About This Blog
We don't hear it as much....but we still hear it.
Conservative spokepeople who go on and on about "activist judges". The GOP candidates for president have used the code phrase, "strict constructionist judges", quite often during campaigning.....a phrase that brings that wink, wink, nod, nod to the tuned in forced pregnancy lobby or the gay bashers. "Strict constructionist judges" simply means, 'we're gonna' get rid of legal abortion' and 'we're gonna' keep bashing gays'.
But the phrase "activist president" or "strict constructionist president", is unknown and unheard of, especially within conservative circles. While conservatives insist judges should not "legislate from the bench".....the president, as long as he's a Republican, has been encouraged by the support of conservatives on this issue...to not only legislate from the executive branch....but also to act as the judicial branch, as well. This 3 in 1 work of the president, as long as he is a Republican, is not considered to be "activist". As long as the president is a Republican, it is the new norm.
Consider the ongoing use of "signing statements" by this, the most criminal of all our American presidents.....
Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times: "The measure, called the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act, is aimed at pressuring Sudan to end the violence in the Darfur region, where 200,000 people have been killed and more than two million driven from their homes in a four-year conflict that Mr. Bush has termed a genocide.
"The bill, which passed both houses of Congress unanimously, makes it easier for mutual funds and private pension fund managers to sell their investments and allows states to prohibit debt financing for companies that do business in Sudan. It also requires companies seeking contracts with the federal government to certify that they are not doing business in Sudan. . . .
"But the administration has expressed reservations about the bill, and Mr. Bush's signature was accompanied by a proviso known as a signing statement, in which he said he was reserving the authority to overrule state and local divestment decisions if they conflicted with foreign policy. The statement said the measure 'risks being interpreted as insulating' state and local divestment actions from federal oversight."
Spokesman Scott Stanzel's explanation at Monday's press briefing was less than enlightening. Said Stanzel: "[W]hile the legislation has an admirable objective of seeking to improve conditions and end suffering in Sudan, certain provisions of the bill do raise constitutional concerns. Under the Constitution, the federal government is entrusted with a full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs. >"So to the extent that any actions taken pursuant to the act interfere with the federal government's foreign policy aims, that action would be unconstitutional. So as the signing statement makes clear, the administration will take appropriate measures to ensure that the United States, through the federal government, speaks with one voice in foreign policy matters." Link
Let's see if we can get all this....The Congress passes a law...unanimously.....but the executive branch, acting unilaterally, rules that not only will it not obey the law just passed unanimously, but also, that the law could actually be, in certain cases, unconstitutional. Bush doesn't veto the bill, oh no, that would be too much like fulfilling his oath to the Constitution. Instead, this executive branch rejects the authority of the Congress to pass laws the president has to follow....and in addition....this executive branch usurps the Judicial branch's power to judge constitutionality....thus pre-empting the Judicial branch, rendering it, along with Congress, meaningless.
Hell, if the president gets to decide which laws America will enforce and which ones are constitutional....then who needs the Congress and the Judicial branches? Sadly today, the Republican party sees this arrangement as the new way forward.
The signing statements, the rejection of Congressionally passed legislation, the usurping of the Judicial branch's power....are all quite obviously "high crimes", constitutionally speaking. There could be no clearer fulfillment of those two words.
Conservative supporters of this rogue presidency no longer accept the role of two of the three branches of the United States government but, instead, empower that same rogue president to reject America's rule of law and take unto himself the power our Founders designed to be wielded from three separate but equal branches.
Democrats have given up trying to hold anyone accountable...what with "executive privilege", "state secrets", and "unitary executive" bullsh*t clogging up the road to accountability and a veto pen wielding president and a Rubber Stamp obstructionistic group in Congress ready to stop any attempts to maintain the rule of law.
Apparently, and I'm only going on the evidence here, Republicans want a King in whom all powers are concentrated. I say this because, outside of Ron Paul, I haven't heard one Republican say that president Junior has been acting all "activist", usurping power he isn't entitled to. Silence is golden, yeah, but silence by Republicans concerning presidential power is most telling.
The only conclusion that I can come to is that Republican conservatives now have endorsed an American King model of governance to replace our equal, three-part government. And they're quite proud of it.
But those f**king "activist judges" "legislating from the bench"....now there's a big national problem.