Censure W

As you can probably tell from the title, I support Sen. Feingold's bill to censure Pres. Bush.

Censure. What does it mean? The dictionary says "harsh criticism, rebuke." It's basically congress saying to the president that they really don't like what he's doing, a vote of no confidence if you will. Are there any direct repercussions? No. It's just Congress as a whole speaking their opinion, and no laws are enacted or extra restrictions placed on the President. This would, however, neuter the White House politically. Then maybe executive power and misconduct would be brought back down to safer, Clinton-era levels.

Now, I know that you conservatives are going to try to rip me apart for saying Clinton didn't commit misconduct. Read the sentence again, I said "safer" level of misconduct. Really, how much does it matter what a president does with his personal time as long as it's not illegal (as opposed to ordering illegal wire taps on Americans)? Would you rather have a president who sometimes can't keep it in his pants, or a president whose intentional lies kill 2,500 some Americans and countless others? Think about it and get back to me. I already know which one I prefer.

Back to the issue at hand. What are Sen. Feingold's grounds for this Censure? He thinks (rightly so) that a president who willingly and knowingly disobeys the law should be told by Congress (who's job it is to check the executive power) that he shouldn't be doing that. Instead we're getting closer to a scenario like this:

(with strong southern accent) "Members of Congress, I've come to you today to propose a new bill. This bill, if voted into law, will make it easier to fight the terrorists who plot to kill Americans. What I'm proposing are a few minor changes to our great constitution. Now, usually I'm a big fan of the constitution. But sometimes it can impede" (go through a couple different pronunciations on impede before using the right one) "fighting those terrorists. My plan is, see this part here 'We the people of the United States of America', now that part's good, I like it, it's what America stands for. What we do is, right after that part, we make a little cut right here" (takes scissors and separates top line of constitution from the rest, discarding the rest and keeping only the top) "and now we have the weapons we need to win the war on terror and fight those who hate democracy" (applause)

Will it come to that? Hopefully not.

There's always two sides to every story. Let's hear the president's. He claims that in order to protect America from terrorists (a noble goal) he needs to be able to listen in on Americans' communications without wasting time getting warrants. This power, he says, is given to him in Article II of the constitution. Well, believe it or not, I have a copy of the document in question right here. I'm looking at article two, and I don't see anything about unwarranted searches or surveillance in times of emergency, war, or otherwise. What Art. 2 does say is this "He (the president) shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." The first half of that is what's important. Laws, I think the constitution is the basis of all of those. Let's see what are some laws that he is supposed to execute: amendment IV "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Well,

were these laws executed faithfully? Let's see: unreasonable searches not to take place without warrant issued on probable cause. Did George W. Bush have probable cause to listen in on all these people (keep in mind, if the majority of these people were terrorists, we'd have a problem on our hands)? Nope, he didn't even have a warrant, let alone supported by an oath or affirmation. What he had was a switchboard that showed all the overseas phone calls people were making, a record button, and a pair of headphones.

The law is with Sen. Feingold on this one.