Congress needs to grow some "Big Ones"

There's a excellent article at Slate.com about "Executive Priviledge" and how Congress should respond to the White House in this matter. Click here to read it.

The author offers a idea involving the formation of yet another layer of technology to combat the abuse of executive power but that's adding another layer to the problem rather than peeling away a layer to solve the current problem. As a technician, I'm always wary of "adding another layer" because it tends to complicate matters more often than solve them.

The solution to the abuse of Executive Priviledge is for Congress to grow some "Big Ones" and assert it's oversight authority. After all Congress has the powers granted to it by the Constitution which include oversight and, yes, the I-word, Impeachment. Congress has the authority and responsibility for oversight. For five years, they dropped the ball and let it bounce around while the White House cast a blind eye to its actions which included getting the US involved in the Iraqi Civil War and Occupation. Subsequent to the 2006 elections, the hearings have begun but many are too late to hope for any good to come of their efforts. Meanwhile, the core of the problem lies within the offices of the Vice President, the Senior Adviser, Karl Rove and the Justice Department's head, Alberto Gonzales. And the biggest problem has been the reluctantance of Congress to move forward with some action of disapproval. There are many possible actions but it's time to consider the big one: Impeachment!

Ever since the Clinton Impeachment, I believe the Democrats, especially, have been uncomfortable bring this up because they don't want to look like they are abusing it as the Republicans did against Clinton. They see it as a very serious alternative and wish to reserve it for the most appropriate moment. However, there is a tool available to Congress that could come before Impeachment and will trump the flaccid argument of Executive Privledge. It is called Inherent Comtempt. Congress can compell the testimony of anyone it wants and hold court within its chambers to prosecute anyone it wants, including those mentioned above, to force them to testify of be jailed for comptempt... impeachment to follow, I am sure. It's currently considering Contempt charges against Harriet Myers for not complying with the subpoena to appear. But this is BB-shot compared to what it really MUST do.

If there is any basis for Impeachment in the US Constitution, the actions of the Bush Regime have certainly warranted such action. They've been bold in their resistance to the requirements to report to Congress when requested and lied when they did. They have subverted law and law and skated on the edge of laws, flauting their spirit, if not their letter. Nothing in US history can compare to their absolute disrespect for the Congress, Laws, Traditions, Sanctity, and People of the United States as this adminstration! Nothing! If Congress does not move to Impeachment against Bush, Cheney and Gonzales then they should just "whiteout" the references to it in the Constitution and wait until January 2009 for the nightmare to be over.

Sticks and Stones...

From Ron Paul's website, concerning the Hate Crimes bill that would include sexual orientation and violent acts...

"Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”"

So, killing a person with a knife or gun while you scream "Faggot!" is an exercise of the First Amendment!? Then, as if that wasn't enough, Ron climbs further up Mount Stupid, and says the Federal Government shouldn't be in the business of protecting civil rights! Then he stands on the summit and proclaims for all those looking up at this feat of idiocy, that "violent acts" are part of one's Freedom of Religion!

Jesus, Ron, what are you mixing in with your morning cereal? What "religion", besides cannibalism, encourages violence against people and can still call itself a "religion". Sorry, dude, that's not anything most people worry about on Sunday morning. I can imagine your ride to church... "Well, children, today's lesson will be how to kill and maim Gay people. Won't that be fun? We'll learn from the sermon how Jesus called His believers to slay anyone they think might be committing something that looks like love but is really a sin. Won't that be informative?"

Ron, baby, read the law... you said it yourself... "The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability." It's not a matter of Religious expression or Freedom of Speech or State's Rights. It's a matter of Civil Rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. It's not saying you have to be gay or disabled or Catholic or Mexican. It's just saying you can't perpetrate a violent crime upon someone who is, for that reason. If you do, it's a Hate Crime. You can still Hate just as much as you like and you can even encourage your children to Hate as much as you like. BUT, you can't act on that Hate and hurt someone in self-righteous justification thereof! Ok? (And the people of Texas continue to vote for you?! It's hard to imagine how they look at themselves in the mirror without gagging.)

-Devon