One must pardon my over the top language but I suppose extreme times call for extreme hyperbole.
My Employer and I do on occasion discuss the political landscape locally and nationally and the recent showdown between The Decider and Congress over the Spy Bill on the brink of the traditional Congressional recess was one of those discussions. In what was to be a spectacular confrontation, The Decider wanted his Spy Bill (SB 1927) his way. Congress wanted to make a few alterations (with respect to domestic surveillance).
This confrontation became surreal when The Decider told Congress they had better pass his Spy Bill the way he wants it or he will invoke his Ã¢â‚¬ËœConstitutional RightÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ to deny Congress itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s August break to do District work. Mr. Barbaro thought Congress should recess without doing anything about the bill and when The Decider ordered them back to D.C. to implement his vision for a Brave New World, Congress should just say Ã¢â‚¬Å“Make MeÃ¢â‚¬Â. Since then, the Decider has Ã¢â‚¬Å“flown off into the sunsetÃ¢â‚¬Â for his month long vacation. I guess we will have to wait for another showdown. (40 House Democrats and Several Senate Democrats (including Dianne Feinstein Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Boxer was MIA) caved with the excuse that this is just a temporary measure).
The Spy Bill is without question, against our Bill of Rights, however, Mr. Barbaro, myself, and I am sure a few others are trying to understand the when, on whom and by whom is it appropriate to invoke the Supreme Law of the land.
Inasmuch as The Decider, Shooter and Gonzo (with apologies to Muppets everywhere) have not upheld their oaths to Ã¢â‚¬Å“Support and defend the Constitution of the United StatesÃ¢â‚¬Â perhaps there is no reason for Congress to recognize the current Executive Branch of our government.
The litany of petty infractions to blatant defiance goes on and on. Something just isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t quite right when thoughtfully considered. I just do not understand how this trifecta ignores, tramples and bypasses our Constitution on what seems to be a regular basis and then has the nerve to invoke the same Constitution on Congress.
How are the Ã¢â‚¬ËœrulesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ to be applied? If the rules prevent an individual or a group from gaining an advantage, does that mean you change the rule to accommodate that wish? What happens when the other guy has the opportunity to benefit from the change? I am grown up enough to understand that life isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t always fair, but rule of law (our Constitution) was intended to institute some fairness in our civilization. What happens when we pick and choose certain passages or laws for the benefit of a few?
I am reminded of the playground. Most of us mutually agreed on the rules before we began the game. No one was allowed to make a charge in the rules once the game began. Anyone who persisted was no longer allowed to play.
It would be nice to tell members of the Executive Branch that they arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t allowed to play anymore, but I do not see that happening. I think the Rubber Stamp Judicial Branch will uphold the changes.
What do we learn from this? Anyone who goes by the Constitution must be a chump. As we willingly hand over more of our civil liberties to an out of control Executive Branch, the elements that have made our nation a Ã¢â‚¬ËœShining BeaconÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ to other nations, no longer exist. If the Decider, Shooter & Gonzo keep changing the rules to suit their own narrow agenda, there is no more law and democracy takes a nosedive. We become a nation of occupiers, torturers, eavesdroppers and then some. Osama bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. If we continue to trash our Constitution to win a war on terror, We the People are the real losers.