Sunday, June 24, 2007

A link for Cheney and others who have never read the Constitution

The new "Where's Waldo" type game: "Where's the Vice President". Cheney and his thugs say that the VP is really in the legislative branch, but I still haven't seen that with me own eyes.

The Emperor and his Grand Marionette from Wyoming are getting rather tiresome to those -- such as myself -- who believe that it is THIS constitution that they sworn to uphold.

Hey Bush and Cheney, simply cross the Rubicon, torch the Reichstag, and end your little charade of US as a constitutional republic.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Let’s look more closely at the issue and frame it in its real context; and then contrast its implications against your charges:

Cheney has claimed for the last four years that his office is not fully part of the administration in order to exempt it from a presidential order regulating federal agencies’ handling of classified national security information, which the National Archives claims demonstrates a failure of proper security safeguards and jeopardizes the nation’s most sensitive security secrets.

Is his a specious argument? Yes. Harmful? Hardly. In fact, he is dutifully ensuring that national secrets that would otherwise be leaked and used by our enemies—both foreign and domestic (think “New York Times”, “ACLU”, congressional Democrats, and other enemies of the State)—remain secret. This is not speculation—it’s fact, demonstrable and supported by the many leaks of highly classified information we have seen in the last several years for which we have paid an added, unnecessary price in American and Iraqi lives.

And, of course, we all know how well the National Archives protected Top Secret reports, analyses, memoranda and other documents from Sandy Berger, who left guarded, “highly secure ‘SKIFs’ ” with dozens of original documents stuffed in his underwear and socks that were ultimately left underneath a trailer at a construction site (and subsequently lost) or destroyed.

But at its base, your charge is as static and blindly academic as those you rail against over and over on this blog. Economics, for example—using your favorite topic, is highly dynamic and any serious analysis must take into account behavior, which tends to foil positions that are staked purely in academia. The tenets that apply to economic theory also hold true in this—and any—argument, and you ignore them. You argue (academically) on powers and limits enumerated in the Constitution and do not recognize or account for the motives and behaviors of the politicians and bureaucrats who are the practitioners and stewards of those powers (the “behavior” variables). As we have seen time and again these last several years—regardless of what you think of the Iraq War—the administration’s critics in congress and in the media have released (in the case of Sandy Berger, destroyed) highly classified intelligence that has proven devastating to the national security of the Unites States, in general, and to the war effort in particular.

Seriously—who do you trust more with national security secrets? The administration or the New York Times? Because your argument ignores the dynamic of the equation—the “either/OR”—I have provided the “OR” here. To deny that at least some of the secrets Cheney is safeguarding (correct terminology) will not wind up in the press—resulting in yet more additional, unneeded America blood spilled—is to be as intellectually vapid or dishonest as the ideologues you so often criticize. This is not hysteria, but a conclusion supported by recent, historical fact.

Is Cheney bending the Constitution? Probably. Executive or Legislative-Constitutional infidelity is hardly a new phenomenon—it’s de rigueur in Washington, and always has been. And executive orders are not ratifications of the Constitution—they are presidential edicts that are often frivolous, and existing ones are routinely discarded as first official acts of incoming presidents. The constitutionality of the Executive Order has long been suspect, but is honored and tolerated by each of the Parties because they both rely on them. So much for hardwiring the fidelity of the Executive Order to the Constitution. By the way—which EO is Cheney violating? Is it 13129? No, that would be the EO to assassinate bin Laden…How about 13011? Nah….that’s the one Bill Clinton signed that created the CIA rendition program. Try finding support for those in the Constitution. I think you get my point.

Of what academic consequence is all of this? It offends the sensibilities of Paulites, Lefties and academics. Of what practical consequence is all of this? It ensures that vital national security data does not get in the hands of a press, activist congress and affiliated groups that have dedicated themselves to destroying the war effort—even if it puts our nation at risk.

I side with offending the sensibilities of the Constitutionalists on this one. As the Founding Fathers would understandably be aghast at some of the current conduct of the Executive Branch, I suspect they’d be terrified to witness the kind of official and sponsored sedition their document has been perverted to protect.

Take your pick.