On the Sanctity of Our Constitution

It has come into light that the Bush administration is in talks with the al-Maliki administration for a long-term agreement for U.S. armed forces to stay in Iraq long-term, form permanent bases, and cause us to defend the Iraqi people, instead of the Iraqi people defending the Iraqi people, almost forever. Remember that this is the last year of the Bush administration, and that at noon on January 20, 2009, 357 days from now, there will be a new president. Also note that Mr. Bush will not go to Congress for this ‘long-term agreement’, but rather sign it himself. Not only does this President want his or her ‘hands to be tied’, but we expect our Constitution to be carried out correctly and fully. And, with the Bush administration not going to Congress for this matter, he fails in the oath he took twice.

Now, this isn’t the first time that Mr. Bush has refused to follow the Constitution and its Amendments. Suspension of habeas corpus during an occupation, and not a “case of rebellion [n]or invasion”, as stated by Article I, Section 9, Provision 2 of the Constitution, the right to privacy, a definite 4th Amendment right, revoked by the USA PATRIOT Act, the right for peaceful assembly neutered by “free speech zones”, most notably at the 2004 Republican National Convention, where NYPD officers went to meetings of protesters, promptly arresting them during their protests, generally far away from the convention site of Madison Square Garden, alleged terrorists tortured by sleep deprivation, heavy headphones to cancel out all sound, blackout glasses, bright lights during questioning, and, most notably, waterboarding, violating the Geneva Conventions-a UN document signed by the United States-and the 8th Amendment, the same alleged terrorists not given a public trial by jury, but mere military tribunals-if at all, rarely with the aid or appearance of Counsel-a violation of the 6th Amendment, the most signing statements of any President, many of which destroy our system of law(see the piece “ON Executive Orders”)and, neither last nor least, circumventing Article II, Section 2, which states that the President “shall have the power to…by and with the consent and advice of shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law…”, by using recess appointments on countless occasions, most notably for a recess appointment for UN Ambassador John Bolton, the ruthless civil servant who yells and screams at his subordinates when disgruntled. These acts neuter, circumvent, and even destroy Constitutional rights and responsibilities. And all these by a man who swore on the Holy Book to, as enumerated in Article II, Section 1, Provision 7, “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” There you have it. The President didn’t sign on to just become Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces; he signed on, with the (pseudo-)support of his countrymen to protect our civil writ, what we have lived on for more than 210 years, and is a contemporary to as early as 1215. And he has destroyed our civil writ, our sacred writ without a religion, the way our country works.

And now Mr. Bush is intent on doing so again, without remorse. Mr. Bush is willing to force our next President, possibly a President of change-both potentially historically and potentially ideologically-to continue with a botched policy, a policy that results in more parents having to see their children, some merely in their teens, with disfigurements, or possibly, in body bags. The Military Times had a poll more than a year ago which stated that troops were not satisfied with the Rumsfeldian policy-a policy which continues today. They don’t want to see this; they don’t want to serve in bases perpetually. And what can the 44th President of the United States do, now that he or she would have to follow an Iraq policy identical to that of this current president? And what can the 45th President do? The 50th? The 100th?

But this goes beyond merely a continuation of policy, an aforementioned ‘tying of the hands’. This is a misconstruing of our Constitution, our system of justice. Article II, Section 2, states that “[The President] shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. …” Mr. Bush cannot simply sign this into law-he must go to the Senate! It says it in black and white. And, while Mr. Bush is saying that it is not a treaty, this pseudo-pseudo-treaty cannot pass by. If it involves troops staying past 1/20/09, if it involves an extension of policy of one administration into the policy or policies of others, if it involves the alliance between or among countries, it’s a treaty. To quote the adage, “if it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it’s a duck,” if it looks like a treaty, and it sounds like a treaty, it’s a treaty. Thus, it must go to the Senate. It would be an injustice for it not to do so.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sadly, the misconstruing of our Constitution, a writ of sacrosanct civility (however oxymoronic that sounds), goes beyond the wrath of Bush. It should be noted that recently, former Governor Mike Huckabee(R-AR) said, “We should change the Constitution to fit God’s word, instead of changing God’s word to fit some modern way of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.” He may just be saying that there should be a Constitutional ban on gay marriage and abortions. First, social engineering was exactly what was attempted by the 18th Amendment, Prohibition-which was quickly repealed by the 21st Amendment; I doubt it will work in our “anything goes” society if it didn’t work then. Second, marriage is a state’s issue, not a federal issue; thus, this would violate the 10th Amendment, which states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Maybe we shouldn’t listen to what he says, some people say; after all, this is the same man who says that homosexuality is one step away from bestiality. However, maybe we should listen, and maybe he’s not just talking about Constitutional bans on gay marriage and abortions. Just as President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in his farewell speech in 1961 to “beware the military-industrial complex,” maybe we should take note and form another caveat. We must beware a theocracy, a nation run by a pastor, who takes to the “bully pulpit,” as President Teddy Roosevelt once called the presidency, with literal appeal-that is, using the pulpit for religion. We must beware of a country in which “In God We Trust” is taken too seriously. Here is a warning, a warning for all reading this to hear: beware of the religious complex. Because the Constitution, a writ of liberty to us, a beacon of hope abroad, cannot and shall not be misconstrued.