"No one owes obedience to a usurper government or to anyone who assumes public office in violation of the Constitution and the law. The civil population has the right to rise up in defense of the constitutional order. The acts of those who usurp public office are null and void." - Constitution of Peru, Article 46.
I do believe we have the same rising-up privileges here too, no? Props, though, to the Peruvian founding fathers for such succinctness. Straight to the point, and well said indeed.
Rights are of no consequence, however, if unexercised. Don't know how it plays out in Peru, but despite our country's similarly documented rights for "the civil population to rise up in defense of the constitutional order," we as a people sure do have a history of resting on our collective laurels allowing the omnipotent powers that be to run amok.
Why, I wonder, given the abomination that is BushCo, has there not been more outrage? More rising up? A calling out for the heads of these empirical war criminals? Time to dust off the Nuremberg Files!
As much as I'd like to imagine, given enough wound-healing time, that this current regime's eight-year reign might be recorded for posterity's sake as an administrative aberration, duly dealt with and brought to justice by the constitutionally-endowed power of the people ... well, that hope is probably a bit farfetched. Nothing so new, really, under these most beautiful and spacious of skies.
Bush, after all, is not the first American chief to flick a middle finger toward the Constitution and its inherent civil rights. He may have flipped the bird a bit higher than his predecessors, but hey, why the hell not? It's been proven simple enough to do.
Indubitable rights to various and sundry freedoms, protections and due processes under governance of, by and for the people, as a core national value certainly has a nice ring to it.
Really, though, just tall talk. After all, as American history has proved, such credo is readily rendered null and void if apt to interfere with the government's wartime agenda.
Quashing good-time freedoms is easy when deemed most appropriate by TPTB. Little wonder, I suppose, that so few are inclined to "rise up" after all, knowing that they could so handily be cut down.
Early on, 1798, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed and signed into law by John Adams, while waging an undeclared war (history really does repeat), reckoning fine and imprisonment-worthy anyone who might "write, print, utter or publish false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress, or the President, with intent to defame or to bring them into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them the hatred of the good people of the United States."
Proponents claimed the acts were designed to protect the United States from alien citizens and to nip in the bud seditious attacks that might weaken the government.
Opponents (and later 20/20 hindsighted historians) deemed the Acts as being both unconstitutional and designed to stifle criticism of the administration.
(Most of the Acts had either expired or were kiboshed by 1802. Thomas Jefferson held them all to be unconstitutional and lamebrained, then pardoned and released all convicted violators.)
One of them, however - the Alien Enemies Act - is still in force today, and has frequently been exercised in wartime, including our current and also-undeclared War on Terror, whatever the hell that might be.
Moving on. 1861. Habeas corpus was suspended by Abraham Lincoln (ironically, one of our most constitutionally precise presidents) in Maryland and parts of midwestern states during the Civil War in response to opposition, lest the border slave state of Maryland, in particular, might secede from the Union leaving the nation's capital surrounded by hostile Confederates.
Lincoln also, at the behest of his army generals, set up military courts to rein in those pesky peacenik Copperheads and other motley Confederate sympathizers.
His action was challenged in court and overturned by the Circuit Court in Maryland. Lincoln ignored the court ruling. Executive privilege, I suppose.
In 1864, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for the President to try to convict citizens before military tribunals when civil courts were open for business, that the trial of civilians by military tribunals is allowed only if regular civilian courts were closed. Whatever.
Welcome the twentieth century and World War I. Woodrow Wilson, carrying on the presidential dissension prevention tradition, administered his own double-whammy: the Espionage Act and Sedition Act (1917 and 1918 respectively) to stifle the dissidents, imposing “a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both” upon anyone so inclined as to “utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States.”
Of course, further examples of governmental wartime Constitutional flip-offs continued par for the course throughout the 20th century. The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, Cold War McCarthyism, old-school Vietnam War-era wiretapping ... same shit, different day.
A history of presidential acting up, we have, Act after Act after Act. So George Bush's latest and greatest Patriotic sequel really ought not have come as much of a surprise. And unless more of "we the people" (how quaint a phrase!) decide to act up too, consequences be damned, one can only surmise a perpetual trend of Constitutional ass-wiping.
We may not be able to undo the past, but we sure as hell should learn from it and step up to perhaps change the course of future human events. Insult after insult ... time to get pissed off, people. Enough already.
I do believe we have the same rising-up privileges here too, no? Props, though, to the Peruvian founding fathers for such succinctness. Straight to the point, and well said indeed.
Rights are of no consequence, however, if unexercised. Don't know how it plays out in Peru, but despite our country's similarly documented rights for "the civil population to rise up in defense of the constitutional order," we as a people sure do have a history of resting on our collective laurels allowing the omnipotent powers that be to run amok.
Why, I wonder, given the abomination that is BushCo, has there not been more outrage? More rising up? A calling out for the heads of these empirical war criminals? Time to dust off the Nuremberg Files!
As much as I'd like to imagine, given enough wound-healing time, that this current regime's eight-year reign might be recorded for posterity's sake as an administrative aberration, duly dealt with and brought to justice by the constitutionally-endowed power of the people ... well, that hope is probably a bit farfetched. Nothing so new, really, under these most beautiful and spacious of skies.
Bush, after all, is not the first American chief to flick a middle finger toward the Constitution and its inherent civil rights. He may have flipped the bird a bit higher than his predecessors, but hey, why the hell not? It's been proven simple enough to do.
Indubitable rights to various and sundry freedoms, protections and due processes under governance of, by and for the people, as a core national value certainly has a nice ring to it.
Really, though, just tall talk. After all, as American history has proved, such credo is readily rendered null and void if apt to interfere with the government's wartime agenda.
Quashing good-time freedoms is easy when deemed most appropriate by TPTB. Little wonder, I suppose, that so few are inclined to "rise up" after all, knowing that they could so handily be cut down.
Early on, 1798, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed and signed into law by John Adams, while waging an undeclared war (history really does repeat), reckoning fine and imprisonment-worthy anyone who might "write, print, utter or publish false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress, or the President, with intent to defame or to bring them into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them the hatred of the good people of the United States."
Proponents claimed the acts were designed to protect the United States from alien citizens and to nip in the bud seditious attacks that might weaken the government.
Opponents (and later 20/20 hindsighted historians) deemed the Acts as being both unconstitutional and designed to stifle criticism of the administration.
(Most of the Acts had either expired or were kiboshed by 1802. Thomas Jefferson held them all to be unconstitutional and lamebrained, then pardoned and released all convicted violators.)
One of them, however - the Alien Enemies Act - is still in force today, and has frequently been exercised in wartime, including our current and also-undeclared War on Terror, whatever the hell that might be.
Moving on. 1861. Habeas corpus was suspended by Abraham Lincoln (ironically, one of our most constitutionally precise presidents) in Maryland and parts of midwestern states during the Civil War in response to opposition, lest the border slave state of Maryland, in particular, might secede from the Union leaving the nation's capital surrounded by hostile Confederates.
Lincoln also, at the behest of his army generals, set up military courts to rein in those pesky peacenik Copperheads and other motley Confederate sympathizers.
His action was challenged in court and overturned by the Circuit Court in Maryland. Lincoln ignored the court ruling. Executive privilege, I suppose.
In 1864, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for the President to try to convict citizens before military tribunals when civil courts were open for business, that the trial of civilians by military tribunals is allowed only if regular civilian courts were closed. Whatever.
Welcome the twentieth century and World War I. Woodrow Wilson, carrying on the presidential dissension prevention tradition, administered his own double-whammy: the Espionage Act and Sedition Act (1917 and 1918 respectively) to stifle the dissidents, imposing “a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both” upon anyone so inclined as to “utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States.”
Of course, further examples of governmental wartime Constitutional flip-offs continued par for the course throughout the 20th century. The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, Cold War McCarthyism, old-school Vietnam War-era wiretapping ... same shit, different day.
A history of presidential acting up, we have, Act after Act after Act. So George Bush's latest and greatest Patriotic sequel really ought not have come as much of a surprise. And unless more of "we the people" (how quaint a phrase!) decide to act up too, consequences be damned, one can only surmise a perpetual trend of Constitutional ass-wiping.
We may not be able to undo the past, but we sure as hell should learn from it and step up to perhaps change the course of future human events. Insult after insult ... time to get pissed off, people. Enough already.
I love the way your mind works. Funny, you should post this. I had a conversation with my husband last night about the lack of outrage about torture and other crimes committed by Bush. I have enough fingers to point at all those who have been complacent. Like the Democrats , the true conservatives and the American people. The more I think about it the more pissed off I get. Thanks Doug, for making me mad...LOL! Great post!
ReplyDeleteAwesome post, Doug! Have we Americans not taken our freedom for granted and become apathetic? Have we not allowed ourselves to be lulled to the point that we have locked away our pitchforks in the tool shed and decided to just go with the flow? How could we ever have lowered the bar so much that a George W. Bush or Dick Cheney is acceptable in the White House?
ReplyDelete"Thanks Doug, for making me mad...LOL!"
ReplyDeleteYou're most welcome, Rain! Outrageous when you think about it, ain't it? The beauty of blogging, you get to rant and piss off others at the same time. Cool.
Doug - Apathetic, check. Lulled, check. Pitchforks stowed, check. Bar sufficiently lowered ... mission accomplished.
Well, I guess it good to let it all out every now and then. Listen, I sent you three clues in an e-mail. I think I may have made it too easy for you. I wish I could be mysterious like you.
ReplyDelete