archives

Moratorium Monday, 25 June 2007

It's that time again. I know it's been about 370 days since it was last that time. I know that technically, it was only that time three times and it was never that time again. And that most of you have probably forgotten that that time ever existed in the first place. But I never forget. And I am never unwilling to yank an old concept out from the bottom of the pile. Welcome back to Moratorium Monday!

Today, I call for a moratorium the concept of a "constitutional showdown", at least as presented in the mainstream media. I've been hearing for YEARS now that something would be provoking a constitutional showdown between the Congress and the President, but have we had one? We have not.

Every investigation could lead to one. Every request for information could open the possibility of one. Heaven forfend that a subpoena run the risk of TRIGGERING one. My stars, whatever would we do if that happened? "Luckily" for us, there always seems to be some kind of last minute deal that manages to "avert" one.

Fuck that noise. Can we just have the goddamned constitutional showdown at this point? Hell, let's have a baker's dozen of them. Let's have non-stop constitutional showdownery. Start it today, and wind it down around Inauguration Day 2009. The media treats a constitutional showdown as a bad thing, something to be avoided at all costs, and I'm not sure why, because they're what we need the most.

Because every single one of these alleged "constitutional showdowns" has involved the members of everyone's favorite presidential administration claiming that nobody can tell them what to do. That's all this showdown shit is about. Can anyone even manage to make Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and company accept that rules or laws have any sway over them? Forget getting them to comply with the laws in the first place. That ocean liner sailed about thirty seconds after Cheney was sworn in.

With signing statements, it's the President saying "I'm not covered by this law." With all the various subpoenas for information and testimony, it's the administration saying "You can't make us." And now, you've actually got Bush and Cheney claiming that an executive order issued by Clinton telling the executive branch how to archive sensitive information doesn't actually apply to, well, the nation's top two executives.

Any sane person, when asked whether the President of the United States should be subject to laws and required to cooperate with Congressional oversight, would agree that yes, that's a pretty fucking good idea. And it's certainly what the people who started this country had in mind. So why is everyone so afraid of making it happen? Constitutional showdowns are our friends, dammit.

I have two theories. The first involves the unfortunate short-sightedness of the Founding Fathers. As far as I can tell, they basically figured that two mechanisms would suffice in case the country ended up being run by complete assholes. One was genteel, the other was less so. The genteel one was impeachment. The less genteel one was armed uprising. Neither, obviously, are palatable to America circa 2007.

I mean, armed uprising requires three things. Arms, rising, and up. It doesn't really matter that we're outmatched on the first count*, because there's no way in hell anyone will bring themselves around to the other two. And for the record, I include myself in that. As romantic as it seems to deliver a stirring speech, shout "WHO'S WITH ME", and start marching toward D.C., we all know that after three blocks, we'd turn around and find ourselves a parade of one.

And impeachment? Well, the fuckers ruined that by impeaching Clinton, didn't they? It's divisive! It's unseemly! It's politically motivated! It's traumatic to a country that just wants to move on! Well, yeah. It is NOW. I swear, if I didn't know that all the bastards impeaching Clinton were morons, I'd think they'd done it on purpose to pave the way for Bush.

Without impeachment or armed uprising in the toolbox, all that is left are parliamentary procedures, letter-writing, asking nicely, and asking less nicely. And we can all see how that's going. Yes, Rahm Emanuel pulling Cheney's money out of the executive branch appropriations bill is clever. No, it won't actually accomplish anything.

My other theory is less interesting, as it involves our politicians of both parties staging all this mock conflict as political theater, while behind the scenes they laugh at us, smoke cigars together, and line their pockets. And while I hesitate to say I'm not cynical enough to ACTUALLY believe that's the case, it is a bit naive and leads to thinking that they're all equally bad when, quite clearly, some of them are much worse than others.

And at this point, the only way anything might be done about it is if we stop yammering about how awful it would be if we were forced into a constitutional showdown, and just embrace the showdown wholeheartedly. If we win it, some of the bullshit gets rolled back, and if we lose it, what's the worst that could happen? The bastards keep doing what they're doing, their apologists keep saying it's OK, and it's back to business as usual.

*Yes, Wal-Mart sells shotguns. No, Wal-Mart does not sell tanks or magic microwave guns that make you feel like your skin is burning off. Advantage: GOVERNMENT.