Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 37 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
Life Arts    H3'ed 12/26/08

5 to 4-One More Vote To Tyranny

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   5 comments
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Lance Ciepiela
Become a Fan
  (54 fans)

Cheney hints that one more vote was needed on the Supreme Court to fully implement the absolute powers of his unitary executive George W. Bush.

Cheney also argued that the President's wartime powers trump laws passed by Congress.

"The Congress has -- clearly has the ability to write statutes and has certain constitutional authorities granted in the Constitution," Cheney said. "But I would argue that they do not have the right by statute to alter presidential constitutional power. In other words, you can't override his constitutional authorities and responsibilities with a statute."

Cheney's chief regret appeared to be that the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly rejected the administration's argument that these presidential powers allowed Bush to ignore fundamental individual rights incorporated in the Constitution, such as the writ of habeas corpus, an ancient legal principle requiring a government to show cause for imprisoning a person.

"I think that, frankly, the basic decision they (the Supreme Court justices) made was wrong," Cheney said. "But it's their authority. The vote was 5-4."

In other words, Cheney was suggesting that the replacement of one more justice from the court's moderate wing by the likes of John Roberts or Samuel Alito – Bush's two appointees – would have swung the Supreme Court into a historic reinterpretation of the Constitution.

Essentially, such a Supreme Court would have made the President all powerful and eliminated the founding U.S. principle of "unalienable rights" for individuals, protected by a government based on checks and balances.

Under that new paradigm – of an endless "war on terror" and an Executive who decides whether someone is or is not an "enemy combatant" – the key pillars of the American Republic would have been in ruins.

Instead of a Republic in which citizens possessed fundamental liberties enshrined in the Constitution – as the Founders envisioned – Americans would become, in effect, subjects to a monarchical President, who would apportion – or deny – freedoms as he would see fit, click here http://www.commondreams.org/print/35776           

 

Rate It | View Ratings

Lance Ciepiela Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Lance Ciepiela is a retired senior who had an interesting career in government service - a United States Marine Corps (USMC) Vietnam-Era veteran, who became interested in restoring the Constitution after I realized that W Bush had attacked (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

A War Crimes Trial - Bush Jr/Blair

Nuremberg At the Dawn of the 21st Century - The Crime of Aggression

An American Chilcot Report

9/11 - Last Man Out

End [Their Federal Reserve System = An Exclusive Banking Cartel]

9/11 - Larry Silverstein Said "Pull It" and Three Towers Fell That Day

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend