If someone would have told me ten-years ago that America would soon be ruled by a monarch, I’d have chuckled to myself and walked away. Today, I’m being told exactly that... and, I’m not chuckling.
We have a serious problem here in America and it’s a problem that no one’s talking about besides us progressives and a handful of Libertarians and [ironically enough] a few far-right wingnuts. It’s very disturbing and I’ll never understand why or how Americans became so apathetic and complacent as to allow something like this to happen.
Listen, I know this is nothing new. We've been screaming about this at the top of our lungs for years to anyone who would listen. But to see the two Georges compared side-by-side by an eminent scholar is truly stunning.
One George, an 18th-Century tyrannical monarch from which our founding fathers escaped to pursue freedom -- as opposed to another George -- a modern-day, supposedly democratically-elected, two-term president who now holds and exercises more power than his 18th-Century namesake, really puts our current plight in a paradoxical perspective.
America truly is in uncharted waters here...
George W. Bush has arrogated de facto powers onto himself that the British people even refused to grant King George III at the time of the Revolutionary War, says David Adler, an eminent political scientist.
A professor of political science at Idaho State University in Pocatello, Adler is the author of, "The Constitution and the Termination of Treaties" among other books, and some 100 scholarly articles in his field.
"No executive in the history of the Anglo-American world since the Civil War in England in the 17th century has laid claim to such broad power," said David Adler, a prolific author of articles on the U.S. Constitution. "George Bush has exceeded the claims of Oliver Cromwell who anointed himself Lord Protector of England."
Adler made his comments comparing the powers of President Bush and King George III, on April 26th at a conference on "Presidential Power in America" at the Massachusetts School of Law in Andover.
Scoop Independent News has the story:
Adler said, Bush has "claimed the authority to suspend the Geneva Convention, to terminate treaties, to seize American citizens from the streets to detain them indefinitely without benefit of legal counseling, without benefit of judicial review. He has ordered a domestic surveillance program which violates the statutory law of the United States as well as the Fourth Amendment."
Adler said the authors of the U.S. Constitution wrote that the president "shall take care to faithfully execute the laws of the land" because "the king of England possessed a suspending power" to set aside laws with which he disagreed, "the very same kind of power that the Bush Administration has claimed."
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Adler said, repeatedly referred to the President’s "override" authority, "which effectively meant that the Bush Administration was claiming on behalf of President Bush a power that the English people themselves had rejected by the time of the framing of the Constitution."
Adler said the Framers sought an "Administrator in Chief" that would execute the will of Congress and the Framers understood that the President, as Commander-in-Chief "was subordinate to Congress." The very C-in-C concept, the historian said, derived from the British, who conferred it on one of their battlefield commanders in a war on Scotland in 1639 and it "did not carry with it the power over war and peace" or "authority to conduct foreign policy or to formulate foreign policy."
Adler added that the commander-in-chief was intended to be subordinate to the will of Congress, as first demonstrated during the Revolutionary War when George Washington was granted that title by Congress. Washington was ordered to respond punctually to instructions and directions by Congress, and America’s first president did so dutifully throughout his administration.
In response to the legal opinion written by John Yoo, formerly of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), Adler referred to SCOTUS case "Little vs. Barreme" in 1804, in which the justices affirmed that "the president is duty-bound to obey statutory instructions," and then reaffirmed the ruling two-years later in "United States vs. Smith."
Adler had some parting words of warning for We the People:
"In these last eight years," Adler said, "we have seen presidential powers soar beyond the confines of the Constitution. We have understood that his presidency bears no resemblance to the Office created by the Framers... This is the time for us to demand a return to the constitutional presidency. If we don’t, we will have only ourselves to blame as we go marching into the next war; as we witness even greater claims of presidential power."
The absence of urgency in the minds of our elected representatives is troubling, to say the least. Why aren't America's true statesmen (and women) speaking out about this everyday? Why aren't they rushing to every microphone and television camera at every opportunity to denounce Bush for his myriad illegal and unconstitutional usurpations? Where are the voices of conscience?
Are they all convinced that Bush will simply step down; relinquish all control, and then we'll all live happily ever after with a clean slate and a new president?
I wish I was convinced.
Perhaps, then I would sleep better.
For posterity and what it's worth:
(h/t cometman)
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
Peace