The administration of George Bush has, in effect, suspended
the Constitution of the United States.
At Guant�namo
in Cuba, in military prisons in the United States, and in secret detention
facilities abroad, American citizens and non-citizens are being held without
charge, without counsel, without prospect of a jury trial, in violation of the
Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth articles of the Bill of Rights. These rights
apply to all persons under United States jurisdiction. The word �citizen�
appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights.
The same administration has conducted warrantless
surveillance of American citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the
Bill of Rights, and despite an explicit order of the Supreme Court to cease and
desist.
And the administration, in violation of ratified treaties,
which have the force of law (Article Six of the Constitution), is engaged in an
undeclared war against a non-threatening nation, and is torturing prisoners.
The treaties are, respectively, the Nuremberg Accords and the Geneva
Conventions.
The president, upon signing congressional legislation,
issues �signing statements� which state, in effect, that he can, at his
discretion, ignore the legislation above his signature. And he has issued a
�directive� that, in event of some unspecified �emergency� so designated by
himself, he can assume dictatorial powers.
Nor is this the end of it. As most readers are well aware,
there have been numerous additional illegal acts by the Bush administration,
including the �outing� of a covert intelligence officer, obstruction of
justice, and lying to the Congress and the American people.
The institution best situated to put an end to these crimes
and to hold the criminals accountable to the rule of law is the Congress of the
United States, each member of which has taken an oath to �protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States.�
Five months into its new term, the Congress, now controlled by
the Democratic Party, has done essentially nothing to restore the rule of law
and the supremacy of the Constitution. The initial decisive act leading to that
end might be as simple as the passage of this two-sentence resolution: �The
Congress of the United States hereby affirms that the Constitution is the
supreme law of the United States. Accordingly, any and all legislation and
executive orders in violation of the Constitution are null and void.�
The word �affirms� is crucial, for it states that at no time
was the Constitution legally �in suspension,� and thus any legislation or acts
by the Bush administration in violation thereof were at all times illegal and
invalid. Accordingly, the word "restoration" must be avoided in such
a resolution.
The Democrats should bring this resolution to a vote, and
dare the Republicans to vote against it. The GOP would doubtless resist by
calling it a �meaningless political stunt,� and would struggle to prevent an
open vote. But if it were to be brought to a vote, who would dare go on record
with a denial that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?
And if such a resolution were to pass both houses of
Congress, it should be immediately followed by other resolutions specifying the
implications of that first resolution. Namely,
- It is
affirmed that all US citizens and other individuals under US jurisdiction
enjoy the protection of Habeas Corpus, as specified in Article 1, Section
9 of the Constitution.
- Therefore,
all persons in custody at Guant�namo and other prisons must either be
charged with a crime and given a fair trial, or released. Following that,
the Guant�namo facility must be closed and all "renditions" of
prisoners to other countries ceased.
- All
torture of so-called �enemy combatants� must cease immediately.
- All
provisions of the USPATRIOT Act and the Military Provisions Act in
violation of the protections of the Constitution must be declared null and
void.
- Acts
of Congress signed by the president have the status of law, and signing
statements have no legal status whatsoever.
In addition, the Congress should act upon the following:
- Cite
Attorney General Gonzales for perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt
of Congress. Then proceed with his impeachment.
- End
the funding of the Iraq occupation, except for the funds required for the
prompt withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
- Proceed
with investigations and then indictments for war profiteering, with
special attention directed toward Halliburton and its ex-CEO, Dick Cheney.
- At
long last, investigate election fraud by e-voting machines, intimidation,
and voter disenfranchisement (e.g., through �caging lists�).
- Above
all, issue bills of impeachment against Bush and Cheney, followed by
hearings in the House and trials in the Senate.
Impeachment is being resisted by �practical� Democratic
politicians on the grounds that even if it succeeded in the House, conviction
and removal from office would surely fail in the Senate.
I am not at all certain of this, in view of what might
result from the House investigations and debate. But this objection misses the
point. Ultimate conviction and removal may be less important than the
impeachment process and the evidence and prosecution case that would result
from it. Once the high crimes and misdemeanors of Bush and Cheney are
brought to light, those who vote against impeachment in the House and
conviction in Senate may pay a high price at the polls.
In the meantime, what is the progressive citizen and voter
to do? Both parties have betrayed the trust of the American public and have
violated their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. Thus those of us
who are justifiably disgusted with both parties, are faced with daunting
dilemma:
On the one hand, should we punish the Democrats by voting
for third parties? Such a decision serves to keep the Republicans in power,
which would keep the culprits forever unaccountable for their crimes.
On the other hand, should we vote for the Democrats, as the
lesser of the evils? If so, the party might construe this as public approval of
its delinquent behavior.
With much reluctance and regret, I would opt for the latter
alternative, all the while putting a well-deserved scare into the ranks of the
�establishment� Democrats.
Most immediately, all Democrats who voted for Bush�s Iraq
resolution and otherwise collaborated with the outlaw regime should be
challenged in the primaries. A few might lose their seats to such challenges,
though most would not. But even if the challenges fall short, strong showings
at the polls by the progressive challengers will send a message: we the people
are here, we protest, and we demand to be heard.
If that protest fails to reform the Democrats, then perhaps
it will be time to look to third parties. The Democrats must understand that
this remains a live option.
Finally, progressives must take a lesson from the religious
right and take over the Democratic Party from the bottom up. Get active in
local and state party activities, send progressives to the state conventions
and then to the national convention. Far better to take control of an existing
major party organization than to attempt to build a national organization for a
minor party.
The good news for the Democrats is that public approval of
Bush is down to around 30 percent. The bad news is that the
public approval of the Democratic Congress is not much above that: 37
percent, down from 44 percent in April. And the worst news is that this poor
and declining public opinion of the Democratic Congress is well deserved.
There is no other way to put it: the congressional
Democratic leadership (with a few honorable exceptions) has failed the American
public and has violated its oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States.
We must demand that they wake up and do their duty, assuring
them that if they do, they will earn the respect and support of their
constituents.
Copyright � 2007 Ernest Partridge
Dr.
Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of
Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy
at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He
publishes the website, The Online Gadfly
and co-edits the progressive website, The
Crisis Papers.