Clinton Says She'd Give Up Some Powers: Denounces Bush "power grab" not supported by Constitution

Source: NYT/AP

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 23, 2007

NEW YORK (AP) -- If elected president in 2008, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton would consider giving up some of the executive powers President Bush and Vice President Cheney have assumed since taking office. In an interview published Tuesday in Guardian America, a Web site run by the London-based Guardian newspaper, Clinton denounced the Bush Administration's push to concentrate more power in the White House as a ''power grab'' not supported by the Constitution.

Asked if she would consider giving up some of those powers if she were president, Clinton replied, ''Oh, absolutely ... I mean, that has to be part of the review that I undertake when I get to the White House, and I intend to do that.''

Since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush and Cheney have taken several steps to expand presidential authority and diminish the role of Congress and the federal judiciary. Among other things, they have pushed for warrantless wiretapping of terrorist suspects and the use of ''signing statements'' to justify ignoring or defying laws enacted by Congress.

In the interview, Clinton noted that other presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, had taken on new presidential powers but had gone back to Congress later to ratify their actions. Bush and Cheney had taken a different course, she said....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Clinton-Executive...

And will she make sure those changes are codified in iron-clad law so that her successor also is so limited?? At least promise to do so?

When he left the White House, Jefferson said that no one should ever again have the kind of power he had. Instead of grabbing every iota of power he could, he wished he'd had less.

I hope Hillary is more like Jefferson than Bush...

Newsprism

of a news article like this one, my OP, which seems to me to be about Bush's abuse of power, immediately become an opportunity for candidate bashing? I'm just about to lose heart for posting any news articles here.

the way the constitution states it to be..

Restoring "some" ..is not good enough for me..I want my government back to exactly the way our forefathers meant it to be. I want our constitution followed to the T

Not "some" of it ..but all of it!

And I expect that 100%, from any Dem who would take office.

I don't want any more talking points..

I want my nation back to the way she used to be.intact...not "some" what intact.

Thats all and that is what I expect from any dem.

I just want them to leave the talking points behind..personally, I have had about enough talking points in almost 7 years..

I want my nation back, period.

fly

a bit skeptical..to say the least..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

so I shouldn't be??

maybe, maybe not..


fly

Which has helped her run an effective campaign.

Or do you believe that every political sinner should be shunned just like every religious fanatic believes?

A democracy REQUIRES THE ABILITY TO WORK WITH everyone. Not just the politically correct. What you are saying amounts to as much politicization of the government as Bush has done, doesn't it? Only those who meet the politically correct standard are allowed to work? Everyone else must not touch the hem of our garment?

Hillary Clinton is showing that she knows how to choose the most effective people for the job, something which would be a very pleasant change from BushCo which only chose people who agreed with them.

I taught my children..just because someone else gets away with doing bad things, doesn't exonerate you if you follow ...( it's that old..two wrongs don't make a right.. saying... that we mothers say and mean!!..)

I taught my children what integrity was..and how important it is..

yes i taught them some people will raise to the top being scum bags, or even breaking the law....but that does not make them the good guys..and that does not mean they succeeded with integrity..there is one thing that can not be bought and that is integrity.

Call me old fashioned ..but i expect that from anyone i would campaign for or work with.

Truth and integrity..are two of the most important values i own.

I won't sell them ...for anyone ..no matter how hard they are trying to win.

If you can't win with truth and integrity..what are you really winning?

fly

p.s...any ties anywhere around or near Blackwater mercenaries..scares the shit out of me..call me silly..but that is how i feel! They report to no one..and i do not want them anywhere near my nation..operating anywhere..period..and i do not want any candidate with any kind of ties, in any way to blackawater..i want them stopped!..period!
There is no legal recourse to Blackwater, under this administration..and i will not give a free ride to any further administration to have ties in any way to them.

Blackwater is a fascist army...I want them the hell out of my country!

Thanks, I'll pass on associating myself with that view - I like my ability to sleep at night.

And anyone too pure to get that dirty cannot be president. Because that person has already refused to be the president of ALL the American people. That person has already refused to be anything but a cloistered monk in holy orders.

Jimmy Breslin: Nobody reaches the presidency in a state of grace.

You better believe it.

PS: And I don't give a shit if my president sleeps well. I want ME to be able to sleep well. Which means I have a home, work, food, healthcare, and no particular fear that I will be murdered in my bed or on my street, or go unrescued in a disaster. If that causes my leader sleepless nights, fine by me.

Because then I simply cannot trust them. At all.

I suggest you do not vote for anyone you can't trust. That should limit your choices to a few members of the local school board, maybe, but you'll be happy.

Sorry for my snippiness.

We have big decisions and choices..and we should look deeply into each and every candidate..had that been done before, by more citizens, we wouldn't have had little lord pissy pants!!

I for one will look into and disect each and every candidate before I chose one..I want to know everything about all of them..

I never ever want to see this country so low again...and so lawless, by those charged with maintianing those laws..and so lacking in our Republic's values.

I do believe that it is each of our responsibility to look deeply at each and every one of our candidates and not be blinded by Rhetoric.

I want to know who works with and for each candidate because that tells me what their values are, and where they will or will not lead our nation.

And it is my responsibility as a citizen to demand all of our constitution be restored..not some or part of it..we have lost much..our children have lost much ..in their futures if we do not demand our constitution be restored in full..and i take my responsibility seriously, not for me but for future generations.

fly

another seems to be getting Americans (of any party) to agree to do anything, jettison any principles, in order to "win," which is everything--whether "winning" in two-party elections or in capitalist winner/loser economics--it's really the house that always wins. Hence all the calls to Dems to never, ever look too closely at a candidate (that's purist) or question whether we should "preempt" Republicans by adopting every issue

NT!

so you mean you want to get rid of the bill of rights and the other amendments?

they become part of the constitution..like the geneva conventions became part of the constitution when we signed the treaty...but amendments and treaties were provided for by our forefsthers to be added to the constitution..but once added they became part of the constitution.

The executive branch could not alter the constitution ..and could not add or subtract items at will.. ..just because the executive thought they could...that is a monarchy..or dictatorship..not part of our constitution.
fly

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

I have never seen that before..thank you for enlightening me!!

I learn something new every day at DU!!

Thank you again for pointing this out!!

fly

I learned about corporate personhood from a LTTE in my local paper about 10 years ago. I had no idea what it referred to, so I looked it up & could not believe what I read. Absolutely stunning!

Here are some more good sites:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood /

http://www.corpwatch.org /

http://www.duhc.org/about_mission.html

http://www.firstuucolumbus.org/corppers/cp.html

Also, "We the People: A Call To Take Back America" by Thom Hartmann, absolutely rocks!! It is written in a comic book style & is a very quick read. It is a sort of fifth grade civics refresher course, but it includes things that we never studied in civics, including corporate personhood. I gave it to everyone I know for the holidays a few years ago. If you have children, it is perfect for them, too!

http://www.we-the-people-book.com /

Click on the "read more" for free excerpts.

I hope I didn't overwhelm you, but I believe it is one of the most critical issues facing our global community today -- on par with global warming.

Happy reading! Some of this will raise your blood pressure.

for my children and my friends children ( all college kids and older..i still call them kids!!) for Christmas...i always go for the presents that they can learn from..but in this case ..thanks to you..i learned something..i want to share with others!!

thank you!!

fly

So I can check it out on a les busy day.

Really good assembly of websites to browse.

the last nail in the coffin was west coast hotel v parrish.

Candidate bashing is getting old FAST. I'm sick of it and if anybody else reading this is also sick of it, PLEASE SPEAK UP.

If I have to read anymore posts beating up Hillary I'm going to puke!

To all DUers: Act like progressives instead of like republicans. Bash Bush, not Hillary, John, Barak, Chris, Biden, etc., etc.

The damn republicans are the ones who are causing our misery and until we get a Democrat for president we will not get our country back.

If any of you continue to bash our Democratic candidates I will assume that you have hostile intents and your goal is to destroy our morale.

KNOCK IT OFF!

If you can't help yourself, just go away.

Eliminating the powers they have assumed - NOT been legally granted - is not up for debate. If you wish to restore the Constitution, they MUST be ended, as they are illegal. That's not in question.

No candidate, and no American citizen, should ever suggest that it's okay to keep these powers. THEY ARE ILLEGAL.

I was just going off on a rant. The rule of law according to the Constitution is the foundation of our country and the office of the President doesn't give the person in the Oval Office the right to break the law.

Some people just use the mention of Hillary's name as an excuse to bash her instead of responding to the post as it was intended, namely: that she would restore the rule of law.

I prefer to take Hillary at her word as I would take any Democratic candidate at their word.

give immunity for all the illegal/warrant-less wiretapping, overturn 40 lawsuits against the telecoms and BUsh, thereby stifling all information about these crimes and she is not doing a god damn thing about it. Anyone who cares about the constituion and presidential overreach should be all over this in the senate where it is being debated!

presidential candidates saying one thing and doing another, when elected. The one most indelibly stamped onto my soul was my very first vote for President, in 1964. I voted for the "peace candidate"--LBJ--and what I got for that vote was 2 million people slaughtered in Southeast Asia.

Beware of Democrats bearing peace--was the hard lesson I learned from that vote.

More recently, Bill Clinton promised to include labor and environmental protections in NAFTA. Once elected, he quickly broke that promise--and rammed NAFTA (written by global corporate predators' lawyers) through Congress with most of Congress not even reading it. People blame Bush for the ruinous impacts of "free trade"--decimation of third world country economies and people, the bleeding of jobs and loss of labor protections here, and global warming and other planet-threatening environmental phenomena, and Bush has certainly made everything worse, but he didn't start it. Clinton did.

So please be patient with skeptics, who rake Democratic Party presidential candidates over the coals. It is fair to say that they are all running for emperor, not president (Kucinich excepted, and maybe Edwards--not sure of him). And it really is totally inadequate for any presidential candidate--let alone a Democratic one--to say that she will CONSIDER not being an emperor, maybe, some of the time. She will "review" our loss of habeas corpus rights, our loss of privacy rights, the right of prisoners not to be tortured, the president writing her own laws, presidential defiance of Congressional subpoenas, the ripping up of our Constitution, etc., and will "consider" which parts of the Constitution she MIGHT, in her imperial noblesse oblige, restore?

One of my greatest worries about a Clinton II regime is Seattle '99-all-over-again (the police riot against the biggest, most impressive, most successful labor and human rights protest we have ever seen), only this time, with THIS Clinton, the president will have precedents of indefinite detention without charge, "terrorist" watch lists and no-fly lists, massive domestic spying, and even torture, to apply to U.S. protesters, as well as more highly developed weapons, more militaristic police, national guard, military and mercenary forces, and more sophisticated, fascist techniques of crowd control, punishment and marginalization.

A Clinton II regime may well see the shit hit the fan, economically, with millions out of work, millions losing their homes, millions of pensions having been looted, mass suffering of every kind, and consequent mass protest, as well as protest against a military Draft and the corporate resource wars. I think her queenship is inevitable--it is the time for corporate consolidation of their enormous gains under the Bush Junta. It is not a democratic "choice" in any sense. It is being foisted upon us. And our corporate rulers now have not only money control of our election process, but direct control over election outcomes, with electronic voting systems run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code. So, my concern is how far Hillary Clinton will go to serve the Corporate Rulers and war profiteers. Not IF she will serve them. But, just how ugly is she going to get, toward the people of this country, in her corporate service?

It is a fair question. And skepticism about her promises to "consider" which fascist powers she wants to retain, and which to put on the backburner, is a fair stance to take. To call it "candidate bashing" presumes that we have a choice of candidates and presidents, and a fair, honest and transparent election system. I don't think we do. So this is not "candidate bashing." It is realism. We are going to have someone foisted upon us. There is considerable evidence that Hillary is the "made candidate"--the Corporate Rulers choice for consolidating their power. To assess her realistically--and to try to gage just how much oppression she is "considering"--is a wise and patriotic activity, not "candidate bashing." will we have a chance to restore transparent vote counting under Hillary? Will the great, peace-minded, justice-minded American majority that has been marginalized, disempowered and disenfranchised, by both parties, have a breather, during her regime, during which to start re-building our democracy? How much grief are we in for? How hard a struggle is it going to be?

It is a difficult time for all Americans, and especially for the majority of Americans, who are so dismayed and angered by the failures and vast corruption of our political establishment. I urge patience with the disillusioned--people who seem to just mouth off with negativism. We need to try to turn those energies in a positive direction, for a long term fight to restore our democracy. But you can't turn negative energies positive by asking people to deny their own intelligent assessment of the sincerity of these multi-millionaires who want to be emperor--or by urging them to silence their own skepticism or cries of anguish. We NEED dissenters. We NEED critics. We NEED to rake this political establishment over the coals. And ultimately we need to throw them out--Hillary included. But what I want to hear from the "hit and run" type posters--the ones who, with just a few words, dismiss Hillary's "considerations" of fascist powers, is more careful analysis of what kind of fascist powers we should expect, how we can influence those decisions (if at all), what powers we have left, as a people, with which to try to bring about a peaceful revolution, etc. Analysis, strategy.

For instance, Hillary Clinton was one of ONLY TWO U.S. Senate votes against the "Help America Vote Act" (HAVA, electronic voting with "trade secret" code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations), back in October 2002 (the necessary companion bill to the Iraq War Resolution--the IWR resolution guaranteed unjust war; HAVA provided the means to shove unjust war down the throats of the American people). Was her vote just a pandering to New York voters (who are very attached to their old, reliable and virtually unriggable, lever voting machines)--or did she have some real attachment to transparency and democracy? Or, does she feel she has a need to at least APPEAR TO BE progressive in her views, and would this aid us in our fight to restore transparent vote counting?

That's the kind of thinking I want to see from posters who are in despair--and who seem to just throw up their hands, and if we can't have real democracy instantly, seem to want to give up. Instead of spreading bleakness and negativism, think strategically. Where and how to attack this system? How to make inroads? What power do we have? Analyze things realistically, with eyes open. But then, think about and suggest ways to work with the GIVEN situation and its logistics. Don't just blight our days with how unhappy you are, and how much you despise the candidates. How do we get out of this mess? And above all, stop expecting some "knight in shining armor" to come along, and, magically, give us our country back. Ain't gonna happen. We have to TAKE it back.

All I can really think of is Hillary really sucks hard.

-Hoot

I know I needed to, because I'm one of those negatives who feel the system is so broken that virtually nothing can be done, and it's going to fall despite our best efforts.

It's hard to combat that feeling when otherwise-intelligent people here dismiss the kinds of concerns you mention about "considering" these illegal powers... or won't even acknowledge the danger in not proclaiming flat-out that they are illegal and will not be used.

Quality of her promises aside, that Clinton won't even say this is troubling. ANYONE saying they'd "consider" not using illegal powers deserves a black mark on their ethics scorecard!

People must remember that we are being asked to accept someone who was a Repuke earlier in her life. Someone like that deserves double the scrutiny.

There's no denying: Hillary is a product of corporate political domination in this country. Bottom line. Sure, she proclaims good intentions and works for modest-sized social improvements. But she is a creature of what is fundamentally wrong with this country: politicians taking most of their dough from fat cats who want their aims - not ours - carried out.

Any reaction less than "of course I'll not use them, they're illegal and these men need to be held accountable for their crimes" is extremely troubling, no matter what candidate says it.

I don't care if DK had said this - I'd be just as disgusted with the wiggle room left by such a stance.

I have just about quit arguing with the idiots myself.

up those powers, not that she is denouncing them according to the headline.

"Considering" doing so and actually doing so are two very different things...

"Clinton Will Consider Giving Up Some Powers". If the author wanted to stay true to the body of the column.

I honestly believe this is the pattern as to how our nation takes a slow slide toward fascism. We take two steps toward it, the people raise hell and then we take one step back if we're lucky. This cycle continues to repeat it self, I believe the biggest difference between us and Germany in the early 30s is that we move in the direction of fascism at a much slower pace.

Al Gore uses the analogy of the frog slowly being boiled to death in a pot of water and not having the sense to jump out, Al is referring to global warming in this analogy, but I see the same dynamic happening toward our democratic republic.

See, this is the problem with not impeaching. The next president will inherit Bush's power grab intact. Of course, I think we can count on the Court to slap down any Dem attempting to be as king-like as Bush.
But I worry that a Dem Congress will be as lax in enforcement of a Dem POTUS as the Republican one was. Oh, what am I saying. I think we can count on our craven Blue Dogs to be just as obstructive with a Dem Potus as they are with their fellow Dem congressmen. Come to think of it, there's no reason to think a Dem Congress won't be snarling at each other just as usual.

Well, I actually feel better now.

Not about the power grab however. That is too much temptation for anyone. I'm including Gandhi. Maybe not Bishop Tutu.

You nailed it, especially about the Bush Dogs.

she is excellent at them!

(Sorry, I've been posting a while today, and am sick of almost every post being turned into a make-a-hateful-remark-about-a-candidate thread.)

though i will reserve final judgment for when i see the specifics...

(edited for spelling errors)

Wake up Hillary, and smell the Constitution. We want it back.

he won't give up squat

The tunnel vision haters better hope a dem wins..sad sorry bunch in here

It's not nice to call someone a hater. That is how Rush talks.

where you people get your talking points.

I have had that stuff slapped in my face more than I care to remember. My mother is a believer. Peace, Kim

It's the SAME illegal powers she'd be using. That makes her just as much a criminal as Rudy, if she were to use them at all.

"Considering" a return to the rule of law is not acceptable. It doesn't even meet the basic requirement of legality.

You're willing to allow her to decide her own powers, so long as a Republican doesn't get to do the same.

That's repulsive. It's not how the Constitution and checks and balances work.

and signing statements illegal as a start.

"Hillary Rodham Clinton would consider giving up some of the executive powers "

Consider my ass Hillary.

No time like the present to begin acting like a law abiding country again.

It's just a thought.

And Harry and Nancy will hold their breath!

I forgot we have to wait until 2009 when/if we get a Democrat in the WH.

I have no idea what I was thinking.

NT!

NOT!

Oh yeah? If she wants to review the powers given to the president and thinks they are against the Constitution, why did SHE vote to give him some of these powers? (WAR)

...and his whole ****ing crime family! And a few GOPers in Congress. And a couple of Supreme Court BushBozos...

For starters...

I'm truly curious. I love it when people promise to maybe do something.

Source: The Guardian



Clinton vows review of executive power

Michael Tomasky in Washington
Tuesday October 23, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Hillary Clinton would launch a policy review as president with an eye towards giving up some of the executive powers accumulated by George Bush, she tells Guardian America in an interview today.

The New York senator and frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination also accuses the Bush administration's broad brush approach to terrorism of making it harder to understand "what it is we were up against", and expresses concerns about the attitude of the president's nominee for attorney general to interrogation and "expansive" executive power.

On the accumulation of White House power under the current administration, Ms Clinton said the president and Dick Cheney both had taken actions "beyond any power the Congress would have granted" and - even when congressional authorisation was possible - chosen not to pursue it "as a matter of principle".

"The power grab undertaken by the Bush-Cheney administration has gone much further than any other president and has been sustained for longer," she said. "Other presidents, like Lincoln, have had to take on extraordinary powers but would later go to Congress for either ratification or rejection."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/hillaryclinton/...

what a big fat lie *cough*

spin on it.

And good for Hillary!

Be honest you other candidate supporters.

Felonies have been committed. This is not a grey issue, it is black and white.

honest question: Do you have much experience observing politics?

Back in the Clinton WH years, when they said they were going to review something, they would bring in experts from a variety of philosphies or ideologies and thay would work the issue. And something would be done. You might want to do some of your own research I have a feeling all you read is Clinton bashers material.

way of checks ad balances between the congress and presidency. I wouldn't say that I would consider thinking about it. I would say I will do it. That's what I'm saying. There is no promise in there, just to think about it. meaningless. just words.
i think, for example, every candidate should be standing up right now screaming about FISA. The bill would eliminate 40 federal lawsuits, hide information and legalize thousands of felonies. Only DOdd and Biden so far have had the guts to say NO to this. That would make me believe she does not approve of executive overreach. This is blatantly illegal. obvious. simple. And she can do something about it NOW.

that rule of law does not apply to corporations that break our constitutional laws. And that there is no accountability or price to be paid by corporations that break our constitutional law.

That is a very dangerous precedent.

fly

She'd "consider" "giving up" "some" of the illegal powers b*s* has assumed despite Constitutional restrictions on his power - and that's good enough for you?

Really?

Don't you, like I hope all of us, desire a return to the full rule-of-law, and not an Executive branch run amok?

you listened poorly.

The facts are the facts - your intimation that I have poor hearing is meaningless.

ok I'll buy that.

Or do you just not want to admit it?

realistic view of the powers he had on this I guess. There were plans before '94 and plans after '94. Both were based on expectations of what could be accomplished with the sitting congress. If you are hoping to turn me into a Clinton hater you better get some better material.

If you disagree with the fact that these are illegal powers, we're on two different levels of understanding, and I can't possibly explain anything to you.

it is not her job as Prez to review it. It is congress job to take their power back and not accept what the Prez gives them.

No tweaks necessary?

I am not sure I get what you are saying. I admit I am in a mental fog today due to medical issues so It is probably me.

A review of what has happened over the past could reveal some worthwhile changes to the constitution that could be agreed on by both parties. I think this is the type of review she is talking about. And then presumably she would push to get the changes done.

I guess I am afraid of what their compromise might be. It could end up further eroding what we have now.
I think I'd rather the constitution we have be adhered to.

Are you seriously suggesting it's okay to adopt these illegal powers later, even though they are a blatant violation of Constitutional restrictions?

It sounds like you're arguing for amendment-by-fiat, which is itself unconstitutional.

a constitutional scholar. Maybe you should volunteer to help with the review.

If you can't even grasp those facts, I don't know how to converse with you.

The president does not get to review their own powers. That destroys checks and balances. This is such a simple concept to grasp - you don't let the power-holder decide what powers they hold! Have you even READ the Constitution?

I don't think she will do the same.

This isn't up for debate - it is unconstitutional for any branch to decide their own powers. One branch checking another's powers is the bedrock of this Republic (what's left of it, anyway). That's not even a matter of opinion, it's the way the entire system is set up.

It is too tempting for ANY president to decide what their own powers will be, and it's the antithesis of how the system was designed. A promise to eradicate these illegal powers might be worthless, but a promise to review and decide the powers is even worse - it shows intent to retain some of them, and none of them can be allowed to remain if the rule of law means anything.

I'd call for Kucinich's head if he'd made this kind of unethical promise to decide his own powers!

A review of all that has happened from inside the Whitehouse is certainly called for. I know you think you know everything already but please abide the rest of us that want her to do a review. Depending on what is found, I assume she will issue executive orders to curtail any questionable or illegal activity. I expect her to make available to the congress information for further investigation and possible legislation. I expect she will participate in passing any legislation that would help prevent a re-occurrence of some of the corruption etc, that played a large role in the rubber stamp congress.

Like Bush's abuse of the power to classify documents. Should Hillary order that no documents of any kind be classified? Or should there be a review to get information that rightfully belongs to the public out?

Some here bring up Habeas Corpus. That's a tricky area to apply to foreigners on foreign soil. What if there is a battle? Do we post judges and juries on the battlefield? Does the CIA need warrants to eavesdrop on North Korean nuclear scientists? Its not as simple as just saying everybody in the world gets Habeas Corpus.

Too much is being made here of the language Hillary used.

That's not how our system works. Don't believe me? Crack a basic 3-grade government book.

and a waste of my time.

that there are certain parts of the constitution that are unclear enough or debated as to how the SCOTUS would decide, Bush has taken advantage of some I am sure, there may be some minor tweeks to the constitution that should be looked at. I am not an expert on constitutional law, freely admitted.

is being debated right now. Now is the time to take a stand against executive privilege. right now.
And that is not just for Hillary. ALL DEM CANDIDATES should be doing it loudly, if in fact they are concerned at all with executive overreach.

not one of them is good enough for her critics.

In this same interview, Hillary takes on Bush's "broad brush" approach to terrorism. That's a very gutsy stand that is likely to end up in a full blown knife fight with the GOP. That won't be good enough for the left wing Hillary critics though. Nothing is.

The other two North East senators and Richardson are the only ones with anywhere near her caliber, but they are pretty much running for vice president at this point.

"Review"?

Dear John, Barack, Hillary, Dennis, Bill, Joe, Chris and Mike:

In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson said:

"freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected . . . form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation . . . They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."

While I strongly believe that Congress can, and should, IMPEACH both President Bush, and Vice-President Cheney, I am grudgingly coming to terms with the idea that the "moment of error and alarm" that IS the Bush administration, will now last until January, 2009.

Until that time, I have just ONE question that I would like to ask ALL of you: Will you, on your first day in office, repudiate ALL of the Constitutional excesses of the Bush administration, unambiguously promising NOT to engage in warrant-less domestic surveillance; and, unambiguously promising to restore habeas corpus?

I can't speak for anyone else, but, as for me, I WILL NOT support ANY candidate who does not promise to immediately "regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."

Yours,

Krash

Please take a look at my first post, regarding David Obey, the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, saying that he will NOT report the Iraq supplemental funding bill out of his Committee.

I think this is the MOST under reported MAJOR story in the news today!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Krash

It should say, "no matter what you do, I'll support you because deep down I know that ANY republican nominee will put pro-life, anti-environment, pro-executive power, nominees in all courts (especially the Supreme Court). So feel free to do as you will because I'll just have to take it. I realize the stakes are too high to not support whatever Democrat is nominated."

Sorry, but they've got us by the *ahem* necks. We have no choice but to support the nominee or move away from America. You think the Supreme Court is bad now? Wait until you get two more Scalia's for a Ginzberg and Seuter.

There is a hugh difference between "supporting" a candidate, and "holding your nose" and voting for one.

If only your grasp of obvious illegalities was shared by more around this place...

I can sign on to that in a minute.

edit to say Welcome to DU

What the fuck

If you had even bothered to read it, you wouldn't have had to ask your widdle tripe.

"Hillary Clinton would launch a policy review as president with an eye toward giving up SOME OF THE EXECUTIVE POWERS accumulated by George Bush..."

Fascist light?

The problem is that a review is in order NOW. A review was in order YEARS ago.

Two years from now the power will have already been abused as it is being abused now.

To little; too late Mrs. Clinton.

Just some. Maybe. She will consider it

Post #57 is by far more informative

the bush power grab is patently unconsitutional.

all of it, not just the part HRC wants to retain.

and btw: Did I fall asleep or something? did the primaries already happen?