I Want Fireworks – Moon of Alabama

January 4, 2006

I Want Fireworks

King George III declares laws written and adopted by the elected Parliament are only exercisable in accordance to His interpretation.

Recently the parliament saw a need to spend additional tax money on firefighters and decreeded a law to instruct the executive to act accordingly, i.e. to hire more firefighters.

The King, as head of the executive branch, did not mind firefighters, but he preferred to watch fireworks over any firefighters he had ever seen.

He signed the law the Parliament had adopted, as he has technical had to, but in doing so he also advised the executive he presided to interpret the law to his desire.

He ordered his subordinate to spend the additional money on fireworks to be launched at a time and location of his pleasure.

The executive branch shall construe these provisions relating to planning and making of budget recommendations in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to require the opinions of the heads of departments, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient.

Legal details are here and here.

But where is the outrage?

Posted by b on January 4, 2006 at 22:37 UTC | Permalink

Comments

“…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. … The history of the present King…is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

Posted by: b real | Jan 4 2006 22:49 utc | 1

On the Divine Right of King George, by His Holiness, the Honourable Justice Antonin Scalia
(A Florida recount of votes in the 2000 election would cause)“…irreparable harm to petitioner [Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election.” ~His Holiness, the Honorouble Justice Antonin Scalia, December 8, 2002.
(found inserted into the margin, in the hand of the humble scribe Monolycus: “read: Having been granted the throne of the United States, and recognising that that office is bestowed only by Almighty Providence Himself, the suggestion that the holder of that Noble Office is a pretender and a usurper is a blasphemy against the Divine Will whose goodness and mercy guides the Holy American Empire.”)
“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States, unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.” ~The Holy Supreme Court, December 11th, 2000.
(Found inserted into the margin, in the hand of the humble scribe Monolycus: “read: We shall let them have the semblance of a voice, but not a real voice, for only in this way can we keep the unholy and unwashed masses from thwarting the will of Our Lord.” )
“The core of his message is that government — however you want to limit that concept — derives its moral authority from God. . . . And in this world the Lord repaid — did justice — through His minister, the state… That consensus has been upset, I think, by the emergence of democracy . . . The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible.” ~His Holiness, the Justice Antonin Scalia, January, 2002 .
(Found inserted into the margin, in the hand of the humble scribe Monolycus: “read: Their petty democratic ideals are a heresy and an abomination unto the Lord and must be stopped before it poisons our Divine Purpose.”)
(Found scrawled at the back of the book, in the hand of the humble scribe Monolycus: “Good Lord… didn’t we have a Revolution in the 18th century to GET AWAY FROM THIS KIND OF CRAP IN OUR SOCIETY???”)

Posted by: Monolycus | Jan 4 2006 23:46 utc | 2

(errata: The first date should be December 8th, 2000 and not December 8th, 2002. We regret any harm this error might have caused.)

Posted by: Monolycus | Jan 4 2006 23:52 utc | 3

Well b real’s excerpt from the constitution combined with Monolycus’s relevant selections of recent supine court opinions on the nature of democracy must inexorably lead any citizen of the USA to the conclusion that it is their moral and legal duty to throw these bastards out back with the shithole, where they all belong.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 5 2006 1:11 utc | 4

Digby punches holes in the so-called conservative legal arguments:

Because there is no plausible argument to make that Bush’s eavesdropping complied with the requirements of FISA, Alberto Gonzalez’s Justice Department is insisting that Bush had the legal right to eavesdrop on Americans in violation of that law. The DoJ issued a detailed Memorandum (.pdf) advocating its two principal legal theories as to why George Bush was permitted to engage in conduct which FISA makes it a crime to engage in. Both theories are about as far away as possible from the conservative legal principles which Bush has always claimed to believe in and which he says he wants his judicial appointees to apply.
Thus, we have one argument which claims that the 2001 Congressional Resolution authorizing military force in Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda (the “AUMF”) — a resolution which obviously never mentioned FISA, eavesdropping or surveillance, because it had nothing to do with any of those things — should nonetheless be “construed” and “interpreted” to have “impliedly” amended FISA by giving Bush an “exemption” entitling him to eavesdrop in violation of that law. And this argument is made even though the Congress which supposedly gave Bush that exemption says that it did no such thing, but to the contrary, expressly refused to provide that very authority.
And then we have the second Bush-defending argument: a dressed-up Constitutional theory which claims that George Bush has the “inherent” authority under Article II of the Constitution to violate Congressional law and eavesdrop on American citizens without the judicial oversight required by FISA – even though nothing in Article II mentions or even references the power to eavesdrop, the power to engage in surveillance, or the right to violate Congressional statutes. Indeed, the only express clause in Article II which seems to relate to this controversy is one that would rather strongly undercut the claim that the President has the right to violate Congressional law. That’s the part mandating that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . ”
So much for plain language and original intent. Who has time for those fancy constructs when George Bush needs defending? What we have in their place are implied, hidden amendments to laws which are silently buried in other laws which don’t even reference the law which it supposedly amended. And that’s backed up by a claim that George Bush has certain Executive powers which the Constitution doesn’t mention, but which instead, one presumes, are lurking quietly somewhere in Article II of the Constitution, maybe hiding behind some penumbras or sprouting from the evolving, breathing document.
….
The clarity of this law is why the Administration is reduced to peddling legal theories which, no matter how they are sliced, amount to a claim that George Bush has the right to break the law. And to argue that he has that right, they are employing on George Bush’s behalf the very legal theories which advocates of “judicial restraint” have spent the last two decades ridiculing and attacking.

Posted by: lonesomeG | Jan 5 2006 2:29 utc | 5

Is George Bush the Fat Lady?
This was very enjoyable read, thought others might enjoy it too as it certainly enhances this (b’s) post.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 5 2006 2:51 utc | 6

@Debs
b real was not excerpting from the US Constitution, but rather the United States’ Declaration of Independence from England. But yes, any re-reading of that document in conjunction with the recent opinions of the US Supreme Court (such as the ones I provided… I could have gone on in that fashion for awhile and decided to limit myself to only three selections) must lead anyone steeped in a tradition of individual liberty and justice (no matter how historically hypocritical or self-serving that tradition might have been) to the inescapable conclusion that US citizens, if they have any worth at all, are bound as a matter of ethos to throw off the yoke of tyrants on our own shores.
Further, we are bound, as a matter of ethos, to disempower and hold accountable those bootlicking courtiers, cronies and favoured relatives who have propped up the atavistic political dynasticism and neo-feudalism that has threatened both the peoples of the United States and the peoples of the world. As Michael Kinsley said, “Even more than money, political inheritance mocks our pretenses to equal opportunity.” Corporate personhood, political favouritism, no-bid sweetheart deals, executive privilege and the neo-feudal suppression of the majority have no place in a modern world… and it is past time that we went 18th century on their asses.

Posted by: Monolycus | Jan 5 2006 3:15 utc | 7

I became a naturalized citizen in college, having grown up in the US. It was the proudest day of my life. To obtain US citizenship, I was asked to swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Every single elected politician and appointed officer swears the same oath. But where are the legal consequences for breaking that oath? None! I see the Constitution spat on and dismissed by the President and his judicial dogs, and the Congress cowers, hesitates, studies, speachifies, but does not protect and defend!!!
God bless Rep John Conyers for starting the impeachment process with a hearings bill [to which all should have, but have not, signed on as cosponsors] but he is not the Speaker of the House. God bless Senator Byrd for pointing out abuses in lofty speaches, but he is not the Senate Majority leader. The Congressional leadership and most of the opposition party leadership continues to shirk its duty to protect and defend the constitution.
I think voters should start an “all incumbents out!” campaign for 2006 midterms and beyond. If you’re in office right now during this constitutional crisis, and you are not a cosigner of the Conyers bill, YOU”RE OUT!!! And if your replacement also cowers to continue the crisis, THEY”RE OUT!!!
DETHRONE KING GEORGE III.
VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT!

Posted by: gylangirl | Jan 5 2006 3:24 utc | 8

thank you humble scribe monolycus
uncle,i hope george bush is not the fat lady. but i do agree think he is going to be making even more serious grave blunders. i fear he will not deviate from the plan, whatever lies he needs to construe re iran and syria.

Posted by: annie | Jan 5 2006 3:53 utc | 9

Since I have been on a Michael Parenti jag, I thought people might find this relevant to this thread:
THE MYTH OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS from TUC Radio
As the United States government claims to spread democracy around the world and is deeply involved in ghost writing constitutions for other countries, the spotlight falls back on this country. Is the current US system a democracy, – has it ever been one? In The Myth of the Founding Fathers Michael Parenti takes us back to the early days of the republic. Who were the founding fathers, what were their goals in writing the US constitution? Who did they exclude and who did they favor? What was their attitude towards slavery? How many of them actually wanted to create a monarchy? And who, in the end, ratified the constitution after it was written?
One of my favorite radio programs. Parenti demonstrates that in the case of Bush, the apple hasn’t fallen as far from the tree as most would surmise.

Posted by: Malooga | Jan 5 2006 5:28 utc | 10

Also this:
The Functions of Fascism

Posted by: Malooga | Jan 5 2006 5:37 utc | 11

Guest blogging on Digby, is Glenn Greenwald his recent post is What happened to conservative legal theories? and he kicks butt!
From his blog :
About Me
Name:Glenn Greenwald
For the past 10 years, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges (including some of the highest-profile free speech cases over the past few years), civil rights cases, and corporate and security fraud matters.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 5 2006 6:23 utc | 12

Back to Main