----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:21 AM Subject: Re: Technique
> > Is there any evidence that politicos sub-universally have the kind of > respect for the Constitution that you are implying? > For all we know they all wipe their asses with it, step on it, and > flush it down the toilet while laughing maniacally. (Re: Abuses of the > Koran at Gitmo) > > I expect that everyone reading this (sans the Echelon/Predator > monitors) actually does have *that* kind of respect to one degree or > another. But to expect such of career polititions is a decided leap of > faith. I think there are a number of arguments that could be raised to support the contention that politicians do not consider the Constitution just a piece of paper. First, we have very extensive recordings of one of the most cynical politicians I can recall: Richard M. Nixon. I remember him saying many outrageous things, but I don't recall that. Second, the Constitution is a phenomenal piece of work. It is the foundation of the first republic to last...and has served us for 200+ years. At the very least, politicians should recognize quality work in their own field. Third, in no sense is it "just a piece of paper" in the United States. In Zambia, for example, it is. The president and the president's family are totally above the law. The president's son, according to Neli, is known to have raped and killed a young woman...and nothing was done about it. In Zambia, the Constitution is, indeed, just a piece of paper. In the US it is the basis for the game of politics. It is assumed, not neglected. For example, after the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Nixon must turn over his tapes, most of us expected him to do so. If he still refused, that would certainly have resulted in his impeachment being sustained by the Senate. Bush is arguing for a strong executive interpretation of the Constitution. But, when the Supreme Court rules against him, as it did today, he accepts their conclusion because he has no choice. If he declared that the President's interpretation of the Constitution overruled the Supreme Court, he would be forced to back down one way or another...including impeachment. I recall that Alexander Haig, in the last days of Nixon, took steps to ensure an orderly transition, no matter what Nixon ordered. Even staff members as loyal as he was are loyal to the system first. Given that, it's unlikely for a politician to say "the Constitution is just a piece of paper." It's much more likely that they would say "that's not what it means" even if it is clear to everyone else that's what it means. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
