By Owen Paine on Wednesday May 10, 2006 01:21 PM
A ways back,
I preemptively
scoffed at the might-be if
there really were an impeach-Bush congressional donkey stampede.
Well, here's the bright side of that paper moon --
a demand to restore our constitution to its proper set of orbits.
I.e.
blast this unitary prez shit back to the 17th century where it belongs.
Congress needs to restore the balance
by asserting its powers under the Constitution.
Our little would-be Louis XIV here
needs his sun eclipsed -- and if Hillary makes it back to the
White House in '08, she should be impeached as soon as she's
taken the oath of office. In fact every President should be impeached
immediately, until we've cut that overinflated, Neronian office
back to size.
Comments (6)
JSP, I completely agree. There are few people less necessary to the function, proper or improper, of the government than the preznit. Graft and services would still be delivered, even as the talking heads and op ed pundits wailed about a crisis of confidence.
Posted by J. Alva Scruggs | May 10, 2006 3:00 PM
Posted on May 10, 2006 15:00
i have a tendency to see the us as a second rome
i suspect most of us do
but hey that story really turned out bad
so i'm into the absolutists now
louis le grande and his ilk
cause as ever
its a hollywood ending for me
recall for the millionth time
my fellow citizens
those suckers ended
diff
charles 1 of gb
and
louis 16 of frogland
alex the what ever of rus
etc etc
ended the absolutist story on a high note
with their heads
in a basket
Posted by js paine | May 10, 2006 4:13 PM
Posted on May 10, 2006 16:13
I've lost track of how many people have complemented me on my "Impeach Bush" button, which I purchased from the Socialists when N*d*r came to speak in Seattle early last year. I always tell people that I only bought it because there were no "Impeach Everybody" buttons available.
Posted by alsis39.9 | May 10, 2006 5:57 PM
Posted on May 10, 2006 17:57
The real question we need to ask ourselves is why, 32 years after Nixon was forced to resign and a wave of resistance to "the imperial presidency" seemed to have put the brakes on presidential power, we are now right back where we were before Watergate. The War Powers Act, which was designed to prevent Presidents from dragging us to war unilaterally, has been ignored by every President. We now have a President every bit as imperial as Nixon was. What happened? Why was nothing really gained from the experience of Watergate?
I would argue that we need serious, structual, revolutionary changes in our system of government, not to mention our system of electing our governments. The current system just isn't working. Presidential abuses aren't being stopped. The Democrats aren't going to press for serious electoral or constitutional reform, so the pressure for this isn't going to come from them.
Posted by Haikuist | May 10, 2006 7:23 PM
Posted on May 10, 2006 19:23
If you have a president of an empire, you'll have an Imperial Presidency. If Nixon was Sulla - who did step down - then 30 years later, what do we get? The triumvirate of Bush, Clinton and...?
Posted by Rowan | May 10, 2006 11:05 PM
Posted on May 10, 2006 23:05
Haikuist:
Why was nothing really gained from the experience of Watergate?
Because neither team really wants to abolish imperial power. They just want their own guy at the top. Each thinks that his own despot would bring benevolence to the role that the other side lacks.
Witness how Dean got cast as "anti-war," when all he was was "pro-protocol." His schtick was that he wouldn't have gone to Iraq without charming the UN into approving the trip first. Democrats want to be the charming invaders, so they worship a guy like Dean, who'll say all the "right" things, while he pulls the same old imperial shit that Bush does-- but Bush doesn't trouble himself to be "nice" about it.
Posted by alsis39.9 | May 11, 2006 8:49 AM
Posted on May 11, 2006 08:49