That Constitution is just so old

The president's press conference Tuesday morning yielded many ludicrous gems. Many go far to confirm the previous post. His comments on FISA were downright disturbing, illuminating how deeply impoverished this man's outlook on our constitutional system is. He just doesn't get it.

See if you can spot the fallacy:

Secondly, the FISA law was written in 1978.  We're having this discussion in 2006.  It's a different world.  And FISA is still an important tool. It's an important tool.  And we still use that tool.  But also -- and we -- look -- I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law?  And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do.

And so that's why I made the decision I made.  And you know, "circumventing" is a loaded word, and I refuse to accept it, because I believe what I'm doing is legally right.

It this to what American law has been reduced? Let's extend the logic:

The Constitution was signed way back in 1787. That's a long time ago. More than two hundred years. They didn't even have a group of folks like al-Qaeda back then. *Heh* In the twentieth-century, we need more nimble, less cum-ber-some tools so that I can make you safe, and as your president, that is my most solemn obligation.

I somehow doubt this *FISA is old* justification was part of the prep. Rather, my guess is that we just got a little bit of insight into how the president gets convinced that certain things are okay.

And that's been a big part of the problem in American politics since 2000. As a friend of mine put it recently: People are willing to stick with him in the face of sheer absurdity because he really believes this shit. He just doesn't get it. He's not equipped for it. What smells like bad milk to us is his sound logic.

You know, it wasn't so long ago that Vice President Dick Cheney was bemoaning the erosion of executive authority after the Nixon presidency. The full quote is worth reading.

While perhaps Cheney can rationalize that it was the fault of a bunch of doves, peaceniks, Frank Church, and promiscuous, dope-smoking hippies, he ought to realize that the erosion of presidential legitimacy in the 1970s was the fault of those who grasped for power, abused it, and lost it.

This White House's defense of its extra-constitutional machinations are so transparently specious, their exercise of power so mis-managed, and their self-regard so inflated that we are on the precipice of the exact same thing happening again. Their justifications are patently self-refuting, with the consequence that the legitimacy of the presidency and the broader constitutional order will be shaken; at precisely the wrong time for the country given the real threats it faces.

Comments

[M. Douglas Wray]

Nixon was a clumsy crook - and so are Bush and Cheney. Only the protection of a Republican majority protects them.

'06 is going to be the most screwed-up (dare I say 'sabotaged'??) election in history as the crimminals desperately try to keep the tarp tied down over their nasty little schemes.

We need to audit the voting VERY carefully and scream like bloody hell when (not if) things start smelling bad and shine a bright light on anyone and everyone trying to hide election information from the public.

Assuming we win in '06, then we go after these crimminals - all of them.

[justadood]

trouble with auditing....the Diebold machines leave no audit trail, as they don't generate hard-copy output of the vote results.

connect that to the dot of an ex-CEO bragging that he helped deliver Ohio in 2004 (sorry, no link, I"m running from momery here), and you start to see the glimmerings of a conspiracy to rig the vote. Since the diebold machines can essentially be hacked by a 12-year-old, *without leaving traces*, what assurance do we have that republican operatives aren't doing that right now, or will in November, to ensure they don't lose their grip on power?

Third dot: Unitary President theory/argument (See C&L's fine reply of the Nixon interview with David Frost)

fourth dot: One of the arguments Bush's re-election team was making...that it was not responsible to change Presidents in the middle of a war. But the war is not likely ever to end....at teh VERY least, not before the end of Bush's 2nd term. What then?

You connect the dots, friends....do you see the same picture I do?

[J.]

I'm glad you posted this because I swear this was the EXACT same thing I was thinking when I heard it on the news. I was thinking, "he did NOT just say a thirty-year old law on warrents was too old did he? Not the strict constitutionalist Bush?"

[Lamont Hansen]

kakawahie dulat semitize obstinacy protogynous cerebrometer dessertspoonful canzonet
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/dept/pub/ssh/index.html >Le secret du petit cheval
http://www.watertreatment.nl