Ostensibly, it has not occurred to any elected member, of this preposterous excuse , for a government, that the ills, plaguing this democracy, or such that it is, revolve around Speaker Pelosi's adamant refusal any case for impreachment has been made against President Bush. Be that as it may, we do not belabor the tired rhetoric and dissonant exhortations, otherwise, but we would like to point out that need to find an alternative.
With all due respect, Madam Speaker, I find impossible to forgive you this oversight though I have managed to forgive all the other indiscretions you have managed to remove, "off the table," and then, as in the case of offshore oil exploration and what-not, put back, "on the table," for party politics' sake. It may have been possible to swallow one or the other, rammed down the throat of the electorate, increasingly voiceless as it is, but this needs some sort of redress; otherwise, the concept of democracy becomes merely empty hyperbole.
To wit: If impeachment of the President is repugnant to you and those of the House leadership for a few progressives, then might I suggest something for your table, to be removed at your pleasure: impeach Vice President Cheney. He is arguably the more cupable member of the executive branch, and, if you timed it correctly, impeachment ought not, of the Vice President, put you in an unfortunate position, lest it appear otherwise to the right.
Madam Speaker, something concrete and constructive needs, in the name of the Constitution and the republic, to be effected. The world changes, yet again, and the United States finds itself moribound.
"...the Constitution and constitutional laws of the latter , are, as we have already said, the supreme law of the land; and, when they conflict with the laws of the States, they are of paramount authority and obligation. This is the fundamental principle on which the authority of the Constitution is based; and unless it be conceded in practice, as well as theory, the fabric of our institutions, as it were contemplated by its founders, cannot stand. The questions involved have respect not more to the autonomy and existence of the States, than to the continued esistence of the United States as a government to which every American citizen may look for security and protection in every part of the land"
This quote is taken from, Ex Parte Siebold, an application for a writ of habeas corpus, involving several, “judges of election, in the city of Baltimore,” were convicted under sections, 5515 and 5522, and sections 2016, 2017, 2021, 2022, for title xxvi, of the Revised Statutes. In any case these men, tried in the circuit judge, went to the Supreme Court, arguing, among other things, that neither the Constitution nor the Congress, and, therefore, the federal bench, had jurisdiction in a state electoral matter. The point is, of Ex Parte Siebold, revolves around equal protection and due process. It would appear that equal protection and due process are not mutually exclusive, meaning that only one can exist at a given time; rather, they exist as the glue, as it were, holding the civil rights and civil liberties in the Constitution. Now, without any apology, the Constitution is held in such low regard, and with such contempt, that the States can engage what they will so that we have the kinds of civil rights and civil liberty abuses, like the surveillance of dissenters, and the concomitant mollification of dissent, a pretense at the protection of the government, at the expense of the protection of the citizens.
As instructive a reading as this opinion is, as it was written during the end of Reconstruction, and equal protection and due process were attempting to be codified, within the Constitution, the idea that the Constitution could be ignored because the State of Maryland had not seen fit to agree to this amendment, until 1959, the instruction revolves around the fact that, Ex Parte Siebold, speaks volumes, concerning where we came from, and how we finally have arrived where we are.
“It does want to have a federal structure with a weak government…”
--Ray Takeyh, Fellow, Foreign Policy Council 1
Of late a tendency has existed in the course of public debate, influenced by the debate, coming, as it were, from the halls of academe, to confuse the Anti-Federalist papers with the Federalist papers. This tendency would in and of itself be intentional. Let us understand: A part from any other considerations, as to, say, the ideas of Madison, Hamilton’s response, and Jay’s arguments, the Federalist, as it stands in number nine, means to define federalism as a strong central government, centralized, and anchored by proportional representation in the Legislature, Congress. The anti-federalists—Cato, Brutus, Centinel and the Federal Farmer—objected to the Constitution because it feared: (1) the end of state sovereignty; believing that a strong, centralized government as proposed would be inimical to freedom (bare in mind that the issue of slavery fuels much of the debate); (2) proportional representation (the Federal Farmer stated that such a number of representatives as proposed at the convention, would render the whole the idea of republicanism, inept.); (3) the anti-federalists subscribed to the notion, put forth by Thomas Jefferson, who did not understand the concept of a Constitution (Just write what we till you, Thomas, and you’ll do fine.), of compacts, being a weak central government whose sole purpose would be to advise the states on matters of foreign policy. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions, elucidating the use of the compact theory, and the Alien and Sedition Acts, also a part of the Kentucky Resolutions, are the only two instances that Jefferson argued a federal government would be of any practical use, without, insinuating itself into the republicanism.
1) News Hour with Jim Lehrer. 4/16/08. Public Broadcasting Corporation.