head go 'splode
We're gonna legalize torture. These are the torture tactics the Pentagon recently repudiated. Bush wants to sic dogs on naked people; the military doesn't.
And, you can now be disappeared and held indefinitely without charge! Well, that sure brightens my day. I look sexy in orange! And then there's this gem from Fox/White House Spokesperson Tony Snow:
Me: But isn’t it the Supreme Court that’s supposed to decide whether laws are unconstitutional or not?
Tony: No, as a matter of fact the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. the That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself.
What? And... and... what?
First off, if the President has an obligation to protect the Constitution, why isn't he? Second, does deciding what laws are and are not constitutional, a power given to the Judiciary Branch, not imply that the courts too are responsible for protecting the Constitution? Sure, the president is the only individual given that responsibility, but s/he's also the only individual in sole charge of a branch of government.
The only bright spot in all this is that Bush is going to have some serious "What do you mean I'm not king?" culture shock when he steps down in 2008. If he steps down in 2008.
As of a couple weeks ago, Ze Frank said the bill specifically prevents the courts from intervening. I don't know if that's in the final version or not. But... can they do that? "We're gonna pass an unconstitutional bill, but we called no tagbacks, so the courts can't declare it unconstitutional!"
**
Meanwhile, I have had a epiphany of sorts about Pope Benedict (seen here riding a bicycle): he and Mel Gibson went off on pretty much the same rant. Swap some names and some faiths around, throw in some hiding behind a centuries-old quote, and it's the same. The same sentiment, anyway.
And, you can now be disappeared and held indefinitely without charge! Well, that sure brightens my day. I look sexy in orange! And then there's this gem from Fox/White House Spokesperson Tony Snow:
Me: But isn’t it the Supreme Court that’s supposed to decide whether laws are unconstitutional or not?
Tony: No, as a matter of fact the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. the That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself.
What? And... and... what?
First off, if the President has an obligation to protect the Constitution, why isn't he? Second, does deciding what laws are and are not constitutional, a power given to the Judiciary Branch, not imply that the courts too are responsible for protecting the Constitution? Sure, the president is the only individual given that responsibility, but s/he's also the only individual in sole charge of a branch of government.
The only bright spot in all this is that Bush is going to have some serious "What do you mean I'm not king?" culture shock when he steps down in 2008. If he steps down in 2008.
As of a couple weeks ago, Ze Frank said the bill specifically prevents the courts from intervening. I don't know if that's in the final version or not. But... can they do that? "We're gonna pass an unconstitutional bill, but we called no tagbacks, so the courts can't declare it unconstitutional!"
**
Meanwhile, I have had a epiphany of sorts about Pope Benedict (seen here riding a bicycle): he and Mel Gibson went off on pretty much the same rant. Swap some names and some faiths around, throw in some hiding behind a centuries-old quote, and it's the same. The same sentiment, anyway.