Bush and Cheney. As Mormandude says if no one files charges against Bush and Cheney for their crimes, then they get away with it.
CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTITIVE AND LET THEM KNOW HOW YOU FEEL! Otherwise quit griping and let the emperor ruin the country.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
