Pelosi's Universe
(h/t gateway pundit) Welcome to the Universe of Pelosi!
One couldn't possibly miss the latest politically expedient stunt that has been pulled - and audaciously enough, at the highest levels of diplomacy too. And for a legislature - remember that it is an arm of the government that has been elected as representative of the people and therefore beholden to their constituents for power and legitimacy - to endorse a blatant attempt to supplant - 'undermine' just doesn't cut it any more - the executive's power and scope of permissible action: that is in itself unprecedented and unthinkable even by the low standards of the Democratic Party where power-grabbing antics are concerned.
Again, a jacksonian does an excellent job at pointing out where Congress has transgressed in terms of jurisdiction; this ruled by the Supreme Court:(2) The powers of the Federal Government over foreign or external affairs differ in nature and origin from those over domestic or internal affairs. P. 315.
Where is this "collective and corporate capacity" that Congress seems to have justified its latest Foreign Policy antics on? Unless Pelosi, Reid and their liberal adherents can vouch for a majority of constituents that the people actually believe that Foreign Policy should be executed by the legislature, they should not be so pretentious as to assume that election into Congress automatically gives them the mandate to override the executive and adopt obstructionism as a doggedly resistant mantra for the entire spectrum of issues, domestic or foreign.
(3) The broad statement that the Federal Government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs. In that field, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to carve from the general mass of legislative powers then possessed by the States such portions as it was thought desirable to vest in the Federal Government, leaving those not included in the enumeration still in the States. Id.
(4) The States severally never possessed international powers. P. 316.
(5) As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the Colonies, acting as a unit, the powers of external sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the Colonies severally, but to the Colonies in their collective and corporate capacity as the United States of America. Id.
(6) The Constitution was ordained and established, among other things, to form "a more perfect Union." Prior to that event, the Union, declared by the Articles of Confederation to be "perpetual," was the sole possessor of external sovereignty, and in the Union it remained without change save insofar as the Constitution, in express terms, qualified its exercise. Though the States were several, their people, in respect of foreign affairs, were one. P. 317.
(7) The investment of the Federal Government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. P. 318.
(8) In the international field, the sovereignty of the United States is complete. Id.
(9) In international relations, the President is the sole organ of the Federal Government. P. 319.
(10) In view of the delicacy of foreign relations and of the power peculiar to the President in this regard, Congressional legislation which is to be made effective in the international field must [p306] often accord to him a degree of discretion and freedom which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. P. 319.
(11) The marked difference between foreign and domestic affairs in this respect is recognized in the dealings of the houses of Congress with executive departments. P. 321.
Congress is infringing upon the scope of permissible action by the executive while simultaneously violating jursidiction passed by the judiciary - a double whammy: a single arm of the government attempting to render the other two irrelevant and toothless in order to empower its members with unlimited freedom to conduct domestic and foreign policy, to pass bills smacking of corpulent earmarks without fear of veto or sanction, to install its very own moral regime by self-righteously ruling on legislation pending to abortion and stem-cell, to throw the Nation-State to the transnational dogs and render the concept of sovereignty savaged by reversing stances on immigration, 'freedom' of speech (for fear of endangering multiculturalism) and gun control.
The Constitution is at risk of being sidelined, even violated in every passage and line; its sanctity once preserved, now ravaged and exploited by power-hungry congressmen who hold no respect for that sacrosanct contract that the Founders created to delineate separation of powers, limitations of government; as a citizen of this Nation, you are bound to the Constitution, to uphold it and respect its tenets. In America, citizens evoke the spirit of the Constitution rather frequently to challenge those who attempt to take their guns away from them, or those who try to censor speech. Nobody can generate any form of excuse for not knowing that a Constitution exists, and that as citizens they are sworn to preserve and adhere to it - thus, the whole purpose of having a constitution in the first place is validated.
In Singapore, however, the fact that a constitution actually exists is not known to all. Call it political apathy or deliberate guardedness of the government about the document - with other Nations setting the precedent of Constitutional Amendments, the government fears that citizens will argue for loosening limitations consecrated in the Constitution, and thus undermine its political legitimacy as more leeway is conceded. Here in Singapore, the Constitution does not command particular significance in the eyes of the public, nor is it frequently employed as a defence against curbing of particular liberties, because more often than not, the Constitution actually strengthens the case against loosening liberties. As a direct corollary of that feature, any violation of the Constitution is more or less pardonable in the public eye - not a single incident has transpired so far to suggest that a majority of the people here are even aware of Constitutional violations.
This argument does not stand for the US. Congressmen should know about the Constitution and its tenets more so than the average citizen, and they are in a position to uphold and defend it from post-modern interpretation that might subvert the Founders' words and render them ambiguous - that is the easiest manner in which to rob the Constitution of its discipline, since it derives its power as a document from clear, concise writing. Tragedic it may seem, that is not the worst Congress is perpetuating as of now: they are ignoring the Constitution as if it does not exist.
That is unpardonable - by agreeing to be a citizen of the state, you are sworn to adhere to the Constitution. Sure, you might not agree with everything it says - that's what Amendments are for - but the fundamental basis is that you have to acknowledge its legitimacy and authority on the issues it speaks about. Democrats aren't even bothering with acknowledging its existence because they know their acts are in direct violation of the Constitution, and if the public knew about it, they would stand no chance of redeeming themselves. If Pelosi falls back on the Constitutional argument that she should have the freedom to travel to any country as she wishes - which is an incomplete, deceitful papering-over of what she has intended to achieve in Syria - then how can she simultaneously violate the Constitution on levels higher than that of the individual? Since when was cherry-picking the Constitution part of the contract?
To me, it reeks of hypocrisy and presents a slippery slope - just like European Nations whose governments have decided that Muslim communities can choose what they like about their Constitutions and implement Islamic law in place for those parts they don't feel like adhering to. Sooner or later, our principles which our civilisation and government are grounded in will be swept away, and all that we have fought for will be lost.
Pelosi even had the nerve to lie:"Our message was President Bush's message," Pelosi said in a phone interview with The Associated Press from Portugal, where she stopped briefly en route back to the United States.
House Speaker, are you sure you had that right? Assad and Pelosi have no differences - and I have no qualms about listing them side-by-side in the same sentence, I'd have you know - in terms of what they want to achieve in the US: to undermine the Bush administration in order to weaken the Nation. The audacious claim that Congress and the executive aren't on opposite ends of the spectrum with regard to Foreign Policy should expose just how reckless a bare-faced liar like Pelosi can get.
"The funny thing is, I think we may have even had a more powerful impact with our message because of the attention that was called to our trip," the California Democrat said. "It became clear to President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the president and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive."
I remember reading somewhere that Pelosi was actually displaying the mark of a true president by engaging in her own Foreign Policy with belligerent states that sponsor terrorism, since that observer obviously feels that appeasement in this era has better prospects for success than it did in Chamberlain's time. What utter nonsense - she is not stepping up to her responsibilities of strengthening the Nation's resolve and empowering its institutions - the military, to speak of one - in order to preserve and fight for its vital and strategic interests. She can't even do her legislative job properly, instead succumbing to the corrupting clarion call of power. Congress isn't doing what it is supposed to do, and it is Bush and his administration that are picking up the slack from them.
Pelosi is also gunning for the Israeli prime-ministerial position, it seems: she actually said that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria, which even Olmert disputed immediately. Sorry, Pelosi - you're going to have to work harder than that if you want to find a job after your ejection from Congress. Perhaps the Syrian ambassador to the US?
And don't forget to take your Democratic Party there as well. I'm sure it won't be long before you find that both your party and Assad's are two peas in a pod. If you refuse to honour the Constitution, you automatically forfeit your right to citizenship in this Nation. Don't worry about the Syrian Constitution, Pelosi - you'll feel right at home.
Labels:
U.S.
4 spoke up:
For years now, the leftists in the United States have been calling the Constitution "a living breathing document." This is actually their code for "the Constitution will mean what we say it means."
Democrats have no respect for the Constitution.
BTW - There's a great but disturbing Bing West article posted over at EB. You may not have seen it.
I'll probably have to take it down before long, so read it soon.
Must read Part 2 of your series now.
whit,
Ironic, is it not - that they call it a living document while turning a blind eye towards it when they so choose to assume carte blanche in order to pursue their vested objectives, one of which is that scourge of transnational progressivism. It seems that the easiest way to make people forget about something is to sustain its existence yet ignore its significance - much like how a select few individuals in the course of history would rather perish and be consecrated in legend than be allowed to live in shame and misery.
re: bing west
Thanks for directing my attention there. I've been around the Bar as usual, and it's been getting more popular in recent weeks, no? New patrons, old favourites.
west's piece bears re-examination and re-reading. Let's hope that Patraeus will get wind of the recommendations with regard to advisers. As for the ID kits, whatever happened to the Snake Eater that Roggio had featured a couple of weeks back? Shouldn't companies have mass-manufactured the device and disseminated it by now? It would help if progress was being made on this front. Unless of course, it's not profitable for any private firms to secure the contract, but that would certainly be weird: the current security situation should catalyse the urgency of acquiring such devices.
Harrison - As always, my thanks! I was surprised to come across that blog post on the US v Curtiss-Wright case and even more astounded at how clear the summary was. It seems that the SCOTUS has gotten more long-winded over time as their rulings stretch further from what was written in the Constitution.
What you cite with the Singapore Constitution is one that is pretty endemic with most Nations: the document itself embodies restrictions and is a power emanating from Government to the People. In the US it is exactly the opposite, with the People holding the power and granting government the few things necessary to govern, not rule. The Soviet Constitution was constantly being amended and changed until the entire system became the famous 'Law of Rules' scenario. In many ways the EU Constitution typifies that, with rules on things that in the US would be seen as in the Legislative realm instead being put into the Constitution for good and all. Thus setting wage and price and tax outlook are all *in* the EU Constitution... somewhere in that vast swamp of my written works I point out that the US Constitution can fit comfortably in a wallet and the lines of authority and responsibility traced out on a piece of paper about the same size. The EU Constitution comes in a CD and needs a look-up table to find *anything*. Pretty much says it all about Rule of Law v. Law of Rules.
The Democrats are not the only party in the slow change of moving the US to the 'Law of Rules' concept, and Republicans have been more than happy to add in their own rules, regulations, codes and such, over time. The Raich decision by the SCOTUS was put forward by the current Administration and used legislation to allow Congress to turn inter-State oversight into intra-State control on commerce. That is a huge change and expressly outside what the Constitution says are the limits of Congress. As this is a system of People granting power *to* Government, that overstep is a huge one as *anything* can be claimed to have some value in inter-State trade and controlled via Congress for intra-State purposes.
Looking back on it the roots of this are not even *traced* to the Democratic Party, in whole, although one of its Presidents did create some noxious ideas on international affairs. This heads back to the end of the early *Progressive* era of the US, which was seeking ways to make 'better government' by cleaning up the proces of it and bring personal behavior under government oversight beyond what the founders had looked at. Together that movement and a President's outlook to internationalism gave birth to the very things now eating into this Nation and, due to economic influence, the world at large. And the mottos and outlooks of one party have been picked up by the other and now they both work hard at this in different ways. In 10 years the Nation changed drastically and set the outlook for decades to come, and nearly a century now. Unfortunately those outlooks have proven to be far worse than the things they corrected...
That is why we hear the harsh echoes of 1938 today... and this time the conflict will be beyond what the entire 20th century got as a death toll of all wars combined. That can be changed *now* while there is still wiggle-room to shift to a better course: better to smash the ship head-on and then be able to back away and make headway but slowly... rather than hear multiple compartments get ripped from the underside and the entire thing go down as we did not dare to risk scratching the paint job.
Post a Comment