I used think it was hyperbole
Jul. 19th, 2007 10:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumWay back when I compared the present occupant of the White House to George III.
I thought it was a useful rhetorical flourish, but a tad over the top.
I think now, it might be a bit restrained.
There was the executive order in which he asserts the right to freeze the assets of anyone who is purported to be supporting the undermining of the establishment of democracy in Iraq.
That's pretty bold. It's frightening that he thinks he has that kind of power.
Then there's this where it seems the White House is claiming that as soon as they claim executive privilege applies to someone, that someone ceases to be bound by law; at least insofar as that law applies to Congress being able to talk to them.
Oversight? That's for other chaps.
A rational Congress would be censuring a president who made such claims.
They would impeach anyone who tried to actaully assert them, because it removes the Executive Branch from the status of co-equal. It creates an isolated, and unanswerable, power.
A power which controls the enforcement of the laws. If Congress thinks the president isn't faithfully upholding the laws... all he has to do is say, "Executive Privilege" and they can't do anything.
Warrantless Wiretaps?
Executive Privilege.
Violations of the Hatch Act?
Executive Privilege.
Blowjobs from interns?
Executive Privilege.
The last shows the base hypocrisy of the politicians who are supporting the president. Not so long ago they were screaming that nothing in the White House was safe from the scrutiny of Congress.
Private talks with foreign heads of state? Not privileged if they were overheard by the Secret Service.
People have been saying there is a constitutional crisis. I've thought so, but not said it.
The events of today move me to the point where it cannot be ignored (because I've not denied it, merely hoped I could avoid having to stake out a public position).
They need to go. Root and branch. Anyone who doesn't support putting them out of office, needs to be voted out of office. The people in the White House (elected appointed and staff) need to never be allowed to hold a position of public trust again.
This is, absurd as it is to say, the Rubicon. If we allow them to keep on, then we will have our equivalent of Caesar. The Senate will remain in name, but governance, such as it is, will be conducted by the fiat of Executive Orders in the Time of Permanent War.
I thought it was a useful rhetorical flourish, but a tad over the top.
I think now, it might be a bit restrained.
There was the executive order in which he asserts the right to freeze the assets of anyone who is purported to be supporting the undermining of the establishment of democracy in Iraq.
That's pretty bold. It's frightening that he thinks he has that kind of power.
Then there's this where it seems the White House is claiming that as soon as they claim executive privilege applies to someone, that someone ceases to be bound by law; at least insofar as that law applies to Congress being able to talk to them.
Oversight? That's for other chaps.
A rational Congress would be censuring a president who made such claims.
They would impeach anyone who tried to actaully assert them, because it removes the Executive Branch from the status of co-equal. It creates an isolated, and unanswerable, power.
A power which controls the enforcement of the laws. If Congress thinks the president isn't faithfully upholding the laws... all he has to do is say, "Executive Privilege" and they can't do anything.
Warrantless Wiretaps?
Executive Privilege.
Violations of the Hatch Act?
Executive Privilege.
Blowjobs from interns?
Executive Privilege.
The last shows the base hypocrisy of the politicians who are supporting the president. Not so long ago they were screaming that nothing in the White House was safe from the scrutiny of Congress.
Private talks with foreign heads of state? Not privileged if they were overheard by the Secret Service.
People have been saying there is a constitutional crisis. I've thought so, but not said it.
The events of today move me to the point where it cannot be ignored (because I've not denied it, merely hoped I could avoid having to stake out a public position).
They need to go. Root and branch. Anyone who doesn't support putting them out of office, needs to be voted out of office. The people in the White House (elected appointed and staff) need to never be allowed to hold a position of public trust again.
This is, absurd as it is to say, the Rubicon. If we allow them to keep on, then we will have our equivalent of Caesar. The Senate will remain in name, but governance, such as it is, will be conducted by the fiat of Executive Orders in the Time of Permanent War.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I fear we already do
Date: 2007-07-20 05:37 am (UTC)There's a signing statement out there that pretty much says if HE thinks the country is in enough of a crisis an 'emergency' can be declared (by his office and no one else) and he will continue his office. Period.
And there is no one in either Congress or the Senate that has the balls to call him on it. We're doomed.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 05:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 05:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 08:37 pm (UTC)Crazy(and wondering, eventually, how many young men will try to hide that legacy with a modest G. followed by a second name...)Soph
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 06:52 am (UTC)Good luck sorting this one out guys.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 06:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 03:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 04:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 04:34 pm (UTC)I'm fucking scared now.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-21 01:08 am (UTC)matociquala needs to read Inkspell by Cornelia Funke then be careful what she writes.... looks like pre-Hammered Theocracy come to life.