The Political Junkies
UPDATED: JUL 24, 2007
PRESERVING THE CONSTITUTION
The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 (“HCRA”) this week. HCRA restores the ancient* and American right of an individual to challenge the right of the government to confine them in a court of law. Last year, the Military Commissions Act was passed under a Republican controlled Congress that greatly undermined the protections of habeas corpus.
The Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote was 11 to 8. Who voted against restoring Habeas Corpus? All Republicans:
Sam Brownbeck (R-Kansas)
Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma)
John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa)
Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)
Jon Kyl (R-Arizona)
Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama)
Observers are predicting that Majority Leader Reid will bring the bill to a vote on the Senate floor in the coming weeks. Will Republicans again filibuster? Even if the bill passes both Houses of Congress, will Bush veto?
The coming votes on this bill will clearly demonstrate to the American public where both Parties stand. The Committee vote on HCRA is an excellent indicator of what is to come.
____________
*Sir William Blackstone cites the first recorded use of habeas in 1305. Other writs were issued with similar effect as early as the 12th century during the reign of Henry II.
GRAND OBSTRUCTIONIST PARTY (GOP)
Americans want to move forward on issues facing their daily lives. The Republican Party has become the Party of obstruction as the chart below demonstrates.
|
|
Senate Republicans have the right to filibuster. But, Democrats should confront what they are doing head on with all Americans.
The simple question is; Had enough?
_____________________________________________
UPDATED: JUL 22, 2007THE UNITARY PRESIDENT
Bush and the Republican Party are pushing the theory of a “unitary President” with alarming vigor. Several examples demonstrate the point from the past week.
First example. Despite explicit Federal law that a Congressional charge of contempt of Congress is referred to the US Attorney in the District of Columbia for prosecution, Bush instructs that the US attorney will not process any contempt charges:
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.
Republicans are hailing Bush’s decision:
David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."
Second example; torture. A Federal Court calls into question the legal foundation for the practice of torture that Bush unleashed. Bush, not Congress, redefines interrogation practices that are virtually meaningless:
President Bush breathed new life into the CIA's terror interrogation program Friday in an executive order that would allow harsh questioning of suspects, limited in public only by a vaguely worded ban on cruel and inhuman treatment.
The order bars some practices such as sexual abuse, part of an effort to quell international criticism of some of the CIA's most sensitive and debated work. It does not say what practices would be allowed.
The executive order is the White House's first public effort to reach into the CIA's five-year-old terror detention program, which has been in limbo since a Supreme Court decision last year called its legal foundation into question.
Third example; stifling dissent:
I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.
The pattern is undeniable; Bush and the Republicans are chipping away at the system of checks and balances that underpins our Constitution. And with each “chip,” individual liberties are being obliterated.
The message for Americans is quite simple. The Republican assault on the Constitution will not end until the Republicans are defeated at the polls.
ELEANOR, WHAT ACTION?
Eleanor Clift pens a puzzling op ed for Newsweek entitled, “It’s Time For Action.” Her central thesis (emphasis added):
Democrats needed to do something dramatic, even histrionic, to dispel the perception they are powerless to stop the war, even if they are. They’re keeping the heat on, and that’s a good thing. GOP leader Mitch McConnell, outraged at the sleepover stunt, cited a Zogby poll taken before this week’s Senate action that found voters’ approval for the Democratic Congress has dropped to 14 percent—evidence to McConnell that the Democrats’ strategy is failing. Pollster John Zogby questions this interpretation, saying that Congress never does well no matter who’s in charge, and in post-Katrina America, government institutions are at a low point. Liberals in particular rate this Congress very low because of the war, which is why the least the Senate could do is pull an all-nighter. “I see this not as a stroke of desperation but something they have to do,” Zogby told NEWSWEEK. “They have to keep trying to end the war. They can’t be seen as throwing their arms up in the air and saying it’s impossible, or they’ll get these kind [sic] of numbers.”
Cliff’s thesis is excellent as far as it goes. Yet, Clift does not even suggest one “dramatic” or “histrionic” strategy for Democrats.
As Clift admits, Democrats “are powerless to stop the war . . . .” The cold political realities:
1. Republicans, despite the rhetoric of some US Senators, have repeatedly employed the filibuster to block even a vote on legislation that would stop Bush’s occupation of Iraq. Those in both Parties who are opposed to the war are working the “grass roots” in selected Republican Senate seats. Democrats remain seven or eight votes short of the sixty votes necessary to invoke cloture and bring such measures to a vote.
2. The question for Democrats who advocate impeachment of Bush or Cheney or both, where are the votes? If Republicans in the US Senate are holding tight to their President on bills to force the withdrawal of American troops, who can reasonably believe that the Senate would convict on any impeachment charge? Do Democrats really want the US House to bring Articles of Impeachment and then lose the critical vote? Would it not ultimately embolden the Republicans even more?
3. Congress cut off funding for Bush’s occupation? It is an idea that the American public does not support despite its overwhelming opposition to the continuing occupation.
Congressional Democrats must keep the votes coming, keep the Congressional Democrats together and keep working Republican districts to make our case that Bush and the Republicans will not end this occupation.
If Clift has any better ideas, she has duty to outline them.
“TOUGH LOVE” OR “SAVE MY HIDE”
Bush is starting to get a dose of “tough love” from his Republican colleagues. Or is a case of simply “saving my hide.” The story:
New Hampshire Republican John Sununu said he won't campaign with George W. Bush next year ``in this climate'' because of the president's low job-approval ratings.
Sununu, who faces a tough re-election, said ``the president's popularity, unfortunately, is at a fairly low level.'' He spoke in an interview with Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt,'' scheduled to air today.
Bush campaigned for Sununu in New Hampshire twice during the 2002 election, when Sununu beat Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, a former governor, by about 20,000 votes. Shaheen, who hasn't declared her candidacy, led Sununu 56 percent to 34 percent, according to a Concord Monitor poll of likely voters conducted this month.
While Sen. Sununu attempts to distance himself from an unpopular president; it is only a few degrees of separation. Sen. Sununu continues to support the President’s policies for the occupation of Iraq.
Sununu, 42, opposed a Senate proposal this week that would have required most U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq by April 30, 2008. He said it was ``not sound policy'' to announce to U.S. enemies when troops would begin pulling back.
He said he would consider giving U.S. commanders more time to quell violence in the country if they ask for it when General David Petraeus, the top U.S. officer in Iraq, presents a report to Congress in September.
Message to Americans: if Bush’s occupation of Iraq is to end, accept not substitutes, elect more Democrats.
Last Update: 07/27/2007