Academic

Bush Continues to Trash the Constitution

By Robert Justin Lipkin

"Strict constructionist" President, George W. Bush who claims Supreme Court Justices should interpret the Constitution not rewrite it is up to his familiar, anti-constitutional games.  alternatively stated, "Everyone's bound by the Constitution, except me."  Consider this report in the Boston Globe: "President Bush's plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq's security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.  . . .  After World War II, for example - when the United States gave security commitments to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO members - Presidents Truman and Eisenhower designated the agreements as treaties requiring Senate ratification. In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan guaranteed that the US military would defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia if they were attacked, the compacts were put to a vote by both chambers of Congress.  . . . By contrast, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have already agreed that a coming compact will include the United States providing "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq to deter any foreign invasion or internal terrorism by "outlaw groups." But a top White House official has also said that Bush does not intend to submit the deal to Congress. To read more click here. Americans should be aware that, as Bruce Ackerman puts it, "[t]his isn't the way we do things in the United States. The Constitution insists that Congress must get into the act before we make sweeping commitments in the name of the nation." The Founding design creating a separation of powers and checks and balances prevents  tyranny and provides conditions for cooperation between and among the branches. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have the idea that they can trash the Constitution and a majority of Americans would be totally unaware of their treasonous conduct or if aware, they would be unconcerned.  These are the conditions which permit soft dictatorship to fester and later to thrive. Where is the outrage which conservatives spew forth when judges articulate an implied constitutional right to personal privacy and autonomy? How can constitutional limits on the executive, limits expressed in constitutional practice since ratification, be ignored? Who should pay a political price for trashing the Constitution?

Credit for Image

Full post as published by Essentially Contested America on January 25, 2008 (boomark / email).