What Is America’s Future?

Posted by on . 8 comments.

How screwed up is the state of our democracy and everything this nation is supposed to stand for when the President actually comments on a Supreme Court decision that he will respect the decision and take it seriously and conform to it, and the entire mainstream media (print and TV) treats that statement as major news.

Next thing we know the mid-term elections will roll around, and a reporter will ask Bush whether he can confirm that there will be no interference with the voting process, and if he says yes, the entire nation will turn to face Washington, D.C. and give thanks.

And sometime before 2008, the question is bound to come up whether Bush, in view of The Ongoing War On Terror, intends to suspend the constitution, declare martial law and continue as President for life until the terrorists are defeated. Do we think we know for sure how he’ll answer? Wouldn’t a “No” flout the entire inner logic of his Presidency?

Comments

  1. matt says:
    June 30, 2006 at 8:58 am

    well, there is precedent:

    John Marshall continued in office long enough to serve as Chief Justice during President Andrew Jackson’s term of office. His court found the policy of Indian Removal to be unconstitutional, but Jackson replied: “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.” Jackson was later responsible for the Trail of Tears, in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling.

    some say this is apocryphal, but the proof is in the pudding.

    As to 2008, Bush used the logic in 2004 that it would be dangerous to change leaders in a time of war. Since the GWOT is more or less permanent, I don’t see how 2008 would be any different, unless he’s managed to clone himself in violation of his ban on that sort of thing.

  2. sarabeth says:
    June 30, 2006 at 9:21 am

    Yes, his biggest and most sacred duty is to protect the American people. It would be thoroughly irresponsible for him to allow a change in the leadership at such a critical juncture in The Ongoing War On Terror (we’re bound to have a critical juncture in TOWOT at the right time). It would be a gross failure to execute his pledge of office, tantamount to treason, really. And his Mama sure as heck didn’t raise no traitors.

  3. JimC says:
    June 30, 2006 at 9:33 am

    no interference with the voting process

    Does this include Democrats?

  4. Nailed Saviour says:
    July 1, 2006 at 6:58 pm

    Does this include Democrats?

    If you had actually read and understood any post made here in the last several years you would know the answer to that question.

    This comment is a troll, pure and simple.

  5. Ken says:
    July 2, 2006 at 9:23 am

    his biggest and most sacred duty is to protect the American people

    Actually (“suicide pacts” aside), I believe his “most sacred duty” is to “protect and uphold” the Constitution. At least that’s what he said in the oaths he’s taken, twice. Same for Mr. Cheney, and AG Gonzalez.

    It gives me such warm and fuzzy feeling inside to know that these guys have only the interests of the American people at heart.

  6. sarabeth says:
    July 2, 2006 at 9:52 am

    I believe his “most sacred duty” is to “protect and uphold” the Constitution.

    Shame on you, Ken! You’re forgetting the principle that if Bush repeats something enough times, it becomes true. Very unpatriotic of you, especially on the 4th of July weekend.

    Whatever it may have been once, at this point his biggest and most sacred duty is to protect the American people. Including from themselves.

  7. JimC says:
    July 3, 2006 at 7:47 am

    If you had actually read and understood any post made here in the last several years you would know the answer to that question.

    In that case, I guess it doesn’t apply to Democrats then? I understand full well, the constant attacks on republicans and given the nature of this article, anyone who has been here for a while might very well assume that tasking the President to make sure elections aren’t interfered with, meant him and his party…

    If you think this is a troll, then explain why, else, I was serious in understanding the full meaning of the poster’s comments….

  8. Ken says:
    July 3, 2006 at 4:11 pm

    Actually JimC, I’ll take the risk of agreeing with you on that point. The risk of both stolen elections and a loss of faith in the process itself are simply too great to play partisan football.

    That said, I would argue that what we need more than anything is a bulletproof voting system – that means auditable voting, open-source software for electronic machines, full availability for all populations. I’d also suggest a Constitutional amendment for runoffs for those national elections results that fall within the margin of error. We can play golf on the moon but we can’t count votes?