Thursday, December 3, 2009

Is It Only Me Who Recalls "thePrez" Saying He'd "Restore" the Constitution ?

I ask because I think I distinctly recall that one of the reasons to elect him was to "restore" the Constitution. I am pretty sure he said he'd "do something" about the most egregiously intrusive aspects of the PATRIOT ACT, too.

But I am (suddenly) not sure.

Because it is now becoming part of the Obamass liturgy that he never promised nuttin!. Now I know Obama ran the most cautious, carefullest, closest, most non-committal campaign EVAR! It was all just wishful projection, according to doting acolytes. (And even if he did, he's only been in office 10 mos and yadda yadda yadda...)

So it is possible I only projected what I wanted to hear from him, and that he never said anything at all that would or should have led me, or anyone else, to actually believe he really meant to actually undo or repair the damages from the Busheviks' rape of the Constitution, and/or to repeal or rescind--or at least rewrite-- the worst parts of the PATRIOT ACT...But I am pretty sure he did actually "say" something about it. And it sounded a LOT like a 'promise.'

And if he did, it seems like this would be a good--and EASY--place to start to redeem a promise. Because he could do SOMETHING, in this case, buy doing abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING.

All they'd have to do is let the Appellate decision stand.

But, sadly, no. The fascist futhermuckers are going ahead to get the SCROTUS to uphold the challenged parts of the law. Which illustrates nothing to me so much as the truth of the wisdom: They're all on the same side, and it's not where WE are...

Via Project for the Old Ameican Century/White Rose Society blog, consider

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging a law that treats human rights advocates as criminal terrorists, and threatens them with 15 years in prison for advocating nonviolent means to resolve disputes.

The case is known as Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, and is the first case to challenge a portion of the Patriot Act before the Supreme Court. The case, originally brought in 1998, challenges the constitutionality of the law that makes it a crime to provide “material support” to groups the administration has designated as “terrorist.”

The plaintiffs, led by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), charge that the law goes too far in making speech advocating lawful, nonviolent activity a crime. The lower courts have unanimously declared several provisions of the law – including one added by the Patriot Act – unconstitutionally vague because they encompass speech and force citizens to guess as to their meaning.

The case challenges those aspects of the “material support” statute that criminalize pure speech – specifically the prohibitions on providing “training,” “personnel,” “expert advice or assistance,” and “service.” Under the law, any speech that falls within these terms – no matter how peaceable and nonviolent – is a crime if communicated to, for, or with the collaboration of any organization placed on a list of “foreign terrorist organizations” maintained by the State Department.
Among its most outspoken critics is Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee. He told us, “In the eight years since passage of the original Patriot Act, it’s become clear that the escalating political competition to appear tough on terror — and avoid being accused of being “soft on terror” — brings perceived electoral benefits with few costs, with vital but fragile civil liberties being easily sacrificed.”

He added, “President Obama’s flip-flop on Patriot Act issues does as much damage as did his flip-flop on the FISA Amendments Act and telecom immunity last year. But it’s imperative that we fight, while we still can, to comprehensively reinsert requirements for fact-based, individualized suspicion, checks and balances, and meaningful judicial review prior to government intrusions.”
I will here stipulate that I am NOT a Constitutional Law professor, and neither am I a SCROTUS scholar. Still, it does seem to me that, if "thePrez" and his AG were actually sincere in their alleged, tentatively, faintly suggested possibility of a desire to actually revoke some of the most egregious bullshit of the PATRIOT ACT, and not just blowing the usual shit out their asses and calling it gravy, they have a simple expedient in this case: Don't fucking appeal the fucking appellate fucking decision, you fucking asswipes!!

Done! It's that fucking simple.

But of course that ain't gonna happen, because no president, especially one on such already shaky grounds (he's a one-termer, the designated "Negro" scape-goat for all the GOPukes' sins of the last 50 years since Nixon), ever wants to surrender tools he can use to cover his own ass, or abet his own designs...


No comments: