This *IS* a constitutional crisis. Read the article and pass it around!

[salin]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2255748&mesg_id=2255748

The Boston Globe has done a great service by following up on the signing statement issue that the public first became aware of last December. It is a must read - and one that everyone should make five or more copies and distribute to others to read - and ask those who read it to do the same.

It seems that bush has delivered 750 signing statements in his five years and four months that he has held office. That is a rate of about .4 per day. Get it? The rate at which this is happening is MORE than 1 signing statement (going around the constitution) every 3 days.

What is the big deal, you ask? There are several issues at hand, and the implications are disturbing.

1) The Constitution sets up three branches of government - and a balance between those branches to prevent a monarchy sort of system from developing. There is a directly elected branch which (in theory) represents the will of the electorate legislatively. Congress is given the authority to create laws, and to hold the purse-strings. There is a judicial branch that can review the laws to provide oversight of the laws in terms of following the Constitution. And there is an executive branch that administers the laws and carries out the functions of government, that also appoints members of the judiciary (pending senatorial approval), and that can VETO acts/laws from the legislative branch - only then allowing the law to become law if a super-majority of the representatives of the people (congress) vote to override the veto.

The reliance on the signing statement subverts the constitution by disallowing the representatives of the people from creating/passing law - and due to its secretive nature (these are most often created after the law has been signed by the president and are not seen/known by the press or members of congress) there is no way for the congress to assert its Constitutional right/duty to override the president's veto - because there is no veto. Thus at a rate of one time every three days, President Bush has denied the peoples' voice via its elected representatives. And done so in secret.

The reliance of the signing statement also subverts the constitution by claiming the right for the president to use HIS view of the constitution as the final arbiter of the law - rather than the judicial branch of the government. While there could be judicial oversight were there challenges, the intentionally secretive nature of this practice almost ensures that no-one knows so there will be no challenges brought to the courts.

Simply - Bush has determined that the Constitutional power he is granted, to VETO acts of congress - is unnecessary and instead claims an Extra-Constitutional means to subvert the will of the people (acts of congress which are - in theory - the representatives of the people). He also has determined that *HIS* (extremist and opportunistic) views of the Constitution need no judicial review.

Again - the rate of this extra-constitutional activity by Bush is one time every three days.

2) Done in the dark of night (figuratively). These signing statements are filed after he signs the bills into law. In secret with no notice to Congress in terms of his intentions per laws they passed and he signed.

Thus there is no follow-up; no way of knowing what he has "signed into law" but has directed the govt agencies to disregard. Perhaps this article and the constitutional scholars who are cited (and thus can give Congress a place to start - were they to even care - to look in terms of WHERE there have been signing statements, on what topics, in order to see whether or not the law - or bush's signing statement is being followed by the exec branch (federal agencies). However it appears that to date - within the government there is little record of what the administration is or is not doing per law - over the passed five + years.

Again - the rate of this extra-constitutional activity by Bush is one time every three days. Aren't folks in congress starting to wonder which provisions that they put into laws are simply being ignored/subverted? At the rate cited one would guess that there is a whole lot occurring in the executive branch that is intentionally hidden from the light of day - just due to these signing statements alone.

Additionally, according to the Globe story, often what Bush signs works to nullify (in terms of how he is directing the govt agencies to act) 'compromise deals' that were hammered out during the legislative process... that is items that were they not in the bill, the bill would not have garnered enough votes to pass. There is no way to describe this except as subverting the process.

3) We, the public, first became aware of this practice last December due to the anti-torture legislative fight, followed by a congressional win, followed by news of the "signing statement" - and echoes from Congress of "What the Heck is THAT?" In that case and its infamous follow-up regarding FISAless searches - the administration proclaimed that it was due to National Security reasons (and thus they didn't have to tell us anything more to keep us safe). And due to the continued post 9-11 fear, that seemed to work - for a couple of months. However - these 750 signing statements wander FAR afield from areas of national security.

...

The problem is, that aside from this one single article for public consumption, we the public, know very little about the content of the 750 signing statements. We know very little about what the Bush administration is doing in subversion of the constitution. And we are likely to know very little until we the people are AWARE of the pervasiveness of this practice and assert collective will to get answers. We need to know what has been the content of the 750 signing statements - and we need to know the content of each signing statement made here forward. We then need to know for each of these whether it has been followed (his interpretation) or has - as the admin folks claim - only expresses an opinion reserving the right in the future to ignore the will of Congress.

At a rate of more than one time every three days the President acts extra-constitutionally, dictating to the federal govt agencies that his rule is the only rule of law, that his interpretation of the constitution is all that matters - be it right or wrong, that in reality there is no NEED for any other branch of government, and that the will of the people through a directly elected branch of government is null and void. At a rate of more than one time, every three days the President acts as a dictator. At this rate, will there even be a recognizable constitution left at the end of his Presidency?

Finally, a request: if you have not read the article to which I refer - please do so and pass it on. Read it and tell me that this is NOT a Constitutional Crisis. Or read it and pass it on - so that more of the public becomes aware that the Constitutional Crisis is HERE and growing.

[sam sarrha]

1. so if asked why he is 'dictating' legislation..he'd say "I'm the Dictator"!

:banghead:

[salin]

3. Guess when he said "It would be easier as a Dictatorship"

he just decided to make it one.

[hootinholler]

13. Yep his swag had a certain

Truthiness to it when he said that.

-Hoot

[Why Syzygy]

64. A dictator cannot rule without submission

Who has given King George persmission to rape and pillage? The U.S. Congress. They are still sitting on their fat thumbs. This article has made this all too clear. George is a brat, to be sure, but who is watching out for us? Congress? Congress? Hellllooo???? Nope. No one home. Everyone who has gone along with his chicanery needs to have his office pulled right out from under him/her. They did NOTHING to stop this and still aren't. Senate meetings? Investigations? WHAT? WHAT have any of them actually DONE? Nothing. Therefore, our nation has been hijacked. There it is people.

[treestar]

67. I guess the Decider is also a Dictator

[sam sarrha]

2. Recpmended....

:kick:

[salin]

5. This raises so many questions

I want to know about all of these statements.

I want to know which have actually shaped policy in terms of how the fed agencies behave/act/spend $.

I want to know which are simply symbolic (the admin claim of reserving the right to 'dissent'.)

I want to know who in Congress, if anyone, have been made aware of the content of these signing statements. Especially on those cited in the article where the admin reneges on compromises made to get a bill passed in the first place. Did those who made the compromises KNOW that they were a JOKE - and do so complicitly to FOOL the american people regarding the legislation. And which legislation are we talking about?

[sam sarrha]

9. we wont find out till we take both houses and investigate under oath

[salin]

11. Actually I think there is enough public record

for really good investigative reporting - in the sense that the statements are filed publically - and one can then track actions of administrative agencies related to the content of the signing statements. It would take will, and a heck of a lot of money to devote to following up the research (that is a heck of a lot of document digging). Per national security signing statements - you are right - takes congressional inquiry. But I don't know that it takes both houses to do it.

The more that comes into the public domain - with enough coverage to seep into the public psyche - then the more momentum there will be for Congress to take action. There comes a point if/when the public reaction is so strong and unified, that it behooves even members of the GOP to act. But we are far, far from that point. However this particular story - esp if we learn more of the content and the widespreadness of the use of this extraconstitutional activity - I think the more rapidly the public pressure will mount.

The vastness of this, compared to watergate - esp when put shoulder to shoulder with the multiple policy failures and evidence of malfeasance - has the potential not just to take down or at least make impotent this administration - as happened with Nixon - but has a chance to seriously weaken (fatally weaken) the GOP as a political part - as did not happen with Watergate (hence the emergence of Reagan just six years later.)

[sam sarrha]

26. hunting is easier with a guide

[salin]

28. The academics cited in the article - are the guides.

It is clear from the article that a number of academics have been studying the phenom of signing statements. They know where to look - and have likely identified (collectively?) the number of 750+ cited in the article. There is the starting point.

[fed-up]

4. If you subtract *'s vacation days-rate is closer to ONE signing a DAY nt

[salin]

6. Part of why I used the term "rate" and you are correct... this is SOP

for Bushco. And, if the use increased after 911 - it could be even higher of a rate.

[sam sarrha]

7. yea, but he is ready 24/7 to take bribes and tribute for special privilage

[salin]

8. Makes you wonder if any of the signing statements

had to do with adding or subtracting earmarks on behalf of donors?

[sam sarrha]

25. he is too F*cking stupid to figure anything out himself

[Demeter]

60. Yeah, That Was Gonzalez's Baby

Gonzo is the one who gives Bush his Illegal Advice on how to subvert the Constitution. Another War Criminal, for the torture policy alone. A traitor, for the internal policies. And all- round scum.

I hope he has a GOOD lawyer, not somebody like himself (how much would it cost to defend Gonzalez? How much would it stick in an honest lawyer's craw?)

[dweller]

10. invitation to Congress

''Bush has essentially said that 'We're the executive branch and we're going to carry this law out as we please, and if Congress wants to impeach us, go ahead and try it.' "


rsvp,

dp

[Why Syzygy]

63. Impeach Congress

Shut them up. They have allowed this. THEY are the ones responsible. You can probably see them sneering over in the corner. They don't have to pay the price. They're not willing to kill the goose who lays the golden egg yet. They are getting rich. If they actually stand up and be held accountable, their pocketbook is going to suffer greatly. Impeach Congress. That should be our cry.

[Zomby Woof]

12. ZombyKicked

And ZombyRecommended.

'Nuff said. ;-)

[salin]

16. It is one of those stories that is both stunning, and not surprising all

at the same time.

[Zomby Woof]

17. As I say to Gina all the time..

"Nothing shocks me anymore!". :D

[salin]

19. true... but sometimes the magnitude and broad sweep of it

still leaves me quaking.

As much as I love NSMA, I sadly still get shocked from time to time....

[Robbie Michaels]

14. Kicked

:kick:

[Tuesday_Morning]

15. I strongly recommend...

....reading this diary on Dailykos on the same subject.

Bush ends rule of law; Americans continue to shop, enjoy TV by Kagro X
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/92922/6097


Today's Boston Globe has an article by Charlie Savage that I think you should read. And I'd like you to read it in conjunction with this diary by Jeffrey Feldman of "Frameshop" fame, which diary is itself based on this remarkable article from the Wired magazine blog.

Why? Well, I was going to title this diary "On the Necessity of Impeachment -- Part IV," but there are just too many Daily Kos readers who are still so turned off by the mere thought of impeachment that they won't read a diary with the I word in the title. But these two articles together are, I think, something every American should read and consider. Especially if you're in the "focus on the elections and win back Congress" camp.

<snip>

The diary and comments discuss at length our deepening constitutional crisis.

[salin]

18. Good diary item - and for me... a little funny

several years ago I came across an item from Jeffrey Feldman that I thought was so good, and so worthy of reading that I put it in my tag line. I tend to be lazy about changing taglines, btw - so here it still is - at the end of each of my posts... so to read a strong item, related to the one I wrote this morning - that also (but on point to the issue at hand, as opposed to mine) points to Feldman... caught my 'now that's interesting' attention (sorta by chance interesting, but interesting none the less.)

[ArmchairMeme]

20. K & R

Laws passed by a Republican House and Republican Senate!

[salin]

21. Makes you wonder, doesn't it - these are GOP passed bills...

and yet at an incredible rate, Bush still writes signing statements making qualifications, exceptions, exemptions to the bills. To the GOP bills/laws - and still Bush wants more POWER and wants things HIS way, not the GOP congressional way.

[troubleinwinter]

22. Ity is a vitally important article. A MUST read, print and send.

Thank you for your excellent post.

[salin]

24. The implications of these actions - and the frequency of acting beyond

the Constitution should be of utmost interest to all. But how can people scream for information if they have no idea abou it. Pass this on and on, and anyone who you give it to, who reads it and is concerned needs to do the same thing.

[lonestarnot]

23. we must through the bitch out on the lawn come November.

[salin]

29. this is the sort of action - that makes fence sitters shudder.

The folks in the middle who still believe that govt tries to work for the good of the people, but the different parties just have different paths for dealing with 'the good of the people.' Working around the Constitution, repeatedly, and without the cover of "national security" (it is clear from the article that many have nothing to do with national security - the single area that many in the public are willing to give the pres a free pass.) This is the type of issue that pulls off the Emperor's clothes because there is no explanation for it except brazen hubris and disregard for the whole system of govt. Does that end up smearing the enabling congress? On this issue - if the public is ever made aware of the scope of the issue (Media - are you listening??) - can end the presidency, but unlike actions in which Congress greased the wheels for Bush, may not blur over to the GOP in general.

[lonestarnot]

31. And just what in the hell are you talking about? Egh? What?

:rofl:

[salin]

32. okay, I have been known to skip ahead

from one topic to the next and not be clear of the transition. SOrry.

Throw them out in my mind requires getting a GOP congress in November... hence the speculation that this issue - while big enough to shape more opinion against BUshco - may not have the same strength to hit congress as other issues (as by definition in this context - bush is going around the GOP in congress rather than being enabled).

Then again if the public gets mad about this - there may be an even bigger desire for an opposition congress holding investigative powers and will to go after the admin.

Sorry about my jump in logic. Pretty confusing to read. :shrug: :D

[lonestarnot]

35. Ok now I understand.

Don't be sorry. I am not one to talk about confusing. :9

[Kurovski]

27. K&R

Good to see this topic getting lots of play on DU.

Set it in concrete. 750 times!

[politrix]

30. But, Democrats Allow It To Stand

THey should've boycotted him when he stole office.

Shit, teenagers walk out - but, our dems couldn't stage a walk out when he stole the presidency?


Dem and Repubs are on the same team. They just play 'good cop/bad cop" on us.

With FEW exceptions.

Kerry's a perfect example - Skull & Bones - he's SWORN his highest allegiance to THEM - before his family, country and god. But, he's a democrat, too?

Sure, he is. Dems ain't shit - they stay paid and are unaafeected by the damage done by Bush and they signed off on this war an the Patriot act and all the money Bush has spent.

Again, SOME dems actually are different than repubs and fight for us but, it's just a handful and the rest of the dems don't support them. Cynthia McKinney comes to mind.

[salin]

33. an abbreviated version of the story makes it into the Indianapolis

Star. http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060430/NEWS06/604300462/1012

Let's keep an eye out for who does cover the story and who ignores it. This story - which has HUGE implications - only has power if it is heard/read, discussed, and comes into the public psyche.

[WiseButAngrySara]

34. Major K&R and bookmarked for now; Will read thoroughly later! ....n/t

[Canuckistanian]

36. These "signing statements" need to be challenged in the SC!

Someone should bring a suit, picking just one of those "signing statements" which shows a totally indefensible legal interpretation of the bill that was signed.

And maybe, just maybe, it will trigger a crisis so big, that a constitutional amendment will be needed to clarify the legal limits of a signing statement.

[salin]

37. That is the insidious thing about they way they have done business

they have hidden it - so that Congress and the media don't see it (to force awareness that might lead to a challenge) - one has to have knowledge as to what they are doing - and when the exec branch follows the signing statement instead of the actual law passed by congress. That info is just getting out, that could lead to a challenge.

Meanwhile Bush has just gotten two friendly justices on the court, including one who wrote the initial policy/legal statements (for Reagan) for the rationale for signing statements - even though how bush has used them have been far more aggressive - and in direct conflict with the intent of the law than what was written by Alito nearly 20 years ago.

[Seabiscuit]

38. That's what he meant, under his breath, when he said : "I'm the Decider."

Yes, this is a monumental constitutional crisis.

Nixon was an alter boy compared to this cretin.

[salin]

40. Read the alternet interview with Sheer (in the OpEd forum)

towards the end of the interview he says with apparent surprise - that since he wrote the book in chunks and didn't write/read it as a whole he was surprised that Nixon came out better than he (Sheer) ahd thought he would. This was in part because the bush folks look so horrendous. He states directly, as the one reporteer who has spent extensive time interviewing each candidate and president beginning with Nixon - "that nothing prepared him for Bush" - as in there was no way of predicting how egregious these folks would be.

Yes, comparatively - Nixon appears to have been not too bad.

[Seabiscuit]

43. Yes, I agree completely with Sheer. Moreover,

we don't need any new legislation to clarify the meaning of these 750 "signing statements". All we need is the Constitution. With each signing statment Bush signed which effectively stated that he was not bound by the law he was signing, he committed an impeachable offense in that each signing was a violation of his constitutional oath of office to "faithfully execute the laws of the land". The laws that Congress passes are the laws of the land.

Nixon was impeached for covering up his involvement in a petty burglary. Nothing Nixon ever did could have prepared us for the long list of monumental depradations of George W. Bush, or for the criminal complicity of the Republican majorities in Congress which have enabled him to get away with it all, unscathed by anything more than opinion polls.

[salin]

50. Funny that a line Bush used in his early anti-Saddam rhetoric

was that there was no transparency in the Iraqi Govt.

No transparency. Yet here he is subverting the Constitution at a rate of one time per every three days per these signing statements. Transparency would be taking to the people the need to change the COnstitution. But that won't happen (neither their admitting that they are enacting and "judging" laws outside of their constitutional powers; nor would the public go for it). But that is how following the Constitution would look in terms of the exec branch working to get the authority to legislate and serve as 'constitutional arbiter' would look.

[Peter Frank]

39. K&R It's Our Constitution, & Our Leaders are Flushing it Down the Crapper

[salin]

41. Read or Ignore "Capitol Hill Blues" - the alleged statement

that Bush views the Constitution as an inconvenience - and something to vulgarly wipe his butt with (when told he can't do x or y due to the COnstitution) - this reality of the frequency of the use of the signing statement to allow him to act beyond the powers granted to him via the Constitution certainly make that allegation (per Bush's view of the Constitution) ring true.

[Canuckistanian]

42. K&R for transparent democracy!

This is the road to despotism.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. If this isn't grounds for impeachment, what is?

:grr:

[salin]

57. So far - very little media coverage - few media picking up the story.

Just pretend it isn't reality so no one calls for investigations let alone impeachment?

Then again when the DSMs first broke in the British press there was little coverage here, but within a couple of months the idea that bushco had intentionally manipulated intelligence to persuade the public to supporot his war became generally believed among the public. Hopefully that will be true of this as well - in which case while it may be a little ways off - I would guess that Impeachment would become inevitable. Or one would hope.

[havocmom]

45. K & R

Make a copy and send it, with a personal note to anyone who wants to represent your district in Congress. Tell them you only vote for people who will do their job of proper oversight.

LTTE often on this.

Email list- get it out there.

Either we are a nation of laws by Congress or we are a dictatorship. There is no room in between for an executive who thinks he can write laws.

[salin]

47. It will be hard to pretend it is no big deal

if the media were to run with the story, and if the press corp became relentless on the question) given the frequency. 750 times - mind boggling.

[havocmom]

71. 750 times sorta makes the case they don't intend to obey ANY laws

they think hampers their agenda.

And what is a government that disregards the rule of law?

[low_phreaq]

46. He has refused his Assent to Laws

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
--The Declaration of Independence

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[salin]

51. "a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism..."

almost daily it looks like they are working to create a despotic system.

[Random_Australian]

48. Kicked & Recommended. Take care, my American friends, the chimperor

disturbs me....




Vote rigging? Electoral fraud? What will he do to stop himself from losing power?

Dark days, dark times.

[salin]

52. Silly efforts - bribe voters ($100 for gas relief), start a new war

(being greeted with great skepticism). Thing is they have a very small trick bag where it comes to the public opinion and they have used the trick bag all up. Vote rigging only will work in close races - and while ruling Imperially - the Wh strategists seem intent on screwing their GOP counterparts in Congress regarding providing congressional elections with safe enough margins to claim wins.

So far, this story is barely being picked up in the US press. Hard to believe - evidence that in the dark of night this admin is working to subvert the COnstitution and so far - a yawn from the media and thus the public remains pretty much unawares.

[Justice Is Comin]

49. That sonofabitch should be

dragged out by his heels and put in a stockade in front of the Washington Monument. Let people walk by and show him the constitution.

God, does this make me mad. The Democrats should rule 21 that congress every single damn day and lock it down until the Republicans agreee to turn him inside out with investigations and subpoenas.

Otherwise GO HOME!!!!! Your're not needed anyway. :grr:


:grr: :grr: :grr:
:grr: :grr:

[salin]

54. You would think that GOP congressional folks would be angry

especially those who have been a part of the Institution for a long time, who believe in the constitutional seperation of powers. But so far, not really.

I like your idea - doubt it would happen - but it would be very interesting - and would certainly wake the public up to the Constitutional Crisis created by the Administration's extra-constitutional activities.

[Demeter]

61. There Aren't Any Left

The Real GOPpers resigned or died in the last 30 years and little Reaganauts and Gringrichers and Bushbots took over.

[Why Syzygy]

65. This is my new battle cry.

Impeach Congress. They are doing NOTHING! They own a branch of the government by, for and of and they have allowed us to be raped and duped and raped again. And no wonder Bushie laughs . hehe.. Congress is being raped too, but they seem to enjoy it. Is our form of government going to hold up? Are the elected leaders going to do anything to stop this clown? If not, then they need to proceed to the stockades as well.

[rodeodance]

53. yes, yes yes

[Hubert Flottz]

55. I sent the link and a short message to Senator Byrd...

I think he will bring it up and kick it around the block.

[salin]

56. Absolutely a great place to go!

One of the last great Senatorial defenders of the Constitution. Would love to see him weave this into his campaign (paving the way for others to do so.)

[Blue-Jay]

58. Well done, salin!

:thumbsup:

[paparush]

59. Can we break stuff now?

Smash some windows...flip some cars over...set some dumpsters on fire? Huh..can we now?

[Why Syzygy]

62. Congress is holding the purse strings?

Do they know that they just got all of us ripped off royal? Maybe we should be preaching to impeche Congress. They have gone direlict of duties. THEY have not protected our Constitution. THEY have allowed a little lord prissypants take our money. THEY are the bankers? Hold them responsible. Stop this wailing about Bush. Impeach Congress. They have violated our trust and turned our holdings over to a madman. Impeach Congress.

[treestar]

66. The weird part is that the founders would have thought Congress

would oppose this to assert its own powers. IOW, why is Congress sitting back for this? The idea of the three branches was that if one overreached, the others would react against that, wanting to keep their own.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[prole_for_peace]

69. well i just emailed a link to Congressman Poe's office

but somehow i think he won't read it.

next i am sending it to every television and newspaper in my area.

i am home from work sick today and am even sicker after reading this.

[NeoLib 42]

70. Lincoln said it best....

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."

He also said:

"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

He even went a few steps further and said:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."

Finally. A Republican I can agree with. If BushCo. continues to roll down this destructive path, they will destroy all that we hold near and dear. The bigger problem is that BushCo. is only a symptom of a much larger disease. I don't believe that this is a one sided issue. Both parties have a lot of explaining to do. This path to destruction has been being paved since World War 1, or as it should be called, the First Iraqi Invasion.

Don't get me wrong. I love being a Democrat but our leadership has been lacking in the backbone department since the evil NeoCons stole President Gore's rightful seat in the Oval Office. I started to gain a glimmer of hope when I saw Paul Hackett go for the Senate seat in Ohio. I really like that guy. But the party had other plans. I just hope they know what they're doing.

As I'm writing this I have to laugh because I'm wearing one of my favorite political shirts. It has an image of the Constitution on the front and the caption above it reads "The Real Patriot Act".

Anyway, my rant went a little off the subject but I'm sure you get the point. Thank you to the DU community for being true patriots. I'm pretty new here and this is my second post. I hope to be more active.

Cheers!

NeoLib 42 (a.k.a. Sean)

[Imagevision]

72. DEms wimping out allowing Bush to play dictator

[The Wizard]

73. In essence

Bush has given himself the line item veto that the Supreme Court already ruled unconstitutional when Clinton was in office. This is America. We don't do monarchs and dictators. Has the Mussolini moment arrived yet?