The GOP wasted no time yesterday in attempting to use a federal judge’s injunction against unconstitutional wireless surveillance to club Democrats as being “soft” on national security. A new ad rolled out yesterday: “Democrats say they want to talk about national security and the war on terror . . . while terrorists are watching,” it warned ominously. Bush’s claimed in his angry comments that opponents of the decision simply don’t understand the world we live in.
The GOP insists that any questioning of King George’s policies in any way, shape, or form whatsoever is kowtowing to terrorists. It insists that any attempt to criticize the gross unconstitutionality of his edicts and his flouting of the laws, or even ask for the barest shreds of due process, means that we’re cheering the terrorists on to commit new atrocities like 9/11.
Nobody puts these ridiculous arguments in their place more eloquently than Judge Taylor, who issued the ruling:
“It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights…There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all ‘inherent powers’ must derive from that Constitution.”
What’s on voters’ minds these days is Iraq rather than national security. As the article points out, Republicans have done such a good job connecting national security to the war in Iraq (where no connection really exists) that this strategy is blowing up in their faces–because any mention of national security such as in the context of this ruling immediately reminds voters of the complete disaster in Iraq. That just makes them all the angrier at what’s going on over there, motivating them to throw the GOP out in November.
Brilliant!
That boomerang effect is causing some GOP’ers to “cut and run” on Iraq. Chris Shays, a Republican House incumbent in Connecticut, is quoted as now wanting a timeframe for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Michael Fitzpatrick, a GOP House incumbent from Michigan, distances himself from Bush’s “mistakes” and turns his back on Bush’s Iraq policies in a letter to constituents.
There’s nothing sweeter in politics than to watch the opposition destroy itself with the same club it has used against its opponent.
No related posts.
{ 3 comments }
WHY ON EARTH, WOULD JUDGE TAYLOR WANT TO STOP WIRE-TAPPING OF TERRORISTS? DOES SHE,ALONG WITH THE REST
OF THE DEMOCRATS HATE BUSH SO MUCH THAT SHE WANTS AMERICA TO BE BOMBED? THAT’S WHAT WILL HAPPEN. IT PROBABLY WON’T HAPPEN TILL BUSH LEAVES OFFICE THOUGH. SO THE DEAD AMERICAN’S ARE HER FAULT.
With due respect, don’t be ridiculous. All the judge is requiring is that Bush follow the Constitution and get a warrant. If he feels it’s an emergency he can do the wiretap and get a warrant after the fact. You cannot have a president order violations of privacy without having any judicial review whatsoever–that’s called a king who’s above the law, and we don’t have kings here.
Forcing him to follow the Constitution is not going to get anyone bombed.
That’s just patently absurd and indicative of the kind of knee-jerk bashing of anybody who expects the administration to actually adhere to the very rule of law that Americans love to say makes this country great.
The Republicans in Washington seem to have forgotten that their much-beloved rule of law carries with it the principle that we are a nation of laws and not of men. President Bush doesn’t get to create law with a wave of a wand, no matter what justification he might offer for why he thinks he should be able to do that. The Constitution does not give the President the final say on everything.
There is no law but that which the legislature passes, the executive enacts, and the courts interpret as being consistent with the Constitution and established law. The judge in the domestic wiretapping matter is simply pointing out that Congress has not made any such law and the courts have not endorsed any such law, so the President cannot assert the legality of anything which is not supported by our framework of checks and balances.
Conservatives might not like the way that feels in the swallowing, but the law is the law. The President’s job is to uphold the law, not make it up as he goes along.
Comments on this entry are closed.