what a century we live in ! A guy i would not count on to run a dog pound is president. bunch of "neo-cons" who are somewhere between the WASP Mafia and the Third Riech run the country. The republicans are little better than gangsters. The democrats, with their insistance on Political Correctness, banning guns, and ever-more government meddling, are not exactly shining beacons of freedom either.
And so now the Constitution is considered subversive. That does not surprise me, I dont think either Party really likes it
I have several friends who fought in Viet Nam. One of them commented, "while I was over there fighting tyranny, the tyrants seem to have come here and taken over"
Another vet told me that what bothered him the most was that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft et al. were all draft dodgers. They would not serve their country, but they expect other men to die for their idieology , or their greed. John Kerry wasnt much, but at least he wasnt a draft dodging chicken hawk like Bush!
Dodd Defends Constitution -- Where are the Others?
Ten days ago, I wrote in this space about the American Freedom Campaign's launch of a U.S. citizens' democracy movement that will drive the issue of defending the Constitution to the center of the presidential campaign. It's pretty sad that we Americans even have to ask whether a candidate would protect the Constitution if elected -- sad but necessary: in merely six years, however, the Bush administration has dramatically altered the presidency and its powers.
With our democracy crumbling and our liberties threatened, we cannot sit back and hope that the next president will voluntarily reverse the damage now done to the Constitution and the rule of law: history shows that leaders of any party are corrupted by unchecked power and it is not human nature to yield power once it has been aggregated into one's hands.
This situation is simply too dangerous.
We want commitments. From every candidate. And we want the candidates to know that they will only receive our votes if they make this commitment.
The good news is that we have a frontrunner -- in the call-out to defend the Constitution. Yesterday, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) stepped up to the patriot's task and gave the American Freedom Campaign the following statement:
"It's a sad day when a presidential candidate actually has to talk about restoring the Constitution, but that's where we are after this administration's assault on the rule of law -- an assault, by the way, that actually makes us less secure and more isolated by weakening our standing around the world. I have said repeatedly that if elected, the *FIRST THING* I would do after being sworn in is to reverse as much of the damage done to the Constitution by President Bush as possible. And I would immediately do as much as I legally can by executive order."
Chris Dodd is acting like an American. He should be congratulated. But the rest of the candidates should be ashamed -- at least for now. We know they are aware of our efforts, since they have all received thousands of emails from supporters of the American Freedom Campaign. In some cases, calls to the candidates to defend the Constitution have been even more direct.
John Edwards, where are you? Two weeks ago, his wife Elizabeth wrote on Daily Kos that "under John, the Constitution returns." After I asked him to make good on his wife's words by signing the pledge, one of his own supporters posted a link to my blog on Edwards' own campaign blog. Earlier in August, another Edwards campaign blogger urged the former Senator to sign the pledge.
As promised, a week later I called the campaign and let them know we were hoping for his endorsement of the rule of law. Ten days now? No response from Mr. Edwards.
Here is the text of the American Freedom Pledge:
"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."
Some people have suggested that this pledge is not strong enough, or that candidates are as likely to break their word after signing this pledge as they would be after taking the oath of office, which similarly contains a commitment to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." These critiques are fair. But if the alternative is silence, this is not good enough for America.
Candidates -- and Congressmen and women -- take some risks by standing up for the Constitution right now. I asked a librarian to distribute copies of the Constitution -- provided for free -- and she said this would be seen as too controversial. A major TV channel declined to renew a long-running series teaching U.S. kids about democracy because they said they didn't want to be seen as rocking the boat. Many leaders on the Hill have told us off the record that the fear is widespread that standing up for liberty means they think they risk being painted as "soft on terror." And I must note that major interests are served financially by an open-ended war and ever-proliferating surveillance technologies.
So, yeah, it says something if a candidate won't publicly commit to restoring the Constitution.
And a pledge also matters psychologically -- to us. We need reminding of what we have while we can still save it. Every time we are reminded of the personal courage of our founders, our appreciation of the Constitution, now dusty, renews itself. And every time we talk about the disrespect the Bush administration has demonstrated for the Constitution our own personal desires to stand up against these abuses intensifies.
So, Senator Edwards -- we're waiting for a call. Or an e-mail. Or even a comment in this blog entry. Is it too controversial to support the Constitution? Or will you sign your name and be counted -- as the founders did? As many of your supporters already have?
And the rest of the candidates -- will you let Dodd outshine you? Show us you deserve our presidency. Help remind the American people how precious -- and fragile -- our democracy is. Sign the American Freedom Pledge or make as strong a statement as possible about your commitment to defending our Constitution.
We're standing by -- in the millions.
If you want to send an email to the candidates encouraging them to sign the American Freedom Pledge, click here.
Comments for this post are now closed
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
Yes, we do need defenders of The Constitution. It has been very badly used of late.
One thing that we can do is see to it that it's provisions concerning penelties for abuseing it are applied as intended.
This is why my questions for the upcomming mash-up deal with "Do you, as President intend to impeach and prosecute those who have violated The U.S Constitution or have violated other statutes?
Will you, as President, pardon or commute the sentences of these persons?
I require a yes or no answer, danceing around the issue is unexceptable.
Most of what you mention is contained in the Bill of Rights--and you are absolutely correct. In fact, a strong argument exists that the Bill of Rights for all practical purposes no longer exists.
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/dead.html
But where was Dodd when all these other Constitutional protections were being trashed?
Where was Dodd when the 2nd Amendment was being trashed? Oh yeah, he was one of those doing the trashing.
You can't say that you are defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights unless you defend the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. Dodd, like so many others, fails that test.
My Dear Naomi,
Please prevail upon the author of the pledge to include a pledge for all candidates to issue an Executive Order permanently rescinding on ALL of the Executive Orders issued by George W. Bush as patently illegal under the Constitution and because he was never elected President. These EOs, over 700 that we currently know of, do not apply to any citzen or law of the USA for that very reason alone. The vote counts in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004 have been proven bogus and both elections should have been re-balloted under GAO supervision and the culprits responsible for it should be in prison for life.
There must also be included an item to rescind all Signing Statements issued by this Faux Prez and a pledge to do everything possible to have Congress rescind the Two Patriot Acts and the Military Commissions Act. No one should vote for anyone who will not make of all those issues a major plank in his or her campaign platform and an issue before the first Congress to convene after the 2009 Inauguration. It must be the first order of business or the principles have to understand that the next thing they will have to contend to will be an armed uprising by a mass of indignant citizens that is scattered all over OUR country: We will have our Revolutionm and change our government by either the peaceful means of our Democratic Republic or we will do so by force of Arms to which we are most reluctant to resort.
I heard Bill Richardson defend the constitution just the other day.
Can't 'president' shrub be prosecuted for perjury?
He lied twice while taking the oath of office.
Not interested in them making a pledge. I want them to live & breath the constitution. Funny thing is the only ones who seem to be really screaming for our Democracy and freedoms back are the long shots (Kucinch, Gravel and Paul). The rest have turned so many tricks they have inch thick callus's on their knees. Dodd seems like a nice man- but I'm not looking for just a nice man. I'm looking for retribution. It's time to kick some Neo con ass. Not even interested in 'reaching across the aisle'
The last six+ yrs has not only moved some conservatives to more 'mild' ground, but it has also sent us Liberals into the radical spectrum.
Well if Dodd is such a defender of the Constitution, why has he not called for action against Bush??
These wimpy neo-liberals have no respect for what is right or what is legal. All they want is power and the so-called prestige of being in "charge".
I for one respect Congressman John Conyers for his insistence in impeaching the bastards!
Conyers was on Democracy Now recently and essentially disavowed impeachment. It was the saddest thing I've heard in a long time. Impeachment is over folks, sorry.
This business of making up a statement to be signed or else look unpatriotic reminds me of good old Joe McCarthy and his witch hunt. This group has hugely turned me off by its self-importance. Both Kucinich and Edwards make Dodd look...rather less. The difference is the entire spectrum of their planks, not only in their dedication to the Constitution. If this group wants people signing their adherence to it, they should look to the Republican Party, where it's been gleefully trashed for years now. Get off your soapbox and get real.
If the foundation is so perfect, why are they trying to change it by adding amendments? One needn't amend perfection.
This administration has wiped their asses with the god damned piece of paper that is the constitution. They follow only the rule of money, power and fear.
But wait! Epiphany! I see what you're saying. The ORIGINAL Constitution was perfect. It was those god damned amendments (the bill of rights, or some such crap) added by people who value liber-ty (wow! that's almost spelled the same as liber-al) that ruined it.
> It is so interesting to me that the only ones complaining
> about the loss of liberties are the liberals and the terrorists.
You talk to more terrists than I do. I've never heard them complain about the loss of liberties. If you're that close to them, perhaps you could help out in our investigation. Are you in a terror cell? Perhaps a quick dunk in the water will jog your memory.
What's so interesting to me is that the only ones who try to kill everyone who disagrees with them are the conservatives and the terrists.
What's so interesting to me is that the only ones who think it's OK to torture, kill, lie, cheat and steal in the name of their cause are conservatives and terrists. Ya see, all them things, they're bad things. And only bad guys do 'em. So if you do 'em, yer a bad guy, too. Ya see, NOT doin them things is what separates us from them. It is not easy to be the good guy.
What's disgusting to me is that it is ONLY conservatives that privatize hospitals like Walter Reed and let our wounded sleep in their own piss in order to maximize profits. It's ONLY cons who waste $BILLIONS on no-bid contracts while cutting veterans' benefits. Those $BILLIONS could provide our soldiers with the best body armor and humvees with maxed out armor, saving hundreds of lives.
E Pleb Neesta
GODISNOWHERE
Bring back crucifixion: "NAIL some sense into 'em!"
Where are others?
Well, for one thing, the front-runners probably figure their chances of having to back up their campaign rhetoric with action after the election are greater than Dodd's, so they are happy to hang back, let Dodd wield his Anti-Constitutional machete, AND in the process, gather all the hat spiders and snakebites.
And, there's also that thing of having so many targets it's difficult to choose one to zone in on, hang onto, and go for the kill. Shredding the Constitution? Oh, yeah, there's that...and...decimating the environment, stealing elections, lying us into a war, allowing a major US city to drown, legislative dirty tricks to push thru earmarks...I could keep going on. Like a cheetah scanning a hundred-antelope herd for likely prey, the Bush Administration/Republican Party 's recent record is so target-rich it has the effect of diffusing effective attacks by those who would oppose it.
Still, a lot of those other issues do fit under the umbrella of "attack on the Constitution", don't they?
Reading these posts, I see that the Progressively minded are still being sucked into debates using that same old Right Wing ploy of blaming the problem on some past Democrat president; in this case one that created the most dynamic economy this country had ever seen and then died years before most of you were born. The Conservatives of the day were quick to fall in behind FDR when he enacted programs that resisted the Socialist onslaught of that period, a form of government that sends cold chills down the backs of most Right-Wingers.
A lesson from history that we all need to heed, restrict the rights of a free culture and you may be replaced with something much worse. If Dood and the other whores that currently make up the Democrat front runners don't figure this out, they put their and our futures in great peril !
Preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution means to allow same gender marriage and to stop writing legislative discrimination into it, in an effort to stop something,of which one group of bigoted people do not approve. Any legislator who encourages dismantling or changing the constitution to suit some people whims are violating their oath of office. This "let the people vote" is a red herring. People should not vote on other people's rights, and neither should legislators. Seems the only one's protecting the constitution are the courts, and even there, sometimes irrationality, wrong headed thinking, and illogical decisions rule the day.
Hillary and Bill may have "Jefferson" in their legal name, but are no Thomas Jefferson. It still seems Hillary is doing more to damage our constitution and "from the people" core. I am not even speaking to the 22nd Amendment issues with this but primarily her campaign strategy. Hillary got into the race in record early fashion by months at that >>> she got into such race as a junior carpetbagging Senator and did so to try to lock up for herself and Bill all the big money and media. Was such a defensive move to keep heat off their eight years in office, or was it just a way to use past power to oppress party opponents? By locking up the big money and doing so with unprecedented full secret service protection for all her campaigning she gave confidence to the big powers and comfort with knowledge they wouldn't have to go through normal retrainings and lobbyings with her. (She calls it "landing running." I call it bypassing a necessary refreshing of our constitution that even big powers should have to navigate.) By locking up the big money and having her US protection from even the homeless she sets up her candidacy as destined and such not needing the will of the people refreshed. Our Constitution? Now about all her cross arguments towards people deserving more rights or our support? Would Bush 43 have ever run (accidently established a Bush Presidential Legacy) if Clintons' hadn't been elected and interupted the Republicans foreign policies to spread democracy and help others build "shinning cities on the(ir) hills"? The son picked up the fathers gauntlet where as Hillary and Bill still look to be living: we are both Ivy League Lawyers, the White House is our Destiny. That should just scratch the surface of Hillary and our constitution.
Lincoln was right. Where does the line form?
I am happy to see this post and this discussion on the Huff Po. Actual truth about what actually matters. You have to slog thru a lot of crappy threads to get to a gem like this. I am learning a lot. More like this Arianna!
Man I'm getting old! I was half my way through high school when you were born little lady but that doesn't dampen my appreciation for your succinct political commentary.
PART III.
* i renounce the so-called, "fast-track", presidential powers to secretly negotiate and sign treaties with foreign governments.
* i have read the federalist papers and all of the available writings of our founding fathers. i understand that one of their gravest concerns was the maintenance of standing armies in times of peace and that times of war threaten our democratic institutions. i understand that we have maintained war-time levels of military spending and troop levels for nearly 70 years. i recognize that this has eroded our democracy. i accept a mandate from our people to engage congress in open debate about significant and appropriate reductions in our military and to act in good faith to re-constitute our military in accordance with the outcome of the debate as reflected by the will of the people.
* i know the constitution declares congress as the sole branch with the right to declare war. i will not engage in any military campaigns of any size or nature without the express consent of the representatives of the people, our congress. the consent must be only in the form of a formal and legal declaration of war.
this movement is a great development. thank you for this post and the hard work you are doing.
PART II.
american imperialism and militarism has led to egregious abuses of our constitution and to democracy around the world. now that american is in a phase of economic descent, it is clear that the militarism is speeding the descent, has corroded our culture, and that the imperialism and militarism will turn inward. we are at an extremely critical moment of history. we must force our presidential candidates to address our imperialism in the context of our constituion and the entire body of literature from the founding of our nation. i strongly urge you to include statements similar to the following for presidential and congressional candidates and supreme court nominees to address:
* i support the reinstatement of the posse comitatus act and renounce the use of private militias on american or foreign soil.
* i renounce all previous executive orders and signing statements that strengthen the executive branch in ways that are unconstitutional and contrary to the spirit of our constitution and the idea of three seperate but equal branches of government. (enumerate the ones relating to emergency powers, torture ... you know what the despotic ones are)
* i support open and transparent government. i will sponsor open and honest debate about secrecy in government, and work to eliminate secret budgets from our military spending. (come up with some maximum aggregate total of secret budget allocations that is so small that they can't do much harm.)
PART I.
this movement is to be commended. there are three candidates who have made restoring the constitution and the rule of law one of their most important policies. they are mike gravel, ron paul and dennis kucinich. it would be great if you acknowledge them as doing so when you speak.
i believe that while the bush administration has been deplorable, their trampling on the rule of law is really the logical next step in our evolution to a fascist dictatorship. for years american imperialism in combination with state-subsidized capitalism has led us down a path of gradually diminishing the power of congress and of our collective respect for the constitution and democratic legal institutions.
it is clear that congress has been nearly unanimous in complying with the bush dictatorship. this has transcended the lines of the empowered political parties. bush would not have been able to do this without the consent of the vast majority of congress. i believe that we need to reinvigorate our democratic culture by understanding that congress, as representing the will of the people, is the most important but co-equal branch of government. there is great danger in continuing to vest too much power into the executive branch even in our own minds.
i think it is critical that your movement create a similar statement for all congressional candidates and move to get them to sign or effectively disavow it. we must elect a congress that will uphold its sworn duty to uphold and defend the constitution every bit as much as we must elect a president who will do so.
Naomi, Naomi, Naomi,
Do you honsetly think that those on the left, such as yourself, can protect the U.S. Constitution when it is the left that has shredded it the most in the past? I listed numerous examples on your last post of the left's complete disregard for the princples laid out by the Founding Fathers. But let's list a new example today: the Electoral College. What political party wants to do away with it entirely?
DLB
i can't believe that any of the party machinery wants to get rid of this heinous undemocratic institution. is it the libertarians? DLB, we need to stop thinking in terms of left/right, pure-good/pure-evil, black/white... you know, the sort of thinking that an institution like the electoral college leads to.
this ridiculous artifact of slavery must go. there is a candidate who supports direct citizen legislation. his name is mike gravel. i haven't thought through this idea and its ramifications enough to know if i support it. however, it deserves serious consideration given how faux democracy, in the last 60 years in particular, has eroded our nation.
the electoral college led to bush's appointment/election. look at all the good that has done. i am not saying gore is better or worse. but, when the will of the people no longer counts, which is the message the bush junta took from the 2000 elections, this is what you get. it was adopted under the guise of protecting small states from the tyranny of the majority. however, it served the ratification of the constitution by the slave states, and tickled the elitist tendencies of the founders.
the founders were human too. we have corrected some of their mistakes like permitting slavery and the disenfranchisement of women and african americans; it is time that we, all americans, liberal, conservative, moderate and the minority of critical thinking americans, correct by elimination two of their biggest mistakes - the electoral college and majoritarian system of representation.
F.J Turner pointed out that the greatest cultural strength of america was our ability to take what works for our forefathers that still works for us, and to discard or change what doesn't and our willingness to pragmatically use our creative powers of invention to better cope with our current situation. holding any person and their ideas in absolute, rigid esteem even to our peril is called dogma. it doesn't matter if it is religious or political, dogma is never good.
As a Californian, my two cents on direct democracy can be summed up in two words: bad idea. In the narrow use of getting voter approval for spending (I'm oversimplifying I know) maybe it's OK, but as a means to legislate in general, it is a very, VERY bad idea. I did my law school thesis on the topic, so I'm better informed than the average bear, if that helps you to evaluate my opinion.
That being said, founders worshippers like DLB tend to ignore the intended evolution inhereient in the document. I have no knowledge of ANY founder claiming the original intent should be oberserved religiously for all time. There is, however, copious evidence to the contrary.
Interesting feedback. Is your thesis published on-line? I would like to read it. I think we are in agreement about the need to evolve and be pragmatic in interpreting the constitution.
Some people who feel uncomfortable with freedom of choice, the potential losses and opportunities that come with change by exercising that freedom of choice, and the responsibility that freedom of choice requires prefer an unbending and irrational reverie that can best be summarized as dogma. Ironically, some of these people are strict constructionalists claiming in their arguments for this viewpoint to be the staunchest advocates of freedom. Freedom of thought and action not exercised is as useless as freedoms documented but not upheld and ensured by the rule of law as established by the consent of the governed.
The constitution is a summation and compromise of and amongst many people and ideas from the revolutionary era. It is much more interesting and informative to base our discussions of the constitution, and our democracy on the entire body of literature from the many participants in the revolution and founding of this nation. It is even more interesting to have those discussions applied to accurate historical accounts and honest assessments of our current political and cultural environment. I appreciate that your comments have been so logical in as much as this limited forum allows. This cannot be said for certain others in this thread.
cheers!
Your explanation for the existence for the electoral college is quite wrong. And thank you for proving my point.
you didn't make a point. you asked a couple of questions. the electoral college is anti-democratic. the 2000 presidential election is proof of that. to defend the electoral college in the wake of that, is to essentially admit that you don't really believe in democracy. i am not making a value judgement. it is okay if you believe that. we are all entitled to our beliefs, and for now, we are free to express them.
i am sure that at some point on the savannah there were various tribe members in the midst of a great famine. a first group kept pointing to a stone where some vague instructions for how to deal with famine were chiseled by their ancestors. this group loved complete literal and procedural submission to the authority of the ancestor's carvings. ironically, this group touted and worshiped them as free-thinking rebels. a huge second group was apathetic.
a third group realized that some of those chiseled instructions were no longer relevant to the current conditions. furthermore, they recognized that the first group of tribesman could no longer read the actual writings on the stone. they only believed what a previous generation had told them was written. that previous generation had distorted the actual words in order to keep a greater portion of crop yields for themselves.
the latter group gave up the fight. they left the tribe. they modified the pertinent instructions from the stone; adapting them to newly invented methods, tools and social structures for coping. the latter group survived. small numbers of the former two groups survived only by the good graces and charity of the third group as their surpluses permitted. the rest perished miserably.
catch my drift?
Naomi, Naomi, Naomi,
Do you honsetly think that those on the left, such as yourself, can protect the U.S. Constitution when it is the left that has shredded it the most in the past? I listed numerous examples on your last post of the left's complete disregard for the princples laid out by the Founding Fathers. But let's list a new example today: the Electoral College. What political party wants to do away with it entirely?
DLB
I'd be worried about any candidate that couldn't sign onto this...
No candidate is a stronger defender of the constitution than Ron Paul. He has the longest record of following the constitution of anyone. Don't let the Left/Right paradigm blind you to excellent candidates who may not be on your self identified 'team'.
Ron Paul 2008!
Amen
that is great advice - shunning labels and the concept of left/right that is. may more people think and vote freely.
as everyone should consider ron paul's record as a constitutionalist, so should they consider the ideas of mike gravel as relate to allowing the american people to legislate for themselves.
Bravo Naomi !!
As one of your northern neighbour, I have sadly watched your country sink into the hole dug by this administration that you elected and (incredibly) reelected for a second mandate.
The way I see it, the U.S. is now competing with Israel for the title of the most hated nation on earth because of the way it responded to the 9/11 attacks on WTC.
I am sure the folks who planned this attack could have never dreamt of a more succesfull outcome because of the damage this administration's reaction has done to your country's reputation around the world.
I think it is quite hazardous these days to walk around with a U.S. flag on a t-shirt in many countries who used to be friendly to the U.S.
I used to be an enthousiastic admirer of your country, I have visited it frequently over the years (before 9/11) and I have met great people there but I have never returned since then and I even terminated my contacts to avoid
unpleasant verbal confrontations.
I sincerely hope the good people of your country are going to wake up, face reality and put these crooks in jail soon.
Unfortunately,this cancer seems to be spreading to Canada also, fueled by implanted fears by the same type of "religious freaks" right wing politicians who are in power here now.
I cannot beleive we are going to reelect them but fear is a very powerfull ally for unscrupulous politicians.
I would like to say "God help us" but I do not beleive in God and I cannot see why he would care if he ever exist because it would be so easy for him to manifest it's presence undoubtedly.
I know, though why some people would like us to beleive in a god. I see it every sunday morning on your T.V. channels.
Make a vow!!! Send us a donation.
Posted August 30, 2007 | 10:05 AM (EST)