President Bush's attack on the Senate for failing to confirm his recent nominees is remarkable in that he cited the Constitution to defend his argument. Too bad the President hasn't bothered to read the rest of the Constitution. by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Friday, November 16, 2007
The Associated Press have reported that President Bush took a swipe at Senate Democrats for failing to confirm his nominees, quoting him as saying, "Senate confirmation is part of the Constitution's system of checks and balances. But it was never intended to be a license to ruin the good name that a nominee has worked a lifetime to build. Today, good men and women nominated to the federal bench are finding that inside the Beltway, too many interpret `advise and consent' to mean 'search and destroy,'"
Personally, I'm glad that Bush has finally admitted that the Constitution does not grant any license to search and destroy the rights of others, at least where part of Article II Section 2 is concerned. It's too bad Mr. Bush hasn't read the rest of the same clause.
For Mr. Bush's edification, the entire clause states:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States...."
The reason I quote this section is that Mr. Bush explicitly ignored it when he signed an agreement that joins the United States into the North American Union with Mexico and Canada in 2005. Mr. Bush has sought no Senate approval of this new treaty, taking the position that it's not a treaty, merely an agreement.
Mr. Bush also has turned a blind eye to a number of other sections of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, when he has pushed for such legislation as the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, new FISA rules permitting warrantless searches, etc. Perhaps Mr. Bush should engage the services of Congressman Ron Paul from his home state of Texas, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Known as "Dr. No," Paul could give some lessons to Bush on how to apply the Constitution in every day government work.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 13
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Walt Thiessen is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Louis Nardozi
Date: 2007-11-16 08:04:50
You tell 'em Walt! Mr. Bush's long term assault on the constitution and our civil right would be sad if it wasn't so scary. I don't understand how people can be so cowardly as to value 'security' over freedom.
Or, too bad Radical Libertarians haven't been paying more attention to Bush and his occasional libertarian leanings.
For instance, by my count, George W. Bush has appointed more libertarians to his administration than all other previous modern Presidents combined. People like Gayle Norton, fmr. Chair of the Colorado Libertarian Party, and Bill Evers, fmr. Campaign Manager for the 1984 Libertarian Presidential ticket. But not a peep out of the libertarian community on this.
Also, Bush (and Rumsfeld) stood up against all those screaming for a return to the Military Draft a couple years ago. Rumsfeld famously said, "over my dead body." Did libertarians even wink an eye? Nope! The completely ignored the Bush Administration's brave libertarian stance on the issue.
Nah, with Radical Libertarians all they ever say is the downside to Bush. And all they ever care to comment on about Bush, is when he does something unlibertarian.
