BUSH AND THE IRRELEVANT CONGRESS
SO OUR CONSTITUTION IS IRRELEVANT ALSO!

By: Dorothy Anne Seese

The Congress has less power now than it has in decades, according to a report filed May 21, 2003, by Gail Russell Chaddock in the Christian Science Monitor. That is not something of a surprise to anyone who has been watching the behavior of the President of the United States and the Congress since September 11, 2001, the day America lost its operative Constitution in favor of the arbitrary reference to it in cases not affecting "national security" -- which embraces nearly everything.

This nation has 535 members of Congress: 100 Senators, and 435 members of the House of Representatives. How could that number of people, elected by the people, wimp out on their traditional duties and historic tendencies to make mountains out of molehills for political effect? How could the body established by Article I of the Constitution of the United States become "irrelevant" when it alone has the authority to declare war, enact laws, and impeach a president?

Probably the most single factor in this shift of power from Congress to the White House is that the President of the United States, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, generally has greater authority in time of war, and we have been in a perpetual war since the infamous Nine-Eleven. Since the "war against terrorism" amounts to a "war against evil" or a war-in-perpetuity, there is no end of so-called "war" in sight.

This did not just happen by coincidence.

Some other factors enter into this complex picture of a United States with a "constitution of convenience" to be used at the discretion of the president or the judiciary.

The United States now has a more controlled media than any free nation in the world. What began as an anti-Bush media is now a pro-Bush media, not daring to offer criticism of the president during time of war lest they be branded as "anti-American." "You're either for us or for the terrorists" included the media and they well understood it. If they did not, someone representing the White House made certain that they did.

Now that the Iraq conquest (or at least the major invasion and takeover) has been completed and the President has declared that the war is "over" the media may take this opportunity to offer some insights, rare as they may be, on the present state of our union. The general tenor of media, however, is still to laud Bush-43 as a wartime president, and to overlook any illegalities in such a war. They are reporting that we haven't found the ostensible weapons that posed a threat to our national security interest. Liberating an oppressed people in a sovereign nation is not a constitutional excuse for war. Nor did Congress ever declare one.

The real power machine has been the public opinion hype, spin and theatrics pulled off by President Bush under the tutelage of Karl Rove and perhaps others in the inner circle, such as Vice President Dick Cheney. Certainly the hawkish Paul Wolfowitz has contributed his share, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has his interests in this national takeover by the White House. So, the media joined in and persuaded the gullible public that we had on our hands some national security interest, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was somehow involved in Nine-Eleven, and the public bought it, waved the flag and turned on the television or went to the movies. Shortly before the Iraq mess, the public bought the same story about how the US had to take out bin Laden and instead took out a bunch of camels and scattered the Taliban so that the old warlords can now fight about local influence while the US military watches over the more vital interests, like space for an oil pipeline.

If the public will demand nothing of the Congress for which they pay (salary and perks) then Congress isn't going to do one thing other than enjoy itself and bicker among themselves like children on the playground. As long as the citizens of the United States want a hero then Karl Rove and the White House inner circle will give them one. As far back as 1961, John F. Kennedy's White House was being described as "Camelot," revealing that Americans seem to love a monarchy as much as the Brits, but the Brits had sense enough to rein in their monarchs. The US citizens seem to enjoy creating their emperor.

Are we so destitute of thinking people in this nation that this whole subterfuge is revealed only by internet writers who never reach the general public?

Apparently so.

But with the economy blubbering around like a ball of melting lard and perhaps more than a million Americans out of work and half of those out of employment benefits (or will be shortly) the tide may turn away from Bush the Hero to Bush the Zero.

Oddly enough, it would be the second time around.

The problem is, no other party, Democrat in particular, has come up with any candidate who has any sort of new or exciting plan or platform to present, even with as many issues as there are to be picked off the political plum tree. No third party has produced anyone with the money and credibility that Ross Perot had in 1992, and now eleven years have passed, he is history and so is his party.

So we, the American voting public, have a president who would be emperor, a Congress that refuses to accept and act upon its constitutional duties, and an electorate that would rather watch "American Idol." Then we want to punish the French and Germans for laughing at us? Well, okay, France and Germany aren't exactly enemies to fear.

But if we're talking about a real threat, keep and eye on Russia and China.
They don't say much, but they mean business.

"Published originally at EtherZone.com :
republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Dorothy Anne Seese is a freelance political writer for Patch Work papers and a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
Dorothy Anne Seese can be reached at
carrot710@yahoo.com