What's In A Name?
From my reading posts at several blogs, it seems that there is a hesitation on the part of many others as well as my own to use the title of President in connection with w. As you no doubt have noted, I generally refer to him as the Cretin in Chief, often shortened to C-I-C.
I must mention that I feel this leader of the free world, as former presidents have often been called, is singularly unlike the sort of person we need at the helm of our Ship of State. Recent statements made about the advice of the Iraq Study Group once again show that he is not open to sensible, public spirited, proposals. And that he has openly violated the oath of office which commits him to uphold and defend the constitution are a characteristic which most makes me view him as an interloper in high office. That he issues his own interpretations, 'signing statements', which he uses to undermine constitutionally passed legislation - and in his own words, renders our laws inapplicable to himself, is violation of his oath.
Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:
***************************************************
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
These signing statements are in direct contradiction of the oath of office the person who would be president is required to take. The constitution states that the president shall carry out the laws, i.e. "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.". This is the oath.
Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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."
By violating that Constitution, I consider that the Cretin in Chief has waived the right to a title that is given in return for his service in office.
It would seem that a growing number of the American public sees this service as far beneath the standard a president should hold to.
Americans are overwhelmingly resigned to something less than clear-cut victory in Iraq and growing numbers doubt the country will achieve a stable, democratic government no matter how the U.S. gets out, according to an AP poll.
At the same time, dissatisfaction with President George W. Bush's handling of Iraq has climbed to an alltime high of 71 percent. The latest AP-Ipsos poll, taken as a bipartisan commission was releasing its recommendations for a new course in Iraq, found that just 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, down from his previous low of 31 percent in November.
While the constitution gives the congress a means to remedy disservice by the holder of the office of president, so far the incoming congressional leaders have committed themselves to seeking to remedy the worst of his offenses with remedial legislation such as the minimum wage, and by exercising their mandate to scrutinize the excesses of the executive branch.
I am just about certain, however, that this executive will continue his criminal conduct, and that the congress will have no way to keep him from violating legislation they will pass for serving the public interest. In the case of open violation of the law, I look forward to the 110th congress being forced to remedy criminal conduct by impeachment. I don't enjoy that prospect, but from his actions to date, I am sure this C-I-C will force this country to such a precipice, and he will most certainly pitch us all over it.
I must mention that I feel this leader of the free world, as former presidents have often been called, is singularly unlike the sort of person we need at the helm of our Ship of State. Recent statements made about the advice of the Iraq Study Group once again show that he is not open to sensible, public spirited, proposals. And that he has openly violated the oath of office which commits him to uphold and defend the constitution are a characteristic which most makes me view him as an interloper in high office. That he issues his own interpretations, 'signing statements', which he uses to undermine constitutionally passed legislation - and in his own words, renders our laws inapplicable to himself, is violation of his oath.
Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:
***************************************************
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
These signing statements are in direct contradiction of the oath of office the person who would be president is required to take. The constitution states that the president shall carry out the laws, i.e. "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.". This is the oath.
Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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."
By violating that Constitution, I consider that the Cretin in Chief has waived the right to a title that is given in return for his service in office.
It would seem that a growing number of the American public sees this service as far beneath the standard a president should hold to.
Americans are overwhelmingly resigned to something less than clear-cut victory in Iraq and growing numbers doubt the country will achieve a stable, democratic government no matter how the U.S. gets out, according to an AP poll.
At the same time, dissatisfaction with President George W. Bush's handling of Iraq has climbed to an alltime high of 71 percent. The latest AP-Ipsos poll, taken as a bipartisan commission was releasing its recommendations for a new course in Iraq, found that just 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, down from his previous low of 31 percent in November.
While the constitution gives the congress a means to remedy disservice by the holder of the office of president, so far the incoming congressional leaders have committed themselves to seeking to remedy the worst of his offenses with remedial legislation such as the minimum wage, and by exercising their mandate to scrutinize the excesses of the executive branch.
I am just about certain, however, that this executive will continue his criminal conduct, and that the congress will have no way to keep him from violating legislation they will pass for serving the public interest. In the case of open violation of the law, I look forward to the 110th congress being forced to remedy criminal conduct by impeachment. I don't enjoy that prospect, but from his actions to date, I am sure this C-I-C will force this country to such a precipice, and he will most certainly pitch us all over it.
posted by Ruth at 7:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home