Bush Has Time To Veto The Constitution!

   By Nat Hentoff 

In 1787, during the sweltering summer heat in Philadelphia while the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were strenuously debating the foundation of this new nation, much time was devoted to limiting the powers of the Presidency.     If they did not, warned delegate Edmund Randolph--who became our first attorney general--an imperious Presidency could become "The fetus of monarchy."

Our founders thought that they have solved that problem; but as George W Bush has consistently proved, he is convinced that the separation of powers in the Constitution do not bound him as commander and chief.    Bush's May, 9 2007 National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive mandates that in the event of a "catastrophic" national emergency, he will have supreme leadership of "ensuring the continuation of Constitutional Government."

Since 9/11, Bush has made clear that his national security decisions cannot be interfered with by Congress or the courts.  In my November article, citing initial Presidential plans to set up internment camps in an emergency, I should have added that on January 24, 2006, Halliburton (formerly run by Dick Cheney) announced its having been awarded a government contract for "indefinite deliver/indefinite quantity" to "establish detention facilities" in the even of an emergency involving, among other things, "new programs" by the government. Congress was not consulted.

So far as I have seen and heard, that Presidential takeover of the government - and us - has been ignored by all the Presidential candidates and the great majority of the press. And in the seemingly endless months of the current campaign for the Oval Office, there has also been silence about the frightening sweep of Bush's July 17 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq.

One especially consistent ringer of the Liberty Bell in warning of this executive order has been John Whitehead, who heads the Rutherford Institute  in Charlottesville, Virginia, and has often long been the Samuel Adams of our time - even more than the ACLU - in exposing Bush's raids on the Constitution.

Whitehead's newspaper and radio commentaries circulate widely, and on August 15 - writing of the new regal executive order - he emphasized that Bush hardly sees himself as a lame duck: "Undaunted by plummeting approval records, George Bush just keeps moving forward" to transmogrify what was so carefully wrought and fought for in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.

Whitehead's article includes a frighteningly prophetic explanation of the new July 17 executive order by the Washington Post's Walter Pincus, who for decades has exposed - from inside sources - the reckless imperial overreaching of executive branch residents, especially George W. Bush.

What the President has now set in serpentine motion, Pincus emphasizes, "could cast a far bigger net to include not just those who commit violent acts or pose the risk of doing so in Iraq, but also third parties - such as US citizens - who knowingly or unknowingly aid or encourage such people."

Adds John Whitehead: "In fact, the language is so broad that ordinary Americans who oppose the Iraq War could find their names on the list of persons who are perceived to be undermining 'efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform' in Iraq."

How will any of us know if we are charged with violation of this elastic executive order? You will get no prior notice because the President says in his order that such advance notice "would render these measures ineffectual." God forbid we might ask Congress what the hell is going on.

Also, moving in the shadows along with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and Bush's July 2007 executive order - giving the CIA extensive, secret "coercive" interrogation techniques in its hidden prisons (which Bush keeps open) - no one claiming injury by this new executive order can sue since "the rule of law" had been vetoed by the President.

Section 8 reads: "This order is not intended to, and does not create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable in law or equity by any party against the instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person."

THE KING HAS SPOKEN!

John Whitehead suggests we keep in mind - when watching a new President take the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution - that "what George W. Bush is currently doing is preparing a toolbox for future Presidents is the previous authorization for the FBI to demand from all kinds of businesses - hospitals, colleges and other institutions - your personal records by issuing an administrative national security letter (NSL).

On September 6, 2007, in New York, federal judge Victor Marrero ruled even the Congress's attempt to improve and amend that act unconstitutional for several reasons: "Through the NSLs," he noted, "the government can unmask anonymous speech in online discussions [and] can obtain an itemized list of all of the e-mails sent and received by the target of the NSL."

Judge Marrero also noted that if the courts don't move against "such expansive exercises of governmental power," the many citizens who lose essential rights can only "sing a requiem and lower the flag on the Bill of Rights."

That flag no longer stands high. How long before you can't see it at all?