Recently at a Romney rally, a woman called out that President Obama should be tried for treason, for what she had decided was executive action that "violated" the idea of separation of powers. There are two grotesquely, yet characteristic misimpressions, and one glaring omission here. First, separation of powers applies only in that some powers are granted to each branch of government to limit the ability of any branch to unilaterally pursue objectives inimical to the common good. Any other action not specified may be controversial, but is certainly not illegal. Second, this ignorant citizen has no idea that treason is defined specifically in the Constitution and what she seems to be referring to is decidely not it! The glaring omission is Candidate Mitt Romney's apparent lack of (pick one - guts, character, backbone, fairness, or constitutional knowledge) in failing to correct her. John McCain would have done so, Santorum, now a Romney fan and sycophant would have agreed with her.
Ronald Reagan, that icon of conservatives, justifiably feared impeachment for the Iran-Contra affair. He intentionally violated the Arms Export Control Act, a criminal statute, sold arms to radical supporters of terrorists, and unconstitutionally violated a congressional prohibition on providing money and support to the Nicaraguan Contra fighters. The Reagan administration’s violation of the Boland Amendment grossly violated the spirit and intent of separation of powers by circumventing Congress’s most important power—the appropriation of public monies.
George W. Bush is followed in the footsteps of his predecessors, but left many more tracks. Invading a country (Iraq) on false pretenses is grounds for impeachment. Additionally, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically says that the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures and that no search warrants shall be issued without probable cause that a crime has been committed. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that warrants for national security wiretaps be authorized by the secret FISA court. The law specifies that it is a crime for government officials to conduct electronic surveillance outside the exclusive purviews of that law or the criminal wiretap statute. President Bush’s authorization of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the National Security Agency (NSA) without even the minimal protection of FISA court warrants was clearly unconstitutional and illegal. Executive searches without judicial review violate the unique checks and balances that the nation’s founders intended and created in the Constitution and are an erosion of American civil liberties. Furthermore, surveillance of Americans by the NSA, an intelligence service rather than a law enforcement agency, is a regression to the practices of the Vietnam-era, when intelligence agencies were misused to spy on anti-war protesters—another impeachable violation of peoples’ constitutional rights by LBJ and Nixon.
President Bush defiantly admitted initiating such flagrant domestic spying but contended that the Congress implicitly authorized such activities when it approved the use of force against al Qaeda and that such actions fit within his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief. But the founders never intended core principles of the Constitution to be suspended during wartime. In fact, they realized that it was in times of war and crisis that constitutional protections of the people were most at risk of usurpation by politicians, who purport to defend American freedom while actually undermining it.
The Bush administration’s FBI also expanded its use of national security letters to examine the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans who were/are not suspected of being involved in terrorism or even illegal acts. President Bushs also took us back to the Vietnam era by monitoring anti-war protesters. Information on peaceful anti-war demonstrations has apparently found its way into Pentagon databases on possible threats to U.S. security.
The issue of Guantanamo Bay and the status of those held there is equally contentious, but probably falls into the purview of Executive orders, since the Geneva Convention is not binding. President Bush’s attempt to expand the power of presidency during wartime—as if the imperial presidency hadn’t been expanded enough by his recent predecessors, is significant. President Bush usually got the Attorney General or the White House Counsel to agree with his usurpation of congressional and judicial powers, but, of course, who in the executive is going to disagree with their boss? The Bush administration described the president’s war making power under the Constitution as “plenary”—meaning absolute. The founders would roll over in their graves at this interpretation of a document that was actually designed to limit the presidential war power, resulting from their revulsion at the way European monarchs easily took their countries to war and foisted the costs—in blood and treasure—on their people. Conservative Bob Barr, a former Congressman from Georgia who was quoted in the Post, said it best: “The American people are going to have to say, ‘Enough of this business of justifying everything as necessary for the war on terror.’ Either the Constitution and the laws of this country mean something or they don’t. It is truly frightening what is going on in this country.”
Where
was the woman who called for President
Obama being tried for treason (for totally legal and constitutional acts while)
all this was going on? I can't say, but wherever she was I'll bet she
thought everything Reagan, "Poppy
Bush", and "W" did was
just peachy keen. Where was Romney setting her straight? Well, let's just say it takes a spine to stand
up for the truth.
