It's not surprising that Republicans are defending positions that clearly expose them for the liars and hypocrites they truly are, they do it on a regular basis. What is surprising is how vast their display of blatant stupidity, corruption and unscrupulousness has become.
Let's begin with President Bush's NSA wiretapping scheme. The argument from the President's supporters and the Administration itself is that Article II of the Constitution gives Bush, as Commander in Chief, the power to spy on Americans without a warrant. Where are those consitutional strict constructionists when you need them?!
As John "Shitlaser" Hindraker of Powerline states:
The starting point, of course, is the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution sets out the powers and duties of the President. Some people do not seem to realize that the executive branch is coequal with the legislative and judicial branches. The President has certain powers under the Constitution, and they cannot be taken away or limited by Congressional legislation any more than the President can limit the powers of Congress by executive order.
Article II makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As such he is preeminent in foreign policy, and especially in military affairs. This was no accident; as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 74, "Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand." The federal courts have long recognized that when it comes to waging war, the President, not Congress or the courts, is the supreme authority. In Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850), the Supreme Court wrote that the President has the Constitutional power to "employ [the Nation's armed forces] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy."
The right wing is making two clearly false assumptions with this argument. The first is that, as Commander in Chief, a President may give illegal or unconstitutional orders. The second is that we are "at war".
Let's address the second issue. War is something that can only be declared by Congress, NOT THE PRESIDENT. The president may order military action, such as an invasion of another sovereign nation, only with consent and approval of Congress under the War Powers Resolution. Even the joint resolution authorizing "force" against those responsible for the attacks of 9/11 conforms to the War Powers Resolution. Despite claims from the Administration that the 9/11 resolution gave Bush the power to order warrant-less wiretaps, the authority isn't there.
This is the main section of the 9/11 resolution:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
I don't know about you, but I can't even begin to see how you can draw the assumption that Congress granted Bush the power to conduct wiretaps without warrants based on that. I would hate to see the size of the surgical instrument required to pull that legal conclusion out of their collective asses. The operative phrase in the resolution is "all necessary and appropriate force". Apparently, the GOP has found a new use for the word "force", as in "We will FORCE you to submit to domestic surveillance without a warrant because it will protect America" and "The President can FORCE upon you whatever he wants to protect you ingrates". But, it still does not match the Constitutional requirement of "war". Even then, the President cannot stick the Bill of Rights in a closet and pretend it never existed. That brings us back to the first argument of the GOP.
(Note: when writing an entry about the GOP, I find it helpful to step away from the computer for a moment, scream at the top of my lungs, bash my head against the wall several times and jump up and down. It is therapeutic, but can scare the children.)
Let's assume that in times of war, the President of the United States does NOT have the unlimited power of a dictator. The Constitution provides the President complete control of the Armed forces in times of war, but even he cannot order our forces to commit illegal or unconstitutional acts. And the Constitution limits his powers by requiring Congressional consent to war. One example of this limit of Presidential authority if the legal battle over alleged, would-be "dirty-bomber" Jose Padilla. Padilla is a U.S. citizen, protected by the BILL OF RIGHTS (for our GOP readers, that is part of the Constitution!). It doesn't matter if he was Osama bin Laden's right hand man, he shall not be denied his rights. The Administration has given up the fight to hold him as an "enemy combatant" because it has become increasingly clear that it is a fight they cannot win. Presidential war powers do not trump the rights of the people:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
If there is even one Republican who still thinks the Administration's actions are justifiable, I ask that they consider Bill Clinton with those powers. I'm sure they would faint into a pile of their own excrement at the mere suggestion. You don't have to be Oliver Stone to now believe that we have more to fear from our government than we do terrorists.
That brings us to the Abramoff scandal.
The GOP road of a wave of dissatisfaction with a few bad-apple Democrats to a stunning victory in the 1994 congressional elections, giving Republicans control of both Houses of Congress. Color me shocked to learn that the GOP has learned absolutely nothing from history. Today, we see Republican members of Congress lining their own pockets with money from the likes of GOP uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff (any attempt to paint Democrats as part of the Abramoff "team" is laughable).
What strikes me a so ironic about the whole scandal is how stupid corporate America is when it comes to politics. When the GOP gained control of Congress, the White House and the courts, a working-class-screwing, big business orgy was a fait accompli. And yet, all across American board rooms, corporate bigwigs thought it necessary to spend millions to buy Republican members of Congress, who would have done essentially what the CEOs wanted anyway. How short sighted! Even without bribes from lobbyists, the Republican Congress would have passed and the President approved any number of climate-destroying, middle-class raping, CEO friendly corporate giveaways. Those are the hallmarks of their morally bankrupt ideology. To the average Republican Congressperson or Senator it is as simple as "I was already going to vote in favor of the environmentally devastating, union-busting corporate welfare bill that you folks over at Acme Corporation wrote for us, but I really do appreciate the golf excursion to Scotland!"
It would be nice if the majority of Americans would stop worrying about a politician's willingness to legislate taste and morality and start worrying about a politicians willingness to defend their constituents homes, lives and livelihoods.
With the 2006 midterms just over the horizon, it is beginning to look like a backlash is forming. It is clear that the Republican agenda is not the agenda of the vast majority of Americans, especially when the GOP agenda is selling votes to the highest bidder. And if the NSA is reading this, I am really a big Tom Delay donor.