A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO THE 2006 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS - Part I

"In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will
always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a
civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To
confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and
respect for one another -- and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union
is strong -- and together we will make it stronger."

Unfortunately, neither the right nor the left can remove themselves from polemic rhetoric and extreme ideology to allow reasoned discourse, debate or intelligent compromise. There is no middle ground when entrenchment occurs. The Republican Party has entrenched itself in pseudo-values derived from a predominantly ultra-conservative Christian perspective. This perspective often violates established Christian doctrine in that it seeks to force others into accepting the evangelical, ultra-conservative version of Christianity. These ultra-conservatives push an agenda to "keep America Christian" and claim that the Constitution was written entirely on Christian values. The history offered by these ultra-conservatives is revisionist and activist, and the revisionist and activist efforts are affecting our laws, due process and civil liberties in an adverse manner.

It is not that the ultra-left is any better. There is not a cohesive thought to be shared by the Democrats. The far-left wing of the Democrat Party is so entrenched in its own rhetoric and ideology that the leadership is hamstrung and hog-tied when it comes to articulating party values and principles, cooperating with the opposing party effectively, and showing the American people an alternative path to maintain freedom, liberty and national security.

"In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the
future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in
pursuing the enemies of freedom -- or retreat from our duties in the hope of an
easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy
-- or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and
challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and
inviting -- yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our
people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is
by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead."

From my vantage point, the Bush administration, the Republican-dominated congress, and the stacked courts (Supreme, Appellate and District) are choosing the "easier life" and retreating from the highest duty that we, as Americans, have while holding office: defending and faithfully executing the Constitution. We have seen numerous scandals on the part of the Republicans in congress.

While these folks are busy telling us how to live, what religious values we should possess, what rights we should suspend or abrogate, they are also taking payoffs, engaging in active "denial campaigns," misleading us regarding intelligence as a means of sending our troops to invade Iraq, lying, and operating in unethical ways. While these ultra-conservatives are busy shoving the Ten Commandments down our throats, advocating for the return of school prayer (which has never been removed from schools), and pushing single-issue campaigns upon us, they are also busy breaking those Ten Commandments, obstructing fair and just access to government, misrepresenting the intent of most Americans, and reaping rewards for asinine leadership.

Randall "Duke" Cunningham was so involved in selling access and opportunity that he managed to develop a nest egg valued over $2 million dollars in assets. Those assets were in addition to an annual salary of $XXXX, lucrative health care benefits, access to prime office space in DC, expense accounts for traveling to and from the home state, the franking privilege for US mail, and PAC monies. While Duke was caught, there are many others that are lurking in the shadows.

Then comes the news—shock of shocks—that payoffs and improper fund-raising through lobbyists like Jack Abramoff is rampant in congress, especially among the ultra-conservative Republican members of congress. Still, despite decades of calls for election funding reform, there has not been any movement on the issue. Now, there is a scramble to look like the call for campaign finance and election funding reform is genuine, but as was reported by several media outlets, there really aren’t any incentives for the incumbent majority to do so.

Can we look to President Bush for leadership on these matters? Let us continue with the analysis of the SOTU address first and get back to that question.

"Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the
end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In
reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th,
2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000
miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships
shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass
destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of
their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every
step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer -- so we will act
boldly in freedom's cause."

No one is dismissing the goal as misguided idealism. The invasion of Iraq isn’t being dismissed by anyone. We are criticizing it for being in violation of our Constitution and international treaties, improperly planned, improperly implemented, based on false or incompetent intelligence, being pushed down the throats of American citizens, being poorly managed, costing more money than it is worth, perpetrating wasteful spending and allowing lucrative contracts to be awarded on a no-bid/no-review basis that definitively demonstrates cronyism.

We are also criticizing the effort to bring democracy and freedom outside of our borders while implementing a deliberate campaign of domestic surveillance, which has now been shown to be targeting groups that are merely protesting the war, the unwarranted loss of American lives, and infringement of our civil liberties.

Indeed, the greatest demonstration of the infringement of civil liberties is the removal of Cindy Sheehan from the floor of the House chambers just before the SOTU address because she wore a shirt that protested the war in Iraq. Whether we agree with Sheehan’s position or not, we are supposed to be guaranteed the right to address our political leaders with petitions, assemble peaceably, and freely express our views. Sheehan had not done anything overt. She was not shouting. She was not blocking an entrance. She was not trying to access the rostrum. She was not carrying signs. She was not trespassing. She was wearing a shirt. The shirt did not have any profane words on it. There were not any pornographic images on it, either. The words that were on the shirt were political… and an expression of free speech that is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment.

"Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of
our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world.
Today, there are 122. And we're writing a new chapter in the story of
self-government -- with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of
Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink, and men and women from Lebanon to
Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom. At the
start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic
nations. And we do not forget the other half -- in places like Syria and Burma,
Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran -- because the demands of justice, and the peace
of this world, require their freedom, as well."

Great. So now we have to look toward Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere for examples of freedom. What President Bush failed to acknowledge is that we have become prisoners of a paranoid attack on our civil liberties. Our own government is spying on hundreds, if not thousands, of US citizens. According to reports from the FBI and DOJ, the number of referrals from the NSA that resulted in identifying ANY terrorist connection is… ZILCH! NADA! ZIP! NULL! NIL! Not one time has a NSA referral led to a terrorist connection to anywhere in the world. However, these referrals did tie up valuable investigative resources running down wild goose chases.

Shouldn’t the United States be something other than the military power that pushes for regime change in the name of democracy? Shouldn’t the US be the model of working liberty? Shouldn’t we be the country that demonstrates the futility of terrorist action by not allowing the events of 9-11 to become the rationale for violating civil liberties and impeding freedoms on our own soil? When we react in a fearful manner to such a degree that we abrogate the guaranteed provisions of our Constitution, we empower the terrorist in a more terrible manner than if we had five events similar to those of 9-11.

In support of that view, I suggest we all take a look at the historical perspective offered by Prof. Joseph Ellis of Amherst College. He rightly points out that in contrast to other historical events that cost lives and shocked our nation, the events of 9-11 fail to rise to the level that warrants the over-reaction and sacrifice of our liberties offered by Bush and company.