Campaigning to Restore the Constitution

Two hundred and twenty-one years ago this week, the Constitutional Convention that had gathered in the touchstone city of Philadelphia to replace the Articles of Confederation with a more clearly drawn guiding document for their revolutionary experiment agreed finally on a framework to govern the new United States.

In so doing, Benjamin Franklin suggested, the framers established a republican framework sturdy enough to outlast them – if, Franklin warned, ensuing generations of Americans could keep faith with the Constitution.

The document that was ratified September 17, 1787, though amended and interpreted, remains as Franklin knew it.

But the republic has not been well kept.

The United States of 2008 is stuck in the foreign entanglements created when two wars were initiated without being declared by Congress as required in Article 1 of the Constitution.

Warrantless wiretapping and data mining projects developed and implemented by the current administration in violation of laws explicitly designed to prevent abuses make a mockery of privacy protections outlined in the 4th amendment.

Torture and extraordinary rendition, as practiced in US operated detention centers and carried out by US authorities, [is] an aggressive affront [to] the 8th amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment of those in the country's custody.

Presidential signing statements and the refusal of current and former White House aides to cooperate with congressional inquiries, have created a dramatic imbalance between a super-powerful executive branch and a disempowered legislative branch. This undermining of the system of checks and balances that has been at the heart of the constitutional project upsets the rule of law and creates a monarchical circumstance similar to that against which the colonials revolted.

Yet, responses to the crisis have been tepid to the point of being dysfunctional. The power to impeach has been taken off the table by congressional leaders, and the mild option of censure has been disregarded not for lack of necessity but for lack of political will.

So it is that America will on Wednesday mark a Constitution Day that cannot be a moment of celebration.

Rather, this Constitution Day requires of believers in the American enterprise a renewed commitment to the ideals – and the radical spirit – of the founders and essential document of the republic.

To that end, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold -- who with his lonely vote against the Patriot act in 2001 and his consistent battles against executive excess since then has established himself as the most diligent defender of the Constitution in the current Congress -- will be as busy this week as were James Madison, George Mason, Ben Franklin and their fellow framers 221 years ago.

Feingold, who pondered seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency this year but instead decided to focus on his duties as chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has taken it upon himself to use the run-up to this year's Constitution Day to highlight the need to restore the rule of law to the United States.

Feingold's constitutional renewal project has seen the senator working with a bipartisan cross-section of concerned leaders and activists that includes former U.S. Senator Lincoln Chaffee, R-Rhode Island, and Common Cause President Bob Edgar – whose group has launched a "Recapture the Flag" campaign "to restore public faith in the core values of American democracy – freedom from tyranny, respect for individual liberty and human rights, and government based on the rule of law" -- to highlight "what the next president must do to fully restore the rule of law after seven years of unprecedented Executive Branch power grabs."

Kicked off with a national conference call featuring Edgar, Chafee and Feingold, the Wisconsin senator was set Monday to deliver a major address at Georgetown University, in which he intended to challenge "the lofty and misdirected rhetoric of the Bush administration's ‘Freedom Agenda'" and suggest that "(America's) true self-interest (lies) in supporting democracy and the rule of law as essential to fairness and stability globally."

On Tuesday, Feingold will chair a Constitution Subcommittee hearing on "Restoring the Rule of Law." Legal scholars, historians and advocates will testify as part of what Feingold's office describes as "an effort to provide the next president with a full range of recommendations for reestablishing appropriate checks and balances in a variety of areas, including warrantless wiretapping, interrogation standards, detention policy, abuse of executive privilege, excessive government secrecy, violations of privacy and misleading Congress." The point of this intensive activity by Feingold and his allies is to get the media, the presidential candidates and Congress focused on the work of reestablishing the rule of law.

To that end, a broad coalition of organizations from across the ideological spectrum – ranging from the National Lawyers Guild and the Center for Constitutional Rights to the Republican Liberty Caucus and the American Conservative Defense Alliance, as well as Human Rights Watch, Common Cause and the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression -- has been urging the presidential candidates and the media to dedicate Constitution Day (Wednesday) to discussing constitutional issues

In particular, the groups want Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama to explain what they think it means when they swear an oath "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Noting that Obama and McCain had devoted September 11 to honoring the victims of attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and to expressing their commitment to promoting national service, the American Freedom Campaign's Steve Fox says, "We hope that (the Democratic and Republican nominees), along with other presidential candidates, will see September 17 as a similar opportunity to join together for an important anniversary. The Constitution is the foundation of our nation and deserves a day a day of its own on the campaign trail."

In particular, Fox and other organizers of the Constitution Day push are asking the candidates to address issues related to:

• Separation of powers and checks and balances

• Congressional oversight and executive branch accountability (including the executive branch's responsibility to comply with congressional subpoenas)

• The appropriate use of signing statements

• Torture and habeas corpus

• Electronic surveillance and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

• Freedom of speech as it applies to potential whistleblowers in the next administration)

Noting that "presidents exercise a great deal of discretion and flexibility in interpreting the Constitution and that abuse of constitutional rights and safeguards can have significant harmful effects on the American people's lives," the more than three dozen groups that have endorsed the Constitution Day initiative have embraced the argument that "it is therefore essential… to understand where candidates stand on constitutional rights and separation of powers prior to their election."

These are, as the founders would have said, self evident truths.

Unfortunately, with the exception of the rare Russ Feingold, contemporary politicians tend to shy away from discussions about constitutional duties and precise interpretations of what the executive branch can and cannot do. If we are frank, we will acknowledge the ugly reality that the men who would be president keep the discussion vague because they want to maintain a flexibility to disregard the Constitution at will, as President Bush and his predecessors have so frequently done.

That is why it is so vital to raise constitutional questions now, when the men who would be president are supposed to telling us how they will govern -– and whether they will join the noble work of keeping the republic Ben Franklin and his comrades bequeathed to us.

Comments (24)

1. "That is why it is so vital to raise constitutional questions now......."

   It may take some audacity to believe this will happen. But there can be little doubt of its critical and central importance.

   We'll see.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/15/2008 @ 1:08pm

2. I"m kind of curious. How is the left going to 'restore the Constitution' by:

   - taking away a worker's right to a private vote (via the 'Free Choice' Act)

   - assaulting the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms via gun ownership bans

   - assaulting the 1st Amendment by putting the goverment in charge of broadscast political content (the 'Fairness Doctrine')

   Sounds like this article is in favor of putting the fox in charge of security at the henhouse.

   Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 1:10pm

3. ponti-The left hasn't done what you claim to either amendment.you have already had that claim debunked by facts.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 09/15/2008 @ 1:14pm

4. Well, Mr Nichols got that typo fixed ("Democrat John McCain") and wiped the post that indicated it, huh? (That post being mine...heheh)

   Anyways, as I PREVIOUSLY posted...PONTI and the boys will be disappointed in "President McCain" should that come to pass.

   They won't admit it of course...but as soon as he closes down Gitmo...a place THEY have been saying for years was "nearly a paradise for those dumb terrorists"....they'll suddenly congratulate him for doing what Obama would do...same as on Iraq.

   BUT, if Obama wins and closes down Gitmo as he promises....watch they go wacky and claim "He's TURNING THEM LOOSE UPON US!!!!!"

   Such is conservative hypocrisy.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 1:31pm

5. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 1:31pm

   I'm sure we'll be disappointed with McCain. He's not really a conservative. But as I said, we're voting for the lesser of two evils here. Obama and the fantasy-based community he represents would be another freaking disaster on the order of Jimmy Carter.

   Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 1:42pm

6. Let's be real shall we? Democrats have disempowered themselves. They control the House. They control the money. They could have easily called Bush to task on any of these issues - such as the issue of torture and Gitmo - but failed to do so.

   In fact, people like John McCain gave the Bush Administration cover by pretending that he addressed the issue of torture by making it a law that they follow certain established guidelines, and then allowed for the administration to change those guidelines and "classify" them. Everyone that voted for that legislation and allowed the Bush administration to do this failed in their oversight capacity. So culpability rests with both Republicans and Democrats.

   Posted by srjenkins at 09/15/2008 @ 1:54pm

7. Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 1:42pm

   Well, see the GOOD news there, PONTI, is....

   "Bush'ism" is dead. "McCain'ism" might not be a whole lot better....but essentially if he wins, YOUR political ideology is on life-support.

   Actually, and I know you have thought of this, if OBAMA wins, you guys might have an EASIER time trying to resurrect neo-conservatism and fun stuff like "no stem cells" and "diagnosing the brain-dead from a distance" and trying to privatize Social Security.

   That is, if Obama were to fail as you think he would. If he succeeds, you're screwed.

   But if McCain wins?...and is successful? You're on the outs, sitting in the back rows with Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. And if McCain wins and fails, the Repubs are screwed for a generation and you are STILL on the outs.

   Seems you have a 1 in 4 chance...but only if Obama wins!

   Ironic, huh?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 2:09pm

8. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 2:09pm

   "Actually, and I know you have thought of this, if OBAMA wins, you guys might have an EASIER time trying to resurrect neo-conservatism and fun stuff like "no stem cells" and "diagnosing the brain-dead from a distance" and trying to privatize Social Security. "

   I would agree with you, MASK. Your thesis played out in the mid-seventies, when Carter was elected. His stupidity, the same brand as Obamas, turned a bad situation into near catastrophe, thus necessitiating the American people to arise out of their slumber and save the country with Reagan. But I'd prefer to not stare into the abyss again, even if it means we have to elect some middle-of-the-roader like McCain. Just don't have the stomach for it, and I don't want to have to see the country go through that again.

   Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 2:53pm

9. Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 2:53pm

   Well, you're very patriotic, PONTI. A lesser, more ideological person would realize that if McCain wins and succeeds with his "Maverick'ness"...

   that old-style Reagan/Dubya conservatism is on the ropes.

   I mean this is the same McCain who DID give us McCain-Feingold (which RUSH called "censorship" like he does the Fairness Doctrine)...

   tried to pass McCain-Kennedy which would have "given illegals amnesty"...

   still believes in man-made global warming and doing something about...

   still DOESN'T want to drill in ANWR and if gas goes down in 2009, might go back to NOT wanting to drill off-shore (as he did before)...

   still supports embryonic stem-cell research...

   and STILL (not so much in audiences like YOU) talks about how he "has worked across-the-aisle" and "would put Democrats in his Administration"!

   Very UN-Dubya like, even un-Reaganesque on occasion.

   And if he wins and succeeds?...OTHER Republicans might follow his example!

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 3:40pm

10. Posted by srjenkins at 09/15/2008 @ 1:54pm

    "So culpability rests with both Republicans and Democrats."

    As it should be. We should all remember that this issue of 'torture' has been hyped beyond all recognition of the actual facts on the ground. In fact, there are only three people, all known terrorists, who have actually been 'tortured', by waterboarding. It is debatable whether waterboarding is actually torture, since it does no permanent physical or psychological harm, and if I understand it correctely waterboarding is conducted on some our own agents as part of their training.

    I would wager that if waterboarding had been available to us as recourse to prevent 9/11, there's very few of us who would complain about it.

    The whole issue of torture is simply another partisan football being tossed around, without much reference to the actual facts on the ground.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 4:29pm

11. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/15/2008 @ 5:42pm

    Rather convenient that your requirements are exactly one of the elements that are problematic about Gitmo. Those being held there have no access to the judical system (and no, I don't count the military tribunals currently miscarrying justice there), and the argument goes, they can't have access because of considerations around state secrets.

    I wonder if anyone on the right finds it ironic that they are fielding a candidate and running him on a platform of "brave American" focused on his time as a tortured POW, who, if elected, will turn around and authorize the very crimes that were committed against him against others. Perhaps it appeals to some perverted sense of karmic justice. Turning the victim turning into victimizer, as happens in many forms of abuse.

    It would be funny, if it weren't so damn scary.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/15/2008 @ 5:58pm

12. If McCain closes GITMO and brings the prisoners to the US, I will scream in protest that he is dead wrong.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/15/2008 @ 5:42pm

    I have a feeling Obama or McCain YOU'll be doing a lot of screaming, LVLIB.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 7:58pm

13. Posted by srjenkins at 09/15/2008 @ 5:58pm

    SRJ, I really don't know why you lefties keep on insisting that the terrorists should be treated as criminal suspects, with the full gamut of rights of American citizens. They are not citizens, most of them, and they are not simple criminals. They are ideologically motivated, dedicated killers, and most of them, reportedly, in Gitmo, have no problem telling you that if they are let go, they will kill as many Americans as possible. If they had been caught on the battlefield, as most of them were in Iraq and Afghanistan, armed and out of uniform, in previous conflicts, they could have and generally would have been summarily shot, something which I and many other people think is perfectly fitting. You folks have simply let your hatred for Bush override your good sense when you insist on giving these people rights to which they are not entitled, and which they don't in any case deserve, simply because it is contrary to the Administration's policy.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 8:34pm

14. Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 8:34pm

    PONTI, is it "good sense" to close Gitmo?

    (Yes, please read the above threads before you knee jerk and answer and embarass yourself!...heheh)

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 8:54pm

15. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 8:54pm

    "PONTI, is it "good sense" to close Gitmo?

    (Yes, please read the above threads before you knee jerk and answer and embarass yourself!...heheh)"

    I don't see why Gitmo should be closed. It's not a matter of good sense, it's a judgement call. We have to keep them somewhere - why not Gitmo? What alternative do you have that is so compelling, and why?

    And by the way, just because I'm voting for McCain, it doesn't mean I have to agree with him on anything. As I said, I'll take half-wrong over all-wrong every time. At this moment, I don't know a single issue where Obama has a better policy than McCain. This does NOT mean that McCain is the be-all and end all, just that he's better than the alternative. Waaaaayyyyy better. As you may recall, I lived through Obama's Carteresque policies once, I don't want a repeat.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 9:35pm

16. Feingold the "most diligent defender of the Constitution" ?!?

    He "defends" the Constitution by promoting the Big Lie that "censure" is "doing something."?

    He "defends" the Constitution by promoting the Big Lie that passing more laws for a lawbreaker to break is "restoring the law"?

    He "defends" the Constitution by promoting the Big Lie that Obama can "give us back" that which Congress -- Our Voice -- surrendered without a fight?

    Like squatters, Bush and Cheney are laying claim to unconstitutional power through openly hostile possession. Congress, and Congress ALONE, has the power to "evict" them.

    It is not Bush and Cheney who are destroying the nation; it is the dereliction and insidious lies from our "friends" in Congress that is doing that.

    Every day, each Member has a choice: Stand and fight for impeachment or oppose it; duty or dereliction/complicity.

    Right now, Feingold stands with the opposition. He is far from alone. The Senate stands in unity; a moat around the monarch.

    Only the thirty Members of the House who signed onto articles of impeachment against Bush and/or Cheney have earned the label "defender of the Constitution." Of the thirty, only the nine who signed onto the articles against Bush qualify as "diligent defenders of the Constitution." (Dennis Kucinich, Tammy Baldwin, Sam Farr, Maurice Hinchey, Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, Edolphus Towns, Robert Wexler, and Lynn Woolsey)

    We are at a tipping point. Will the American People remain Party to torture or not? Will the USA remain a War Criminal Nation or not? No "business as usual" election can break the bonds of complicity. Members of Congress hold the fate of the nation in their hands.

    Don't let them off the hook. Keep Talking Impeachment.

    http://talkingimpeachment.com

    Posted by pattyk at 09/15/2008 @ 10:43pm

17. Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 9:35pm

    Actually I lived through Carter as well....high gas prices...."stagflation"...dangerously bad economy....hundreds "trapped" in the Middle East with no seeming way out....and a Southern "born again" governor whose poll numbers were in the toilet.

    Sound familiar?

    BTW, on Gitmo, just pointing out that with both McCain and Obama for closing it.... you're in the MINORITY regardless what happens this fall.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/15/2008 @ 10:44pm

18. So, let's get this straight. All is well, right?

    Our Constitution, and all the principles and values it has come to represent, are just like some computer hard drive. It can be wiped clean by some never-elected, never-legitimate regime and just be easily "restored" without the inconvenience of anyone actually DOING some damn thing -- in real time, when it matters -- to uphold their own oaths of office.

    Senator Clueless could do FAR more for our Constitution and our once-great nation by simply opening his mouth to demand at least the formal objection of impeachment. An apology for his FAILURE to ACT thus far would not be out of place either (and could well be a way to avoid his own place in the dock at The Hague as a Nuremberg defendant).

    But no, instead the beltway-blinded "solution" is a few hours on C-Span prattling on about what a great nation we once were and could have remained if "our leaders" -- D and R alike -- hadn't stood by in tacit approval of ongoing torture and regime's serial criminality.

    ---

    (And FWIW John, George Mason can only conversely be called a "framer." He never signed on to the Constitution and has always been an (stealth) icon of the anti-federalist forces among us -- including the latest neocon, neo-fascist incarnation.)

    Posted by dpeople at 09/16/2008 @ 01:38am

19. I'm sure we'll be disappointed with McCain. He's not really a conservative. But as I said, we're voting for the lesser of two evils here. Obama and the fantasy-based community he represents would be another freaking disaster on the order of Jimmy Carter.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2008 @ 1:42pm

    Ponti, So, you are trying to say that Carter did a worse job the Bush II? What friggin planet do you live on Ponti? This is the earth. We live in the United States...the country where 3 of the 5 major banks have taken a dive. This has been during Bush's administration, not Carter's idiot.

    Bush has pissed all over the constitution. People like you don't believe in separation of church and state but would prefer to turn the U.S. in a Christian version of Middle Eastern countries...oh ya!! Let's kill for GOD, Amen.

    What the hell will it take for you neocons to notice that our economy is tanking under the no regulation system W and Cheney put into place, along with McCain's right hand economic advisor?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2008 @ 12:49pm

20. Does this mean Dubya has to take the ripped up bits of the Constitution out of the POTUS bathroom now? He'll have to buy Charmin now I suppose....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/17/2008 @ 09:07am

21. I think the article is good. We should restore the rule of law. But we should know that the Constitution's flaws got us into this mess.

    Connect the dots folks. We as a people can decide no question. We don't vote for president but for "electors." The Senate is grossly disproportionate due to small states having the same representation as large states. Single-seat districts with winner-take-all voting creates a two party system. Article V, the amending article, is what Texas University scholar Sanford Levinson calls an "iron cage" whereby the 13 smallest states comprising less than five percent of the US population can block any amendment to the Constitution. (See Montana's amending article for a good progressive set of processes.) The entire system has been taken over by plutocrats *because of these flaws*.

    I urge those interested in progressive analysis of the Constitution to study these books:

    Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Paralyzes Democracy by Dan Lazare. Our Undemocratic Constitution by Sanford Levinson. How Democratic is the American Constitution? by Robert Dahl. 10 Steps to Improve American Democracy by Steven Hill. Proportional Representation by Doug Amy. A More Perfect Union by Larry Sabato. The American State Constitutional Tradition by John Dinan.

    Folks, this business of creating a progressive, constitutional revolution requires serious study. I urge all who are reading who want to overturn the totalitarian corporate regime and create a new progressive regime in America to study the Constitution's flaws and ways to fix them. These seven books are an excellent place to begin. This is an area where we need more theory to inform our actions; more reading to energize our strategic planning; and more constitutional discussions to empower our proposals.

    Posted by Earthian at 09/17/2008 @ 2:26pm

22. The best way to celebrate the Contitution is to really use and its most effective tool against those who abuse it is IMPEACHMENT!

    Why are impeachment hearings necessary now?

    If Congress refuses to hold the Executive Branch accountable for its multiple abuses of power, the next

    Administration will know it has nothing to fear from Congressional oversight. More war, more abuse of power,

    more erosion of our civil rights and our civil liberties are the inevitable consequences of an unchecked

    Executive. Congress must reassert itself to restore a functioning balance of power. That can only be done by

    holding impeachment hearings.

    ■ IRAQ: Bush Administration officials have collectively told hundreds of lies about the run-up to our invasion

    of Iraq, as anyone who's done any reading over the last 5 years knows. If this is not gross abuse of power,

    nothing is.

    ■ ILLEGAL SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS: Whatever changes Congress makes now to FISA, it

    was illegal for the Bush Administration to conduct surveillance of American citizens without a warrant. They

    did this for years.

    ■ TORTURE: Before the passing of the Military Commissions Act, torture was illegal in this country. The torture

    and illegal treatment of prisoners authorized by the Bush Administration violated international treaties

    such as the Geneva Conventions, thereby violating US law.

    ■ SEPARATION OF POWERS: The Bush Administration's outrageous abuse of signing statements amounts

    to giving the Executive a line item veto over legislation passed by Congress. The firing of the U.S. Attorneys is a

    graphic example of the Administration's politicization of the Judiciary. Congress must act to protect and reassert

    the balance of power.

    ■ NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. This is no

    Posted by aharlib at 09/18/2008 @ 01:07am

23. NEW ISSUE: TRUST

    John McCain has been trying to hijack Barack Obama's Change concept and he may have succeeded. In addition, he has stolen, and is now using, Obama's phrase "Enough is enough." Logic suggests that he is having difficulty formulating an independent thought or concept. Who knows, if we give him enough rope he may just hang himself.

    Perhaps it is time to throw the Republicans a curved ball. It is slowing becoming common knowledge that they use lies, tricks and games to win elections. If true, the thinking mind begs to know what does one do with a public servant/government official who violates the public trust; i.e., who lies? Do we reward him or her and put them in higher office? Yes, twice.

    It is time to introduce a new issue into the mix -- TRUST. It would be wise to do this now because John McCain needs more rope. TRUST is the most important issue of all and no one even talks about it. In such a volatile political climate -- one in which incorrect thinking dominates -- TRUST is not only an issue, it is perhaps THE issue.

    New thought is our only chance, Jan Derek ------------------------------------------------------- "We can either fear that human culture is falling apart or we can hold the vision that we are awakening. Either way, each of us must consciously choose between these two futures." (James Redfield) ------------------------------------------------------- http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/GLOBALSYMBOLICVOTESFOROBAMA http://www.global-symbolic-votes.org

    Posted by GSV at 09/18/2008 @ 12:12pm

24. Posted by GSV at 09/18/2008 @ 12:12pm

    Great post I think the "4 more years" Obama message hits on this. But yes, more direct on trust, about Oct 15th on --- smart.

    Posted by winyahn at 09/19/2008 @ 12:26am