« Profiles In Courage | Main | What's at stake »

March 15, 2006


funny and depressing!

I'm not being especially satirical here. I mean, the link to the graphic depiction of the Bush Constitution is more snark than anything else. But as far as the additions, substitutions, and disclaimers--those are intended to be accurate (corrections are welcome, naturally).

Seriously, try it out on this White House press conference from last month and see how the accuracy improves.

definitely need three more step to make it a 12 step program.

Re the Bush Constitution, I think the words "the Army and Navy of" should also be in small print.

here, i made a handy automated way to do this. (but not pt #9 - that's a tough one)

Alternately deny and admit that the nine steps are policy or practice. Do so in a random and unpredictable manner. Sometimes proclaim in an imperious and arrogant manner, and when confronted, deny you said any such thing. Always claim you are being misinterpreted with malicious intent. Forget a lot. Change the subject, misdirect.

Wait, aren't these the posting rules?

Suggested revision:
from point 4, explicative footnote, delete the phrase "commander-in-chief". Revise to:

*It is legal for the President to secretly violate any treaty, statute, or regulation that limits his [] power in any way

Even to say that the president's unlimited power is restricted to his commander-in-chief power is to restrict his commander-in-chief power. And that is unconstitutional. After all, as Sen. Frist has told us, the president is the commander-in-chief of all of us, all the time, in every exercise of his power.

I'd make this revision soon, if I were you. Restricting the President's unlimited powers only to unlimited commander-in-chief powers means that you are helping the terrorists.


10. The word "accountability" does not mean what you think it does.

11. Replace the words "Not only did the President break the law, he also actively misled Congress" to "Congress saw the same intelligence as the President".

12. Replace the words "You do need a warrant to wiretap Americans on American soil and Congress passed FISA specifically to lay out the rules for these types of domestic wiretaps" to "Fightin' 'em over there, so we don't have to fight 'em here".

(BTW, even tho' it's Lent, I hafta say, "Hallelujah".)

Whenever a reference to "strict construction" or "legislating from the bench" appears, add five asterisks. At the bottom insert the footnote: "Strict construction and legislating from the bench applies only to the unenumerated rights of the people protected by the ninth amendment of the old constitution (see point 8), and not the inviolable rights of the unitary executive protected by the new constitution (see point 8)."

Whenever the president tells the American public: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way," add "except for the whole warrantless wiretapping of American citizens thing"

Whenever the attorney general says that the government does not wiretap entirely domestic conversations between American citizens, add "as part of the programme under which the government wiretaps conversations between American citizens and foreign based terrorism suspects".

I'd amend Ginger Yellow's suggestion to read as follows: "Strict Construction should be understood in accordance with the standard spelled out in US v. Smith:

"In light of this criticism, the Court today announces a new clear standard to guide lower courts in their application of the commerce clause. This new standard will govern when a law exceeds Congress’s power under the commerce clause and when it does not. The new standard is this – a law passed pursuant to the commerce clause is constitutional if Justice Scalia likes the law and unconstitutional if he does not. Similarly, if the law is regulating things that Justice Scalia wants regulated, it is constitutional. If it does not, it is not."

(And if you haven't read this wonderful post from Legal Fiction, you should. Consider the justification for this new standard:

"In justifying any new constitutional doctrine, we must first of course look to the original understanding of the Holy Framers who ascended Mount Sinai and brought back down the Constitution on stone tablets in 1787. A close look at the ratification debates reveals that the scope of the commerce clause was intended to be equal to, and co-extensive with, Justice Scalia’s political preferences. Here is James Madison in Federalist No. 10:

"AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it."

While at first glance this appears to have nothing to do with the commerce clause, if you switch around some of the letters, it spells: Do What Scalia Wants. See, e.g., Hamburgler v. Burger King, 521 U.S. 321, 341-42 (2003) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“As Harry Potter has taught us, mixing around letters can reveal important insights into the Framers’ original understanding and Lord Voldemort’s evil plans.”)."

Tee hee.

The comments to this entry are closed.