Liberty Maven

I’ve long held that just about every U.S. President and U.S. Congressman deserve to be hanged (or at least some sort of punishment) for violating their oaths of office.

Upon entering office, U.S. Presidents must pledge:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Similarly, members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives must affirm:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

If our public servants aren’t held to their oaths, then the oaths are rendered meaningless.

In similar fashion, Bruce Fein has opined in the San Francisco Chronicle, that the actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney have violated the Constitution in a variety of ways, and indeed deserve censure.  Here’s a piece of what Fein had to say:

By wielding the threat of international terrorism, the Bush-Cheney team put the nation on a permanent war footing – the first time in history that war has been undertaken against a tactic. They maintained that the entire post-9/11 world is an active battlefield where United States military force may be used to kill suspected members of al Qaeda irrespective of international boundaries.

They claimed executive privilege and state secrets to conduct secret government – thereby circumventing political and legal accountability. This included directives to former White House officials Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to flout congressional subpoenas for testimony. They detained hundreds of people (including American citizens) as enemy combatants without accusation or trial. They authorized torture (waterboarding and extraordinary rendition), abductions, secret prisons and illegal surveillance of American citizens.

Like its immediate predecessors, the 110th Congress eagerly yielded its authorities – even the power of the purse – to the president. The Iraqi War Resolution, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments, and the declination to hold Rove in contempt of Congress were emblematic.

If left unrebuked, the Bush-Cheney usurpations of power will become part of the constitutional firmament and risk creating a safe harbor for future presidential abuses. Every member of Congress, moreover, is required to take an oath to “support (the) Constitution” pursuant to Article VI. There is no corresponding oath to support the Republican or Democratic parties or to subordinate the Constitution in the name of political harmony. Censure would be no novelty.

Read the whole article.

As much as I admire his ideas, sometimes Ron Paul disappoints me.

by Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Originally published December 6, 2008 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article5596.html

In a thrilling, thought-provoking 4-part video series on Youtube (Part 1, 2, 3, 4) Stefan Molyneux of www.freedomainradio.com declares that “Statism is Dead.” At least in the moral sense, he is completely right. In reality, the Ron Paul rEVOLution and non-statists everywhere have a lot of teaching to do! [By the way, I particularly like Part 3, a movie where everyone, including most libertarians are compared to livestock. Funny, and it holds a lot of truth.]

In Part 2, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” Mr. Molyneux takes a shot at one of my heroes, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas for not pressing for the impeachment of George Bush.  The charge is that not only  did Bush purposefully mislead the American public about the Iraq War, but he also is committing the murder of his own Army.

Read More »

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – and both commonly succeed, and are right.” Source: “Minority Report” (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997 [1956]), p. 222

Subject: A state of permanent preparedness for impeachment

It’s Election Day. What should we say about it? We’re tempted to declare it a day of mourning, but instead, we’re going to argue that today is the day to adopt a state of permanent preparedness for impeachment.

As of yet, neither a Democrat nor a Republican has been elected President. That outcome will be revealed later today. But before that happens, we should commit ourselves to closely monitor the actions of the new President, and to be ready to call for his impeachment, should that become warranted.

We should be prepared to do this regardless of partisan loyalties.

What warrants impeachment? Different people will have different standards. We plan to maintain a running “bill of impeachment,” listing broken laws, Constitutional violations, and abuses of power. It will be up to you to agree or disagree with the items we choose to list, and to decide whether or not any one item or group of items justifies impeachment.

It’s possible, given your level of sensitivity, that the new President could do something on his first day that would immediately warrant impeachment in your eyes, or that he will never do enough bad things to justify such an action.

The call will be yours.

Some people reasonably object that impeachment is too vulnerable to partisan ax grinding. There are also many things for which a president could be impeached of which the impeachers themselves will be guilty. It is precisely these concerns that prevented us from advocating the impeachment of President Bush. But . . .
Read More »