The Constitution's final two amendments

Today's article by Bob Woodward about Gerald Ford's reasonable but "embargoed" objections to Bush's foreign policy made me wonder how exactly we know that our news is not being censored. I mean, we're not North Korea, we have the internet, blah blah blah, BUT you don't have to paying very close attention to realize the effect that media concentration and private financing of elections have had on the information we get (or you can simply read Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber). If a former president feels he has to censor himself, and reporters go along with this even as major decisions about war and peace are being debated, it seems as if something is afoot.

But this leads to a conundrum. Given that we don't have real information, how do we know when we are sliding into a propaganda state? Below the fold, I have a thought experiment and a question: let's say that the Constitution has had the following two amendments secretly added to it. How would we know?

So, tell me, how do you know these are not in effect:

Amendment 28

As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, the President has the Power to bypass Article V and amend the Constitution through Executive Order if he considers the United States in imminent danger. Such amendments have the force of law for the duration of the President’s term of office. Thereafter, they must either be withdrawn or ratified according to the terms of Article V. The scope and existence of this Amendment are classified, enforceable by the terms outlined in Article III, section 3.

Amendment 29

The President shall have the power to declare a War on Terror, provided both the President and President pro tempore of the Senate concur in writing. Under such conditions, the powers to declare war and to enact taxes and allocate funds shall pass from the Legislature to the Executive branch for the duration of this declaration, and the President shall have the power to limit the application of the Bill of Rights to individuals and classes of individuals, provided the limits have prior approval in writing by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The scope and existence of this Amendment are classified, enforceable by the terms outlined in Article III, section 3.

I wrote them myself, and am not a lawyer, so they are nothing more than bad science fiction. But I just get the feeling sometimes that the first amendment has all the reality of the tooth fairy, and wonder how I would even know whether it really exists.

•  not really tinfoil

  as a philosophical question about how we know whether something is tinfoil or not?

  by MarkC on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 07:16:22 AM PDT

•  why bother?

  The Constitution and the Amendments already in place are largely being ignored already.  Beyond that, changes have been made to the Constitution via the Torture Law without the legal Amendment and ratification process.  It would appear to me that secret ammendments would not be needed because Bush and his Cabal of criminals can simply take care of anything with a signing statement... because nobody is standing up to stop them.

  by tsoldrin on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 07:30:10 AM PDT

  •  yes, I agree

    I was interested that yesterday Lantos basically said, we have to ignore signing statements because they are a fiction. My amendments are simply an attempt to focus the question on what means are available to deal with extraconstitutional actions you are talking about -- I acknowledge that in the diary itself, but I see from the comments that people don't think such a thought experiment has much value.

    by MarkC on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 07:51:02 AM PDT

•  It is not legally possible...

  ...to secretly amend the Constitution.  

  If you're suggesting they illegally amended it, well, if you're going to ignore the Constitution, why bother writing an amendment?  Just ignore the thing (as many would argue they have).  

  by Bill W on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 07:32:45 AM PDT

  •  It is not legally possible...

    to do most of the things these ferking Republicans have done during the past six years. What we have had in this country since G.W. Bush and Richard Cheney have taken their oaths (what a joke!) of office is an outlaw government. These assholes have just been making it up as they've been going along. We have become used to a methodology of government that should be causing outrage; it has become the norm for us and that shoudn't be so.

    by jayatRI on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 09:38:49 AM PDT

•  "sliding into a propaganda state?"

  We've already slipped on the banana peel, and Cheney is laughing.

  by Halcyon on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 07:34:39 AM PDT

•  Why was the story "embargoed"?

  and why is it not now?

  by calebfaux on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 07:40:08 AM PDT

  •  Answered my own question - not impressive

    condition was it could be published after his death -too bad he didn't have he guts to allow release while h was still alive.

    by calebfaux on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 07:47:01 AM PDT

    •  I wish he had let Kissinger resign

      after any one of those 50 weekends.  (That story is full of interesting details.)

      by ybruti on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 08:02:50 AM PDT

•  Remember 2/3rd of the states

  also have to pass it.  What are the odds that every single legislator would remain silent about it?  NOt even a leak to the media...

  doubt it.

  by Tetris on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 07:54:50 AM PDT

  •  Actually W has already declared himself dictator

    and cancelled the Constitution, the date of the announcement is not yet released.

    by IhateBush on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 08:41:40 AM PDT

  •  28 is by fiat

    The idea is that like signing statements, they are asserted to be amendments, but no one would really be sure this is possible or not. But with assertions like this, who has the authority to do anything about it?

    by MarkC on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 09:00:38 AM PDT

•  The problem with secret laws

  is that they are tough to enforce, what with the need to use their language in the event of litigation.  This is why, even in Russia and Ukraine, where the president has the power to issue secret decrees that have the force of law, the vast majority of these secret decrees deal mainly with matters of foreign policy, thus echoing US practice of confidential executive orders.  

  by tipsymcstagger on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 08:41:10 AM PDT