Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, November 12, 2004

Ashcroft says checks and balances irrelevant

Ashcroft, you are irrelevant!

How long has this man been sitting in the highest position in DoJ, and had no clue about the constitutional system of checks and balances?

How many other people in DoJ are like minded, looking for an excuse to mislead the courts to arrive at "decisions that the President wants, and are contrary to public policy, the constitution?

How many issues of "national security" are being thrown around to justify deferring to the President over matters that all three branches constitutionally have input and responsibility to jointly be responsible.

But lets not stop there. A war crime occurs when there is not only an act, but a failure of the President and those charged with oversight in special positions of leadership [As Mr Ashcroft is], to take action to stop that action from occurring.

The Attorney General's statement shows that despite questions over the 2002-3 White House memos, there remains a disdain within the White House for the rule of law, constitution.

I call on the Congress to consider whether or not there has been a ruse by the President in issuing those "Geneva convention applies". If the President truly wanted to make sure "Geneva applied," there "should have been" swift action to ensure that his "memo" was enforced.

Yet, almost 2 years "later," we are led to believe "this is isolated."

On the contrary! It's been two years, and now we finally hear "the real story" -- how much disdain there is for the courts, the "other branches" and the system of checks and balances.

Indeed, Ashcroft's statements should be taken for what they are: Indicative of what this nation's highest officers actually say and do when confronted with allegations of war crimes, misconduct, or actions that are contrary to public policy and the rule of law.

The Congressional Committees have the duty to make sure there is no "climate of tolerance" which sends a green light to abuses, or unlawful acts.

Yet, in his own words, the Attorney General, like those who have served other nations in war time, shows a cavalier attitude toward the system of checks and balances.

This is the system this nation fights for overseas, the reason we engage in combat, these are the principles we are fighting for.

There is no higher calling.

Attorney General Ashcroft once again showed his disdain for the constitutional system of checks and balances.

The last thing a sitting judge needs to hear is that "his independent judgment" is going to face the wrath of the Attorney General or President.

I call on the American Bar Association to formally rebuke Ascroft's comments; and ask that the Judicial councils in each state formally state their opposition to such comments.

This is not a political matter. This is a matter of checks and balances. And I invite the Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to include at the earliest possible time a statement that formally challenges this highly aggressive comment by the Attorney General.

It remains to be seen whether the various "watch dog" organizations can find the right plaintiff to bring a case to court in re Ashcroft to swiftly ensure that this "man in charge" in DoJ faces some rebukes.

Rather than us waiting around for three years as we did in re Guantanammo, why not get the ABA to work with the Federal District Courts and fast-track a complaint against Ashcroft to ensure that there's an adequate, complete, thorough review of any facts and cases related to this development so that the public might enjoy a reiteration by the courts in re "what this system is all about."

It is troubling that despite having a clearly outlined system of checks and balances, the President's "main man" in the DoJ is making these kind of comments. Why should we believe that the officers under DoJ, its attorneys, or those working on JTTF or are in local law enforcement are going to seriously deal with this reality of system of checks and balances.

Clearly, the "man in charge" of DoJ is touting himself as "knowing better" than the ABA, and all the others who have sworn an oath to this system of checks and balances.

This is outrageous!

Let's hope during the confirmation hearings that there's some serious probing into Gonzalez' discussions with Ashcroft over these public statements.

Recall, the Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib memos were not created in a vacuum.

If people within the White House really have this much disdain for the system of checks and balances, I'd like to have a straight story presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee for all to see.

I am less concerned with the "real attitude" than I am with the fiction going on: That officers sown to preserve the constitution, and its system of checks and balances are going to respect that system not deride it.

I take it as a serious charge that anyone in the White House is going to use a "resigning attorney general" as the mouth piece for the real disdain this President, appears, has for the constitution.

I am especially disheartened to hear these comments at the very time that the president publicly paraded Gonzalez as a "fine judge from Texas". Again, if the President or the Attorney general "has an attitude about judges" that really stems from Texas, and the ability of Texans to make their judges cow-tow to the wishes of the executive, then let's get that on the table.

We need to understand the real under currents driving this White House so that we are not surprised. We don't need to find out during additional confirmation hearings that the judges have been selected because of their choice to acquiesce to the president.

We saw prior to the war in Iraq that the Press and Congress will kowtow to the President. Yet, where's the WMD?

The reason we have as system of checks and balances is so that government is checked; not so that the government can use the "issue of the week" to distract attention from matters of criminal law.

Bluntly, I am troubled that a standing attorney general would make disparaging remarks about the third branch of government -- as if to say, "there's nothing that can be done."

I think there is. The courts should be given more power by Congress to independently target personnel for investigation when their course of conduct clearly is at odds with the constitutional system of checks and balances.

Oh, you want case law? Let's take a look at the Youngstown decision: Clearly the Supreme Court in re Hamdi and Padilla cited the reality that the writ had not been suspected; so when the Attorney General speaks out about "activist judges" I am wondering if the Attorney General is really talking about the Supreme Court.

Again, if the Attorney General "doesn't like" the system of checks and balances that we have, he's free to live in a country more hospital to his liking. Might I suggest that he ensure he is not on the 'no fly list' while he leaves to his desired retirement villa in the land of lawlessness and lack of accountability.

In John Ashcroft's universe, he'll only be happy if there's martial law, the judges are jailed. Let's hope we find out whether this is what the current White House counsel favors before he's given the rubber stamp by congress.

The duty of all the protect this constitution rests with all who have sworn an oath. This standing attorney general has clearly stated he is not willing to support the existing system of checks and balances, unless it submit to a tyrant.

We already had that battle. And the Supreme Court already made a decision.

Why is the Attorney General unable to listen to what the Supreme Court has said; and why is he providing statements to the public that he doesn't agree with the final resolution.

Just as the "votes in Ohio have been counted as the election is over," so too has the Supreme Court spoken. To those who have a hard time understanding this, go read your ethics guidelines in re your oath to the US constitution.

We do not serve the President. We serve the constitution. If you have a hard time understanding the difference, might I suggest you resign before you find yourself hauled before the Congress or the Courts for impeachment.

It can be arranged. And the special counsel is looking for an excuse to make an example of a poorly disciplined SES-system.

The Supreme Court has already spoken. We may be at war, but the Constitution still exists. If you have a hard time understanding that, how do you possibly look at yourself in the mirror before you go to work and truly say, "You are doing your duty to uphold the constitution and do your day's work in re your oath of office."

Is Ashcroft advocating the public take some sort of action against judges whom the president does not agree? We've heard this type of innuendo about Saddam Hussein; out with it Mr Ashcroft, what are you really trying to say about this nation's "other branch" and those "duly appointed and nominated" officials?

And in those states that actually vote for judges, are you suggesting that they are to be treated differently, despite what is in the 14th Amendment mandating equal protection of all citizens?

Does Ashcroft advocate some "special attention" be provided outside the provisions currently before the Congress?

Is the Attorney General suggesting that "the independence of the Judicial branch" is only to be questioned by the President; but that the "other branches" cannot enjoy that same privlege?

Please, explain yourself Ashcroft. We're all waiting.

Ashcroft has shown he is a threat to the constitutional system of checks and balances; has made disparaging remarks about the judicial branch; should be censured and rebuked; and he should be monitored after his retirement to ensure that he is not engaged in a ruse to further undermine the constitutional system of checks and balances.

Might I suggest his "alert status" for traveling in the United States be increased from the current "waive him through" to that of "we need to watch this guy". Hay, if you decide his comments are such a threat to the constitution, why not save us all the heartache, put him on the no fly list, and let him ride a horse.

Then he'll really wish he was in the jolly old land of England where tyrants in the 1700s never got off their high horse, and threw people in jail just because they looked at you funny.