E-mail this page link

"It is, of course, a different legal matter when one places hand on Bible while taking the oath of office for the presidency...”


M.A.D. Politicians

Posted February 19, 2004 thepeoplesvoice.org

By: Ted Lang

Why was former President Bill Clinton impeached?  Can this now be legally justified?  Was it only the perjury committed while placing hand on Bible and then lying?  Minor lie or not, it brought down the most powerful man on Earth.  But how many died as a result?  Was impeachment merely the orchestrated political harassment of Bill Clinton?

It is, of course, a different legal matter when one places hand on Bible while taking the oath of office for the presidency, or any significant federal position, including that of member of Congress.  And that oath requires that the candidate for office swear to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America.  This is so because we are supposed to be a nation governed by laws, not by men, not by personalities, and not by political parties redolent of partisan posturing.  To ensure that political persuasion, popular emotions and sociological trends never supplant our written guarantee of justice for all, it is imperative that all in America play by the hallowed principles of our nation’s rule of law.

Whenever individuals, groups, or political parties end-run these rules, there are bound to be problems.  Therefore, as a minimum, those that have arranged and maneuvered to avoid the rule of law must be held accountable, no matter their rank or exalted station.  Fail this, our republic and its primary legal objective of sanctifying and protecting individual freedom via justice for all will surely fall.

President George W. Bush aggressively persisted in demanding that the Congress temporarily suspend the rule of law which precludes the president from declaring war on nations of his own choosing.  It is obvious that it was for this reason that the Founders required that only Congress, the elected and once state-appointed senatorial representatives of the people, be allowed to declare war on another sovereign nation.  And this difficult-to-obtain permission is framed also within the context of the self defense of our nation’s borders.

But what has President George W. Bush done?  He used falsified information that fooled the American people and its representatives into a war with a nation that never presented a threat to our borders, and that was never even close to having such military capability.  It is clear that the Founders realized the vulnerability of just one man, and it is for the vital purpose of ensuring that all the people get behind the nation’s Commander-and-Chief of our assembled and combined armed forces during a declared war.  To give one individual this much power is to open the door for initiating war solely on behalf of a rich individual or individuals that can bribe or richly reward the president for doing so.

The only justification for the people of the United States, through their Congress, to declare war was during invasions.  Article I of the Constitution, Section 8, paragraph 14, offers one other possibility for calling forth the militia: to “suppress insurrections….” Iraq was neither an invasion nor an internal insurrection.

The “legal precedent” relied upon, is of course, twofold in constitutional impropriety; first, we should not be governed by precedent – we should be governed by constitutional law.  Second, precedent can be established both incorrectly and therefore unjustly.  Once again, it relies totally on legal contest, which in turn relies heavily upon the persuasive talents of lawyers and politicians.  Precedent is, therefore, largely dependent upon the talents of one individual, or upon a small group of individuals, as opposed to the reasoning, logic, and intellectual arguments that created this nation by the people’s Founding Constitutional Convention.

President George W. Bush maneuvered US into an illegal, unjust war, a war unconstitutional in terms of both its purpose and initiation.  Arguments maneuvering public focus and media attention away from the deceitful intent of this unprovoked resultant carnage are non sequitur.  Intelligence failings are not a defense.  Mistake is not a defense.  Good intentions are not an excuse.  Citing Saddam Hussein as a bad and evil person to justify this deadly war is moronic at best.

Once again, perfectly useless panels, commissions, and investigations will be launched to fool the public, and the corporate media will cooperate in shifting public focus away from the real issues.  There is only one inquiry authorized by law that has applicability in such cases of governmental maneuvering and deceit.  Those interested in the appropriate manner of inquiry, one that precludes the secrecy of the required proceedings, can be found under Article II, Section 4 of our Constitution.  Bill Clinton’s been there.


© Copyright THEODORE E. LANG 2/15/04 All rights reserved. Ted Lang is a political analyst and a freelance writer.



FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted articles and information about environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. This news and information is displayed without profit for educational purposes, in accordance with, Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Thepeoplesvoice.org is a non-advocacy internet web site, edited by non-affiliated U.S. citizens. editor