Who is an American?

"What constitutes an American?

Not color nor race nor religion.
Not the pedigree of his family nor the place of his birth.
Not the coincidence of his citizenship.
Not his social status nor his bank account.
Not his trade nor his profession.

An American is one who loves justice and believes in the dignity of man.
An American is one who will fight for his freedom and that of his neighbor.
An American is one who will sacrifice property, ease and security in order that he and his children may retain the rights of free men."

- Harold Ickes

QuestionItNow Blogs

Read My Lips - Its the Oil Stupid!

The following is not something Americans will find on the TV news. Dusty culled this insightful report from a French news sources, via Common Dreams:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 17, 2007
9:01 AM

CONTACT: Democrats.com
Antonia Juhasz, Oil Change International (415) 846-5447 For information on the Oil Workers Union and Protest in Basra: Denice Lombard, U.S. Labor Against the War (202) 320-5588

Iraqis Protest Oil Law
Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions Draws Line in the Sand
Opposition to Law Garners Growing International Support

BASRA, IRAQ - JULY 17 - Today hundreds of Iraqis, led by the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU), took to the streets of Basra to demand that the Iraqi Parliament reject the proposed Oil Law. [1] Simultaneous demonstrations took place in Amara and Nassiryya. Local governate officials made statements in support of the demonstration and, along with the governor of Basra, have committed to sending letters to the Minister of Oil supporting the Union’s demands.

Hassan Juma’a Awad al Assadi, President of the IFOU, charges that the proposed Oil Law surrenders Iraq’s economic sovereignty to multinational oil companies: "'We will lose control over Iraqi oil. Therefore, the social progress in Iraq will be curtailed substantially, because the oil companies want huge profits; they are not concerned about the environment, wages, or living conditions..." The IFOU calls for immediate and complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq. The union represents 26,000 members in 10 state oil and gas companies across four governorates in the south of Iraq.

The Union was moved to public protest after initiating a strike on June 4, 2007 over a range of workplace issues and in opposition to the proposed Oil Law. IFOU leaders have said their members are prepared to strike again in defense of their nationalized oil industry. Iraq’s oil has been in the public sector since the 1970s.

The call to demonstrate was also sparked by increased pressure by the Bush Administration on the Iraqi Parliament to pass the Oil Law which would open two thirds of Iraq’s oil to foreign control through contracts that could last as long as 30 years. Adoption of the law is one the benchmarks imposed on Iraq by the U.S. as a condition of continued reconstruction aid and support for the Maliki government.

Unions, other organizations and individuals around the world are calling on their elected representatives to demand that the U.S. government stop pressuring the Iraqis to pass the Oil Law. In the U.S., the labor and anti-war movements are calling on members of Congress who say they’re against the war to drop the Oil Law benchmark and cease all U.S. pressure on the Iraqis to transform their oil industry for the benefit of multinational oil corporations. The activists will also focus on the International Oil Companies who have helped draft that Oil Law, have applied their own pressure on the Iraqis to pass the law, and seek to now profit from the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

For video of the demonstration use this link:

For further information go to: www.priceofoil.org or www.uslaboragainstwar.org.

[1] Demands from the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions to Parliament include to: (1) reject the proposed oil law; (2) expel the current Oil Minister; (3) abolish the recently announced hike in oil and gas prices in Iraq; and (4) pass a law to establish labor rights and legalize trade unions.

I heard a similar assessment of this "Oil revenue sharing agreement" from a caller to the Ed Shultz show who identified himself as an energy analyst. This story clearly articulates the real reason Bush Co. got us into this elective war. It is all about oil and control of a strategic region of the world.

In searching for the image above, I located the following post that provides additional information about the state of the Iraqi oil industry: Hey, Remember When We Secured Iraq's Oil Fields?. This post paints another damning indictment of this war as a war for American security. According to this report insurgent groups are using "liberated" Iraqi oil as a funding source.

Will America Lead?

Are Bush's Signing Statements Unconstitutional?

Senator Specter Fights for Constitution
by: Joel S. Hirschhorn

On the Friday before July 4 Republican Senator Arlen Specter (R – PA) showed his respect for the U.S. Constitution and his anger about President Bush’s repeated pissing on it by introducing the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007. What happens to this crucial bill will test both congressional integrity and courage.

Specter had the honesty to call President Bush's abuse of signing statements an "unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority." "The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can he use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like," said Specter.

"Presidential signing statements can render the legislative process a virtual nullity, making it completely unpredictable how certain laws will be enforced. This legislation reinforces the system of checks and balances and separation of powers set out in our Constitution," said Specter.

Commenting on the legislative process, Specter noted: "This is a finely structured constitutional procedure that goes straight to the heart of our system of check and balances. Any action by the president that circumvents this finely structured procedure is an unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority. If the president is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our framers." Subversion of our Constitution – pissing on it: that’s what Bush has gotten away with. Bush-the-ruler has made a mockery of our sacred rule of law.

This bill would prevent the president from issuing a signing statement that alters a statute's meaning by "instructing federal and state courts not to rely on presidential signing statements in interpreting a statute."

This is Specter’s second attempt at preventing Bush and any future president from disrespecting the Constitution. His similar bill in 2006 went nowhere. But he had some support. Senator Patrick Leahy said: "I have long objected to this President’s broad use of signing statements to try to rewrite the laws crafted and passed by the Congress, because I firmly believe that this practice poses a grave threat to our constitutional system of checks and balances. … These signing statements are a diabolical device and the President will continue to use and abuse them, if Congress lets him."

From a historical perspective, Specter noted that "while signing statements have been commonplace since our country's founding, we must make sure that they are not being used in an unconstitutional manner; a manner that seeks to rewrite legislation, and exercise line item vetoes." An unconstitutional manner is exactly what Bush is guilty of.

In 2006 the Congressional Research Service came up with these summary statistics on constitutional objections in signing statements: Reagan 26 percent, Bush I 68 percent, Clinton 27 percent, and George W. Bush the winner at 86 percent. But the way the current president has used signing statements to nullify laws is unique.

Many people have said that Bush's use of signing statements allows him and federal agencies to blatantly ignore provisions of laws and congressional intent. The Government Accountability Office found in mid-June that in several cases the administration did not execute laws as Congress intended when Bush attached a signing statement to them. GAO found that the statements have the effect of nullifying the law in question in about 30 percent of cases. In July 2006, a bipartisan task force of the American Bar Association described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers." And still Congress has not acted to stop this behavior!

The New York Times in 2006 editorialized about Bush’s use of signing statements: And none have used it so clearly to make the president the interpreter of a law's intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts. Indeed, what Bush has done (and gotten away with) is unprecedented in American history.

Let’s be clear. There is no constitutional provision, federal statute, or common-law principle that explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. But two constitutional provisions are pertinent. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it. And many aspects of Bush’s signing statements amount to line item vetoes. The Supreme Court has held that line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the Court said a president must veto an entire law. And Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Thus, the Bush style of signing statement has no constitutional support.

Interestingly, Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, when a staff attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, wrote a 1986 memorandum making the case for "interpretive signing statements" as a tool to "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." Alito warned that "Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."

Here is another dimension to Bush’s scummy behavior: ''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," noted Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio professor who studies executive power. Phillip Cooper, a leading expert on signing statements, has called Bush’s signing statements "excessive, unhelpful, and needlessly confrontational." Legal scholar Lawrence Tribe wrote that what is objectionable is “the president’s failure to face the political music by issuing a veto and subjecting that veto to the possibility of an override in Congress.”

Famed attorney John W. Dean has added yet another reason to question Bush’s behavior: "The frequency and the audacity of Bush's use of signing statements are troubling. Enactments by Congress are presumed to be constitutional - as the Justice Department has often reiterated. For example, take what is close to boilerplate language from a government brief (selected at random): ‘It is well-established that Congressional legislation is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality. See United States v. Morrison ('Every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of a statute, and this continues until the contrary is shown beyond a rational doubt.').’" But Bush puts himself above the Constitution, Supreme Court and the law.

Will Specter’s second attempt succeed in a Democratic controlled Congress? And if so, will Bush sign it into law – without using a signing statement to refute its meaning and intent? Though it should be a no-brainer for every American that respects our Constitution, I bet that neither Congress nor Bush will come through and quickly make Specter’s bill law of the land.

If it does not become law, common sense says it should be considered as a possible constitutional amendment. In fact, it is a perfect illustration of why more politically engaged Americans should support the national campaign to obtain the nation’s first Article V convention for proposing amendments. When good and necessary laws cannot be obtained through the normal but untrustworthy legislative process, then lawmaking through constitutional amendments is absolutely necessary and appropriate. Our Framers knew what they were doing when they created the Article V convention option. Learn more about it at www.foavc.org.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn is a founder of Friends of the Article V Convention and the author of Delusional Democracy.]

QuestionItNow Blogs

A Progressive Gives Thanks for Dick Cheney

Thanks for Dick Cheney

Joel S. Hirschhorn

When someone in high elected office shows the nation how vulnerable our Constitution is, we should be thankful for the wakeup call. Like many ruthless dictators, evil kings, and monster generals, Dick Cheney is the leading practitioner of the ends-justify-the-means mentality, where only his vision of the desired ends counts. And if this means disregarding and disobeying the Constitution, torturing prisoners, killing thousands of American soldiers, disrespecting Congress, destroying our environment, embracing the invasion of illegal immigrants, increasing out national debt, and disregarding the will of the vast majority of Americans, so be it. Serving corporate interests rather than serving the people is Cheney’s brand of patriotism.

Cheney’s self-righteous ego is bigger than George W. Bush’s, and what makes Cheney more striking is that he is enormously smarter and more competent than Bush, his token boss. He is so dangerous and frightening that no impeachment of Bush effort ever stood a chance. Not as long as "President Cheney" enters your consciousness. Cheney became Bush’s shield.

When reality hits the fan we use the-lessons-learned approach to stay sane. With his finger-in-the-eye disdain for what anybody else (or history) thinks of him, Cheney offers a far better lesson learned benefit than the stumbles and fumbles of Bush-the-smirker. Bush is a joke. Cheney is a monster.

Take Cheney’s current view that he is a part of the legislative branch, not the executive, so he does not have to comply with an Executive Order on reporting use of secret materials. It is wildly inconsistent with his prior claims of executive privilege. But Cheney has no use for logical consistency. Only what Cheney wants matters. (The only law that Cheney regularly obeys is gravity.)

When we witness the brazen acts of Cheney and Bush we should envision these types of constitutional amendments.

An amendment could explicitly state that the Vice President is a member of the Executive Branch, and the Office of the Vice President must comply with Executive Orders. And perhaps we should consider a statement of the criteria that the President can invoke for firing the Vice President with the consent of Congress.

And why not consider a different method of breaking ties in the Senate. If someone from the Executive Branch can do it, then why not someone from the Judicial Branch? Why not the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Or, better yet, why not make the constitutional solution what is the House uses. A tie vote means that the question fails. We could eliminate the position of President of the Senate.

As another example, consider the frequent assertion of executive privilege by Cheney and Bush to withhold information that Congress believes it needs. The Constitution does not provide for executive privilege. Considering how strong the presidency has become and the predilection to invoke executive privilege, we need an amendment that explicitly says there is no such thing as automatic executive privilege. Any assertion of it should be presented to the Supreme Court and only it should rule that it is appropriate in a particular case to protect the national interest.

As the final example, consider the clear need for an amendment that prohibits the President from using any kind of signing statement to announce and justify not obeying part of a newly signed law.

We can give thanks for Dick Cheney just like we give thanks eventually that a catastrophe or disaster makes us stronger in the future. He has exposed constitutional weaknesses. The principles that define the best of our nation must be protected through amendments that learn from history. In particular, how the ingenuity and boldness of people has allowed them to disobey and dishonor those principles. Dick Cheney sought and achieved power sufficient to make a mockery of our nation’s finest principles and he was enabled by George W. Bush who apparently sought more guidance from his God than from our Constitution.

One thing is clear. History provides little confidence that Congress will propose constitutional amendments that deserve full public discussion. Now is the time to use what our Constitution offers us: an Article V convention for proposing amendments. If we are to make our federal government work for the good of we the people, then we require the nation’s first Article V convention – the goal of Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org. Why is it now so appropriate? Because Americans now have so little confidence in Congress, the President, and the Vice President, and because the corruption of politicians by money has reached unprecedented heights.

As much as politicians deserve our mistrust, we the people deserve to have an Article V convention. Politicians fear it because they know the public will support amendments that make the government subservient to us – the sovereign American citizens. Politicians are not supposed to rule us. They are so supposed to justly represent us. But they do not. They represent the moneyed interests that control them. As Thomas Jefferson said, "An elected tyranny is not what we fought for."

Our Constitution should not allow the government to make us victims and our nation hated by so much of the world. That’s what Cheney should teach us. Now, it’s up to us.

Pray that a petulant Bush does not learn from Cheney, exploit the Constitution by resigning, and create President Cheney.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy and a founder of Friends of the Article V Convention.]

Will America Lead?