Wholesome Reading » Blog Archive » You Can’t Put an Egg Back In Its Shell

You Can’t Put an Egg Back In Its Shell

I have as much respect for President Obama as I do for most other pols, meaning not much, but in his case I very much hope to be proven wrong, very wrong. Still, when Glenn Greenwald complains that the new administration is not only keeping up the Bush-level obsession with secrecy but in some cases going even further, just makes it clear that when we let the Bush administration happen, when a majority of us (or some percentage) voted him in the first time, and then brought him back for an encore in 2004, and sat by while so many of our Constitutional protections were discarded, we showed something to every politician in the country, and that is that the system could be bent, it could be broken, it could be trampled on, be it the Fourth Amendment or torture or a war with a clearly fictional casus bellli, and though a few voices would speak very loudly, the citizenry would not be aroused, would not rally, and there would also be no punishment, as the pols would close ranks around their own. Once the system has been so thoroughly debauched, there is no going back again. As Gore Vidal once said, no thief ever gets to the third floor window and then kicks the ladder away.

In short, I’ll have optimism, I’ll believe the Obama administration cares about the Constitution, when they show they care about the Constitution.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009 at 4:18 am and is filed under The Political Mindscape. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

7 Responses to “You Can’t Put an Egg Back In Its Shell”

Shaun P. Says:
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:40 am
Everyone know who Bruce Fein is? Former Reagan-appointed deputy attorney general, former member of the AEI and the Heritage Foundation, conservative through and through.

He appeared (with another gentleman whose name I’ve forgotten) on Bill Moyers’ Journal back in July of 2007, making very impassioned (and to this lawyer at least) incredibly sophisticated - and correct - arguments in favor of impeaching both Cheney and Dubya, because of the way they had shredded the Constitution. I’m paraphrasing here, but his rational was “Look, once we let these guys get away with this, the cat’s out of the bag. It doesn’t matter who comes next - Democrat, Republican, whoever - once the power is out of the box, its incredibly hard for any future President to put it back in, no matter how noble their intentions.”

Clearly, sadly, he was right. 15 years ago, if someone told me that one day Bruce Fein and I would be in absolute, total agreement on the biggest Constitutional crisis of our time, I would not have been able to stop laughing at the absurdity of it. I wish I could laugh now.
andrew Says:
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Or maybe nobody was outraged (apart from the fringe) because the Constitution wasn’t shredded.

I also love the double think of the Left. When a Republican is President you look at somebody cross eyed and it’s a violation of the Constitution. Leftists are the strictest of constructionists when the President has an R next to his name. But now that a Democrat is President and appointing a Supreme Court judge suddenly the Constitution is a 200 year old piece of literature, and who’s to say how many ways it can be interpreted.
Jeff Berardi Says:
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Andrew…

Steve doesn’t like how Bush treated the constitution, he doesn’t like the continuation of that treatment under Obama… and that’s hypocrisy? Sounds like that other thing… consistency.
Shaun P. Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Andrew, I’m sorry, but your post above just makes no sense to me. What does Obama’s nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court have to do with the Bush administration’s abuse of power?
andrew Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
“Andrew, I’m sorry, but your post above just makes no sense to me. What does Obama’s nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court have to do with the Bush administration’s abuse of power?”

I wasn’t talking about the Sotomayor nomination itself I was referring to Steve’s contention a few posts below here that the Constitution is just a piece of literature where there is no right interpretation just what you can convince people what you believe. On the other hand when it comes to the imaginary Bush “abuses” of power suddenly Steve (and yes I am using him to generically represent the Left) turns into Ron Paul. You can’t logically have it both ways.
John Foley Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Andrew-
You must be extremely proud of President Obama for carrying on Bush’s good work, yes? Let’s hear some love!
Mike K Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Andrew, unlike others I don’t necessarily think your last point is a terrible one. As you state it, that argument has merit. I don’t accept your premise though. I believe it’s perfectly legitimate to think that the Judicial Branch should interpret the Constitution while the Executive Branch should be bound by the document. Some relevant passages:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”
I’d have thought that’s one part of the constitution that’s not open to interpretation, but apparently not.

On a side note, Andrew: why do you post here? I mean this as an honest question. I understand the wisdom of reading those you disagree with, though personally I don’t have the stomach to do it as often as I should. But why follow that up with comments? Is your intent to sway, to debate, or just to insult?

You Can’t Put an Egg Back In Its Shell

7 Responses to “You Can’t Put an Egg Back In Its Shell”

Leave a Reply