I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

George Bush has clearly never taken a civics class. Or if he did, he was asleep. The phrases "separation of powers," "checks and balances," and even "Constitution" are very important words - words that Bush swore to observe when he took the oath of office. Bush's actions seem to indicate that has more interest in undermining all of those principles than preserving them.

The latest evidence of Bush's hostility to the Constitution is this article by the Boston Globe. It lays out how Bush has asserted his right to be sole interpreter of the Constitution, and as such has ignored over 750 federal laws. Funny, I thought we already had a branch that determined constitutionality. Huh.

I've written before how the "imperial presidency" interpretation of executive powers is alien to the Constitution and dangerous to American democracy. To sum up, Bush and his defenders are claiming that the President has total control over foreign affairs and war, and that he has emergency powers, by virtue of the "vested in" clause of the Constitution granting inherent powers. But neither external relations nor emergency powers are part of the grant of executive authority - they are in fact called federative and prerogative powers, respectively. The Constitution clearly divides federative powers among all three branches and grants prerogative powers to no one.

George Bush has vetoed a single congressional statute - unprecedented for a Presidency in its 6th year. But he has not done so because he believes that he does not need to - that he can ignore any law he likes. This leaves Congress without any recourse and effectively annexes the legislative power to the President. By asserting his right to interpret the Constitution, Bush has also usurped the rights of the Judiciary. In other words, we have a situation in which all political power is being concentrated into the hands of one man. This situation has a name, and it is tyranny.

George Bush has demonstated that he is an enemy of the Constitution, and as such must be removed from office. Were I in the Congress today, I would introduce bills of impeachment. Forget censure - this man has to go.

Let me end by engaging in a hypothetical. Let us say that an opposition party gains control of Congress because of the misdeeds of a President. What happens if that President stonewalls every investigation, and ignores every act of Congress? What then? Does the Congress attempt to remove him from office? What happens when that President orders the military to seize all members of Congress and declare a state of emergency on the grounds that as the nation is at war, we can't afford political instability? What, may I ask, is to stop him?

I used to think that Bush was just the worst President in history. I am now coming to believe that he is paving the way for dictatorship. Even if he has no such intention himself, what's to say that someone else, more able and more ruthless, won't follow his example?