Will Subpoenas Help?

My thought on the "showdown" between the Executive and Legislative branch:



Bush, I'm sure, will instruct his minions to just keep their mouths shut.

Soon to be America's Most Wanted?

Paul Craig Roberts has two articles (here and here) at LewRockwell.com that I found to be right on the money. The Bush administration has been allowed to run roughshod over our Constitutional Republic for far too long without being held accountable. After reading his articles, I couldn't help but imagine walking into my local post office to see on their most-wanted wall the following posters:

One can dream...

And what was the "money shot" of his articles? I think the following sums it up:

The Bush administration’s greatest success is its ability to escape accountability for its numerous impeachable offenses.

The administration’s offenses against US law, the US Constitution, civil liberties, human rights, and the Geneva Conventions, its lies to Congress and the American people, its vote-rigging scandals, its sweetheart no-bid contracts to favored firms, its political firing of Republican US Attorneys, its practice of kidnapping and torturing people in foreign hellholes, and its persecution of whistle blowers are altogether so vast that it is a major undertaking just to list them all.

Harassing Life and Liberty

The other day, I read an editorial by Fred Foldvary titled U.S. Judges Kill the Ninth Amendment. Mr. Foldvary claims that by it's ruling, the Ninth Circuit has made the Ninth Amendment null and void. I sent an email to Mr. Foldvary and requested a link to the case so that I could read it for myself. I'm glad I did. The conclusion he reached concerning the Ninth Amendment was a little dramatic, in my opinion.

Most of Mr. Foldvary's editorial hinges on the argument that Angel Raich has a common law right to use marijuana to help with her medical conditions. In reading the court papers, I discovered that the court said that she, in fact, does have standing to bring a case seeking injunctive relief... if she'd been charged. Unfortunately, she has not been charged with violating any federal laws under the Controlled Substance Act, therefore she has no standing to seek injunctive relief from the court. In other words, it's the wrong argument for this type of case. Strange as it sounds, she would have been better off if the DEA had arrested and charged her with possession of a controlled substance.

So, where does this decision leave Angel Raich? This is what I imagine will happen: She will continue to need marijuana to maintain her lifestyle. She will either grow it herself or get it from the two John Does referenced in the court papers. The feds will probably show up unannounced at random times and confiscate their marijuana plants in the name of king and country, but will never levy a single charge against them. They will claim that possession of the plants violates the Controlled Substance Act and because the courts have given the federal government jurisdiction under their expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, they now have the authority to seize these plants from anywhere inside state boundaries.

The court, by not taking a proactive stance against federal overreach, has set up Angel Raich--and anyone else in a similar position--to be continually harassed be overzealous DEA agents. Fred Foldvary was correct to think the government was up to no good. While I disagree with his conclusion that they've gutted the Ninth Amendment, I do agree that the U.S. government has lost its remaining moral authority. This is another clear example of federal authorities harassing and otherwise making private citizen's lives hell, but never going so far as to step over that imaginary line where the courts would be able to step in and make them stop. That's what I think Angel Raich was seeking relief from.

It's Good to be the King's

This last week has shown that many of those appointed by the President view their service to this country from an unnatural perspective. Instead of viewing their place in government as one serving the American people, they've repeated time and again that they, "serve at the pleasure of the President." In other words, they feel they've been made the "official candlestick maker" for the kingdom, so the rest of us be damned! Furthermore, they're certain they'll remain in position as long as they keep in good standing with the king President for it is only he who can strip them of their officialdom. Unfortunately, in recent years this conclusion has proven correct.

They've learned to use the phrase, "I serve at the pleasure of the President" as a shield to protect themselves from scrutiny by the press and the American people. How can there be any legitimate representative democracy where accountability of public servants has been subverted by a President who's shielding his appointees from their misdeeds? No, Mr. Gonzales (and the rest who have uttered the following,) does not serve at the pleasure of the President, he may hold his office by appointment from the President, but he serves at the pleasure of the American people. All appointees would do well not to forget this!