Friday, October 08, 2004
Weimar Redux
Maybe watching RFK the other night has rekindled my cynicism, I dunno...
Nobody knows who—if anyone—has the power to suspend elections in an emergency. The matter, back in July, was given to the Department of Justice to look into, but I haven’t heard anything being released. The idea of letting the Department of Homeland Security make the call was effectively killed. The idea of letting Soaries make the call died a-borning. That leaves three possibilities: the Congress, the Supremes, or the President. The lawyers agree that the emergency powers of the President are very broad, but are a “hodgepodge” that nobody really understands. Given Bushco’s love of wielding unilateral power, I think it’s reasonable they’d try it. The Supremes already caved when faced with the Florida legislature voting to give its Electoral College votes to Bush in 2000, so if it goes to them again it’s clear what the outcome would be. And the Congress is lacking in spinal integrity when it comes to challenging the Exec, so… the fact is, nobody knows what to do legally if the elections are unable to continue, or if every vote can’t be counted. I repeat, as far as I can tell, nobody goddam well knows. If I’m wrong on this, some reader correct me.
Rep. Baird of Washington’s 3rd Congressional District says: “…the Constitution of the United States of America has never said that the President or a designee of the President can delay an election. That must reside with Congress, if anything is going to happen to elections. But I really do want to underscore, what is the purpose of an election? The purpose of an election is not simply to say we had an election and someone was declared the winner. The purpose of the election is to understand the will of the majority of the American people. If events, be they natural or terrorist, in some way distort the ability of us to accurately glean and determine the will of the American people, then that is to be of profound consideration. My concern, again, is we must first and foremost ask ourselves what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the will of the American people is accurately recorded and counted, not what mechanisms are in place so that at the close of business on November 2 we can all declare we have had an election. That is all I am trying to say here…” from the Congressional Record.
From the lawyers’ point of view, though, things aren’t so clear:
We are fighting a war against terrorism, with no end in sight. It is a war, I believe, that will inevitably escalate. Indeed, it is a war that could force the nation to live under martial law—for indefinite periods. These are not decisions that should be made by the President and Congress each time the crisis escalates; rather, we should think about them carefully in advance in order to make prudent decisions later. One need only look at the haste and thoughtlessness with which we have adopted the potentially dangerous USA PATRIOT Act, most of which Republicans and Democrats alike had earlier rejected, to understand why legislating in the aftershock of terrorism should be avoided if possible. Our present emergency laws and regulations are a hodgepodge, a patchwork quilt. They respond to precedents from past great crises, and that is wise, but unfortunately these precedents do not contemplate a protracted war on terrorism, or an enemy unlike any we have ever confronted. Congress has the power to determine whether it wants the American equivalent of a constitutional dictator in the White House. The only way to be certain that we don't make that decision during a crisis, is to revise and codify our emergency laws now - before fear and anger in the aftermath of a possible attack might cause us to make bad decisions, and too easily trade liberty for security in numerous areas.
By John W. Dean Presidential Powers in Times of Emergency
And there’s plenty more at Media suppresses news of Bush's moves to cancel US elections (CAUTION: socialist website).
Sure, all of this is old, too old and “silly” for the SCLM to follow up on, the result of Soaries’ statements in July of this year which were quickly hushed and denounced by all. But it’s stinky to me that the terror warnings for Nov. 2 are still being given, Ashcroft is “quietly” ramping up “investigations of possible election threats,” that the polls are tied and Bushco is sweating because We the People have registered thousands and thousands of new voters. My, my—is that the aroma of the Reichstag burning? Mike Ruppert at The Elections Watch says, “Stop. Catch your breaths. Steel your hearts and minds in preparation. Soon we’re all going to find out what we’re made of. If we do not have an election this November then the world we have been fighting to change until tonight will become only a ‘pleasant’ memory compared to the world that will follow.”
Not to worry anybody or anything...
Nobody knows who—if anyone—has the power to suspend elections in an emergency. The matter, back in July, was given to the Department of Justice to look into, but I haven’t heard anything being released. The idea of letting the Department of Homeland Security make the call was effectively killed. The idea of letting Soaries make the call died a-borning. That leaves three possibilities: the Congress, the Supremes, or the President. The lawyers agree that the emergency powers of the President are very broad, but are a “hodgepodge” that nobody really understands. Given Bushco’s love of wielding unilateral power, I think it’s reasonable they’d try it. The Supremes already caved when faced with the Florida legislature voting to give its Electoral College votes to Bush in 2000, so if it goes to them again it’s clear what the outcome would be. And the Congress is lacking in spinal integrity when it comes to challenging the Exec, so… the fact is, nobody knows what to do legally if the elections are unable to continue, or if every vote can’t be counted. I repeat, as far as I can tell, nobody goddam well knows. If I’m wrong on this, some reader correct me.
Rep. Baird of Washington’s 3rd Congressional District says: “…the Constitution of the United States of America has never said that the President or a designee of the President can delay an election. That must reside with Congress, if anything is going to happen to elections. But I really do want to underscore, what is the purpose of an election? The purpose of an election is not simply to say we had an election and someone was declared the winner. The purpose of the election is to understand the will of the majority of the American people. If events, be they natural or terrorist, in some way distort the ability of us to accurately glean and determine the will of the American people, then that is to be of profound consideration. My concern, again, is we must first and foremost ask ourselves what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the will of the American people is accurately recorded and counted, not what mechanisms are in place so that at the close of business on November 2 we can all declare we have had an election. That is all I am trying to say here…” from the Congressional Record.
From the lawyers’ point of view, though, things aren’t so clear:
We are fighting a war against terrorism, with no end in sight. It is a war, I believe, that will inevitably escalate. Indeed, it is a war that could force the nation to live under martial law—for indefinite periods. These are not decisions that should be made by the President and Congress each time the crisis escalates; rather, we should think about them carefully in advance in order to make prudent decisions later. One need only look at the haste and thoughtlessness with which we have adopted the potentially dangerous USA PATRIOT Act, most of which Republicans and Democrats alike had earlier rejected, to understand why legislating in the aftershock of terrorism should be avoided if possible. Our present emergency laws and regulations are a hodgepodge, a patchwork quilt. They respond to precedents from past great crises, and that is wise, but unfortunately these precedents do not contemplate a protracted war on terrorism, or an enemy unlike any we have ever confronted. Congress has the power to determine whether it wants the American equivalent of a constitutional dictator in the White House. The only way to be certain that we don't make that decision during a crisis, is to revise and codify our emergency laws now - before fear and anger in the aftermath of a possible attack might cause us to make bad decisions, and too easily trade liberty for security in numerous areas.
By John W. Dean Presidential Powers in Times of Emergency
And there’s plenty more at Media suppresses news of Bush's moves to cancel US elections (CAUTION: socialist website).
Sure, all of this is old, too old and “silly” for the SCLM to follow up on, the result of Soaries’ statements in July of this year which were quickly hushed and denounced by all. But it’s stinky to me that the terror warnings for Nov. 2 are still being given, Ashcroft is “quietly” ramping up “investigations of possible election threats,” that the polls are tied and Bushco is sweating because We the People have registered thousands and thousands of new voters. My, my—is that the aroma of the Reichstag burning? Mike Ruppert at The Elections Watch says, “Stop. Catch your breaths. Steel your hearts and minds in preparation. Soon we’re all going to find out what we’re made of. If we do not have an election this November then the world we have been fighting to change until tonight will become only a ‘pleasant’ memory compared to the world that will follow.”
Not to worry anybody or anything...
