America's problem is again a usurping king called George

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1799692,00.html

Imagine a country with a different kind of monarch from the one we are used to. Forget the nation-binding human monarch whom Archbishop Rowan Williams praised so deftly this week. Imagine instead a monarch who, like many of Elizabeth II's ancestors, routinely reserved the right to override laws passed by the legislature, or who repeatedly asserted that the laws mean something they do not say. Imagine, in fact, King George of America.

On April 30 the Boston Globe journalist Charlie Savage wrote an article whose contents become more astonishing the more one reads them. Over the past five years, Savage reported, President George Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws that have been enacted by the United States Congress since he took office. At the heart of Bush's strategy is the claim that the president has the power to set aside any statute that conflicts with his own interpretation of the constitution.

Remarkably, this systematic reach for power has occurred not in secret but in public. Go to the White House website and the evidence is there in black and white. It takes the form of dozens of documents in which Bush asserts that his power as the nation's commander in chief entitles him to overrule or ignore bills sent to him by Congress for his signature. Behind this claim is a doctrine of the "unitary executive", which argues that the president's oath of office endows him with an independent authority to decide what a law means.

Periodically, congressional leaders come down from Capitol Hill to applaud as the president, seated at his desk, signs a bill that becomes the law of the land. They are corny occasions. But they are a photo-op reminder that American law-making involves compromises that reflect a balance between the legislature and the presidency. The signing ceremony symbolises that the balance has been upheld and renewed. After the legislators leave, however, Bush puts his signature to another document. Known as a signing statement, this document is a presidential pronouncement setting out the terms in which he intends to interpret the new law. These signing statements often conflict with the new statutes. In some cases they even contradict their clear meaning. Increasing numbers of scholars and critics now believe they amount to a systematic power grab within a system that rests on checks and balances of which generations of Americans have been rightly proud - and of which others are justly envious.

[cliss]

1. Welcome to the Middle Ages.

Now we all know what life must have been like back in 1547 A.D. The local peasants have their little shacks scattered along the countryside. Up the hill a little ways, you can see the walled fortress of their Seigneur, the Feudal Lord. The local peasants have tied their fates with their Lord, who technically owns them.

The Feudal Lord was theirs for life: no elections, no Impeachment, and no getting out of office. The Lord ruled over them until he died, and upon his death his son would take over the reins.

The peasants bring their sacks of grain to the Lord in exchange for the Lord's protection in case of an attack by marauders.

In a sense, those medieval peasants were better off than we are, because at least they got something in exchange for their contribution. We're being sold down the river by Bush.

[yurbud]

2. We knowed he was a terrist cuz we threw him in pond and he floatated