Bush Blasted for Usurping Congress on Auto Bailout: Sen. Inhofe Defends the Republic as a Modern Cicero

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

Heeding the overwhelming will of the people-- and perhaps at last developing a bit of good sense-- the U.S. Senate has rejected the idea of a bailout for the Detroit automakers. If we were still following that dusty old parchment called the U.S. Constitution, the matter would have ended there, at least until the next president takes office. As we have been ignoring the Constitution for a while though, the story continues.

President Bush declared that the Senate, far from rejecting the bailout, simply failed to act. On that flimsy pretext, he will use $15 billion of the $700 billion bank bailout to aid Chrysler, GM, and Ford. Although Congress authorized that money only for the financial services industry, there has been no oversight, and the Bush administration has already altered the implementation of the bailout several times without consequence. Thus, despite the fact that such actions completely usurp the Legislative branch and represent a total betrayal of our Constitution, the Bush administration is proceeding without hesitation.

At least one of our senators, though, is refusing to retreat quietly into irrelevancy. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), one of the most staunchly conservative members of the Senate, is fighting back on behalf of our republic and the Constitution. Like a modern day Cicero, he issued a philippic against Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Bush administration declaring:

"As the Bush administration changes course once again, it is becoming clear to me that Washington, D.C. might be completely out of control.

"How have we come to a point that Congress--the institution that represents the will of the American people--has handed over so much money and authority to the Treasury Secretary that, if the democratic process fails to achieve a certain desired outcome, the outcome is simply ignored? The stated purpose of $700 billion bank bailout was to rescue us from a catastrophic breakdown of the financial system. Now we're told that the money might be used to bailout the auto companies because legislating their multi-billion dollar gift from the U.S. taxpayer might come with conditions that were too inconvenient for interested parties. I've been a U.S. Senator for some time, and I have never seen anything like this.”

Sen. Inhofe is correct. Congress has been lax in its duties and handed over far too much authority to the executive branch, which is now running roughshod over our republic and tearing the Constitution to shreds, while claiming that it is all justified because we face an emergency situation. Yet, that sort of justification is precisely what our Constitution and its processes were created to guard against in the first place.

It has gone on too long. When we suffered a terrorist attack and faced two wars, Congress handed the President unprecedented powers, both domestically and militarily, which the Supreme Court is still trying to cut back to constitutional levels. Congress sat by while the President made use of torture, suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, spied on our own people without warrants, and otherwise made a mockery of our Bill of Rights—because it was an emergency. When the financial crisis hit, Congress again handed the president such sweeping power over our financial system that the U.S. government overnight gained more control over private industry than is exercised by the socialist government of Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. Our money printing has ballooned to a level not seen in the world since the French Revolution—increasing the money base almost 80%--over 40% in the last month alone. Now, the President even presumes to ignore express will of the first branch of government entirely—because it is an emergency.

Our republic is in grave danger. Though I may disagree with Sen. Inhofe occasionally on social issues, I cannot deny that he has both integrity and honor. Already, he has had my respect through the financial crisis because of his determined and reasoned opposition to the woefully irresponsible and ill planned bailouts. Now, though perhaps already too late, he is trying to defend the Constitutional process that defines this nation. For that he has my utmost admiration. I only hope he has more success than Cicero himself, and that his colleagues, and we the people, have enough courage and conviction to join and support him in his opposition to this madness which, as he states, “will not only be futile, but will also move this country further from those first principles that have made us the great nation we are today."

S·P·Q·A
Senatus Populusque Americanus
For The Senate and People of America

Judge Rules Against Bush for Wiretapping Without Warrants: Triumph or Tragedy?

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

All day long, I have listened to the shrieking of my conservative friends as they denounce the ‘terrible’ decision by a U.S. district court judge to end the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. ACLU v. NSA. It seems they think the honorable judge has put all of national security at risk with the naive notion that we can fight terrorism according to the same rules we use to fight common criminals. Knowing the miserable quality of reporting the major media sources continually exhibit on questions of law, I understand why they hold such a dismal opinion of this case. However, having read the honorable judge’s opinion myself, I am thoroughly convinced that she has actually strengthened national security, and that conservatives would be the last people to take issue with this decision if they only took the time to read it. It is based soundly in traditional conservative principles. Let me see if I can condense it here.

First, no state secrets were ever at risk. The court considered the legality of the wiretapping program based on statements the Bush administration has already made public: (1) The wiretapping program exists. (2) The Bush administration monitors communication between U.S. citizens and people overseas suspected of having some connection, to a terrorist organization. (3) The monitoring is conducted without warrants.

In considering these facts, the court looked to our history. It pointed out that searches and seizures without warrant were among the offenses committed by King George III against the American colonists prior to the Revolutionary War. These searches terrified the people and chilled any speech or publication that might criticize the King for fear of being labeled seditious. After the American Revolution, the Founders enshrined two amendments into the Constitution in order to prevent such abuses from ever occurring again. We now know these as the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.--U.S. CONST. Amend. I.

The right the of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, andeffects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, andno Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath oraffirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.--U.S. CONST. Amend. IV.

These two amendments work together to protect some of the most basic liberties we hold so dear. However, Congress is mindful, too, that when it comes to national security, the obligations of these amendments might be too cumbersome to carry out in the ordinary course of business. Thus, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as, “the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence communications may be conducted.” 18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(f). This act sets up a special and secret court to grant surveillance warrants to the administration. Acknowledging the need to act quickly in matters of national security, it even gives the administration up to 72 hours after already beginning surveillance to seek a warrant. And so Congress has wisely provided for the administration to see to the needs of national security, while still permitting to judiciary to ensure the protection of civil liberties.

The Bush administration, however, has argued this is insufficient. It claims the President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, should have the right to see to matters of national security as he sees fit, independent of the laws of Congress and the warrant reviews of the judiciary. As one of the great Founders, James Madison, wrote in the Federalist Papers, though, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” THE FEDERALIST NO. 47. The court refused to allow President Bush to usurp both the Legislative and Judicial branches of government, and reminded the President that he is sworn to uphold and abide by the entire Constitution, not just Article II.

“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation .”-- The Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson wrote those words over 200 years ago describing a few of the offenses committed by King George III against the American colonists. Today, they could as easily apply to the warrantless wiretapping program of President George Bush II—or they would had the court not stuck it down. In this case, the court defended the U.S. Constitution and the liberties it enshrines, protected the separation of powers from dissolving into tyranny, and provided legitimate means for the defense of this country—all principles long cherished by conservatives. In the end, the court managed to strengthen our national security, both against the terrorists that seek to destroy us from outside our borders, and the possibility of tyranny that could destroy us from within.

As the court noted in its conclusion, “Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution. As Justice Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967):

Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile. Id. at 264.”