I'm all for party loyalty. But if I have to choose between my party & my Constitution ...

[HamdenRice]

I'll choose the Constitution. Every time.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that the Democratic Party is the best hope for restoring the Constitution. I also believe that key figures within the party -- Dennis Kucinich, Patrick Leahy, Al Gore, John Conyers, and several others know that restoration of the Constitution is the most important task the party faces in the medium term (even if their efforts may be frustrated by party leadership). I also believe that all our presidential candidates (except Hillary) understand the supreme importance of ending the war and restoring constitutional government. I feel that our candidates (again, except Hillary) represent an embarassment of riches in terms of political talent.

But if the Congressional Democratic leadership appears dead set against the project of constitutional restoration -- if they think impeachment is "off the table" -- then they righteously deserve to be criticized, yes even trashed. If they want to take the party and country down the road of unaccountable, unconstitutional government and perpetual war, then they are in effect asking us to choose between the party and the Constitution.

And that choice is a no-brainer.

[LWolf]

1. You're right. In that contest, the Constitution wins.

A no-brainer.

[mod mom]

4. Hands down.

[roguevalley]

28. bingo.

[SharonAnn]

105. Rep. Barbara Jordan, "My faith in the Consitution is whole :..."

"My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution."

Jordan's Statement on the Articles of Impeachment During the Nixon Impeachment Hearings in Text and Audio from AmericanRhetoric.com

[LWolf]

107. It looks like some members of Congress

need to hear from Barbara Jordan. I think I'll add this quote to the letters that I am sending.

Perhaps it's time to change my sigline here at DU, as well.

:hi:

[brentspeak]

2. What is the "choice" that you're talking about? Can you be more specific?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NotGivingUp]

3. I'm loyal to issues...not a party. n/t

[HereSince1628]

5. Do you have any principles that you are loyal to that guide your loyalty to issues?

One of the odd views of "The Left" in the US is that it is built around hot button issues because liberals don't have shared guiding principles. I'm wondering if you feel that for you there are anything like guiding principles that position your selection of issues to which you are loyal?

[Toots]

20. Respect.....respect for people, for the planet and for our laws.

Something the GOP is without...

[HereSince1628]

26. Yes, that's a good one.

[natrat]

68. it's gotten so retarded-clean water,no wars for profit,just tax laws

what the fuck? if anything it should be crystal clear now what is right and wrong policy

[MadHound]

6. Excellent post that cuts to the heart of the matter

There are precious few politicians who support the Constitution, which is how our two party/same corporate master system of government wants it. Thanks:hi:

[liberal N proud]

7. Agreed, But how do we stop those who are bound and determined...

How do we stop those who even in our own party are determined to destroy the Constitution.

They have such a tight reign on who even gets to become a candidate, the mafia would be proud of the machine these thugs run. We are forced at some point to vote for the candidate they put in front of or risk giving the election to the fascist republicons.
It appears that no matter how much we support "our candidate" that the party, the media and everyone else is determined to give us Hillary. Then we are forced to vote Hillary or get stuck with what ever criminal the neocons put in the race on the other side.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Parties only get it when they get punished at the polls

nothing else works

And sadly that puts us up a creek without a paddle

There is another option, but most folks are not ready for that one

[liberal N proud]

50. Are you willing to go through another 4 - 8 years of what we have had

I'm not!

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. I just stated the truth of it

parties only get it when they get punished

Then again the pugs haven't... but right now I have to choose between the Constition (which is the basis of everything else) and party loyalty and lesser of two evilism

We are seeing a realignment actually

[Greyhound]

84. You got it. It is all that is left.

Time to organize.

[Unveiled19]

80. The anology is accurate

How do you like your neocom? Don't vote it then whine later.

[whistle]

8. Dennis Kucinich carries a copy of the U.S. Constitution in his pocket

...maybe we all should have one and maybe that document should be part of the prinmary school education starting in first grade:

Suggested readers for grades 1 to 4:

http://www.onlib.org/website/pathfinders/constitution_path.htm


Here is an outline for grades 4 through 7:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constkids4.html


...and here is a link for grades 8 to 12:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constkids.html

At the end of this ALL students would be registered to vote and issued their permenant Voter Registration Photo ID and it would be a Federal crime for anyone to deny any holder of that ID the right to vote! Right now, we have no Constitutional gaurantee which gives every citizen in this country the right to vote.

<snip>
Protect the Right to Vote in the U.S. Constitution. Support H.J. Res 28.

The right to vote and cast a secret ballot should be the foundation of democracy. Yet, the 2004 election demonstrated that basic fundamentals in our electoral system remain dangerously flawed. Both Democrats and Republicans believe that lost or miscounted ballots, electoral fraud, voter intimidation and partisan politics have influenced election outcomes. While the Help American Vote Act has helped streamline policy and reduce electoral mistakes, states continue to use a patchwork system that treats its citizens unfairly. As stated by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000), "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote." Americans deserve an affirmative right to vote protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Because there is no right to vote clearly stated in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures in areas such as ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.

In November 2004:

At least 1.2 million Americans voted incorrectly because of poor ballot design.
Due to inconsistent and unequal provisional ballot counting policies, 500,000 votes or 30% of all provisional ballots cast were never counted. In Delaware only 6% were counted while 97% of those cast in Alaska were counted.
Americans did not receive absentee ballots in time to return them on Election Day. In Broward County, Florida 58,000 absentee ballots were not delivered on time.
Hundreds of thousands had difficulties registering to vote. Partisan voter registration organizations "lost" voter registration forms, leaving an untold number of eligible voters unregistered.
Minorities and students experienced higher levels of voter intimidation and harassment than other groups.
Over 1,100 voting machines malfunctioned. In North Carolina a voting machine lost 4500 votes, which should have required a revote in one state election; however, partisan politics prevented citizens from having an opportunity to make their voices heard.
In Washington, the governor's race required three recounts and was decided by less than 200 votes. Questions remain regarding votes that were lost and then discovered. Provisional ballots may have been counted as normal ballots and potentially ineligible voters cast ballots.
More than nine million American citizens are denied the same right to vote that they would enjoy if living in another part of the country. Several states deny voting rights for life to anyone once convicted of a felony. Children of American families living abroad often cannot vote when they reach voting age. American citizens living in Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands can be drafted into the military but are unable to vote for their Commander in Chief. Congress governs the District of Columbia more directly than any other state, yet the more than a half million citizens living in the District have no voting representation in Congress.


The addition of a Right to Vote Amendment to the U.S Constitution would:

Guarantee the right of every citizen 18 and over to vote
Empower Congress to set national minimum electoral standards for all states to follow
Provide protection against attempts to disenfranchise individual voters
Ensure that every vote cast is counted correctly

Protect against voter fraud


Many reforms are needed to solve the electoral problems we continue to experience every election cycle. The first is providing a solid foundation upon which these reforms can be made. This solid foundation is an amendment that clearly protects an affirmative right to vote for every U.S. citizen.

Support H.J. Res. 28, the proposed amendment to add a right to vote.

<link> http://www.fairvote.org/?page=205

[Cha]

43. I was talking about this

on Saturday at work(that I wanted a pocket Constitution)with my friend who just retired as a teacher and she said she's going to bring me one. Yay!

She told me Dennis carried one..I just knew that Robert Byrd did that.

It could be a spreader! A wide spread way to educate those indoctrinated with m$$$m propoganda.

[Le Taz Hot]

98. Ooo! Zidzi!

THAT is a great idea. And each one of us send a pocket Constitution to our wayward Democrats and demand that they uphold what they swore to uphold.

Zidzi, you need to post this one separately.

[Cha]

119. That's right, Le Taz, it would

be very Interesting if the People, who wanted to.. started carrying Pocket Constitutions in a highly visiable place on their person. Think of the conversation starters and the knowledge we could glean from reading parts of it together and saying.., "Whoa!".."They're Shredding It!"

And, you say, "Mailing them to our very wayward Dems"..that's good. Just in case they haven't read it lately..been too busy, keepin' Impeachment Off The Table.

Sorry, this took so long to respond..I've been workin' and an unexpected long call to my sister in California! B-)

Note to self..must start a thread with Pocket Constitution as the Theme~

[Dr.Phool]

101. It's great for use when debating "constitutional scholars", who've never read it.

I got to this point one day, when arguing with my right-wing father, about some Supreme Court decisions. I asked him if he had ever read the constitution? Being the product of the 1940's rural West Virginia education system, I doubted it. He said "NO". Then I asked him, how the fuck did he know what was in it, if he's never read it.

His entire understanding of the constitution came from scholars such as Rush Limpballs and Jerry Falwell.

[Cha]

120. Ironic.. since it's Senator Robert

Bryd who carries a pocket Constitution, too. But, I guess limpballs, and ol' falwell don't and didn't go in much for talkin' up Byrd!

I can't wait to start packin' one around!

[FREEWILL56]

87. I agree with you on your points on the right to vote.

Maybe it deserves its own thread, but I'm sure it has been addressed many times over through the recent years due to the ways the republicans have gained their power positions in our government. I will check out the link you gave.

[Lerkfish]

9. excellent post.

recc'd

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. I completely agree

:applause:

[bonito]

12. K&R!

[OzarkDem]

13. Restoration of the Constitution and democracy is a good campaign issue

one would think Dem leaders would realize its a no-lose, non-controversial issue.

What's better than to co-opt the gung ho patriotism issue and fear of terrorism of the GOP and warp it into patriotic protection of the Constitution and fear of loss of democracy?

[rhett o rick]

14. Sorry but there are only a handful that are pushing for reestablishment of

democracy and our Constitution and that doesn't include any presidential candidates. Even in DU here those that favor such are labled "far left".

[Lerkfish]

15. I think Kucinich is.

for the record. Or at least is doing so more than any other candidate I'm aware of.

but you're right on the second part: democrats are being marginalized as "far left" here and elsewhere.

[rhett o rick]

17. My greatest apologies yes DK is and so in fact is Ron Paul, not that I support him. nm

[cuke]

31. All of the dem candidates have spoken about this

I heard some of them speak about it last night.

[rhett o rick]

53. Not very impressively. Did any of the front runners say they would reestablish habeas corpus

repeal the Patriot Act, MCA, etc. Or did they simple push some worn out rhetoric about working to ____.

[cuke]

65. More moving the goal posts

First, it was "only a handful" talking about this. Now it's "only a handful have discussed my laundry list in detail"

And the answer is "Yes", but I'm sure you'll now try another tack

[rhett o rick]

108. You are absolutely right. I did a terrible job of stating my position and I thank you for taking me

to task for it. My first post was reactionary and not completely accurate. My position is that the Democratic leadership and front running candidates aren't putting enough emphasis(my opinion) on restoring our democracy and rule of law.

You are absolutely right when you say they are "talking" about it. They "talk" about a lot of things, but is it a priority.

Do you think they are committed to repealing the Patriot Act, MCA, NAFTA, CAFTA, stopping the FISA violations, stopping torture, and reestablishing habeas corpus? If you do, I dearly hope you're right, but I am not so confident.

And thanks again for your observant comments.

[cuke]

114. Thank you

We're all human and we all sometimes let ourselves get out there a little too far. It reflects well on you that you can recognize that and reel yourself in. It shows your commitment to honesty and civility is more important than your ego. Very refreshing for DU

As far as you list goes, I'd say pretty much yes. I think they will only repeal the most egresious parts of the PATRIOT Act because some of it is worthy. All the candidates but DK want to modify NAFTA and not end it. I don't know about all the candidates, but most oppose CAFTA including Clinton.

[rhett o rick]

115. And thank you for the friendly discussion. nm

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. On the dem side

and actions speak louder than words

It is DK and Chirs Dodd, and Ron Paul has also introduced legislation restoring the Constitution. It should not be a partisan issue and in reality it is not. It is the leadership versus the few on both sides who are willing to fight for it

And when fighting for the Constitution becomes out of fashion... you have to ask, WTF?

[rhett o rick]

52. Yes I agree. I mistakenly only was refering to the front runners. nm

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Among the front runners the one who has gotten the closest

is Edwards... but he does not have the power to do anything right now beyond making pronouncements... as he is not in any elected office.

And no problem

[cuke]

66. Obama has spoken about it. Clinton has spoken about it

Dodd has spoken about it. Biden has spoken about it. Richardson has spoken about it. Did I miss anyone?

Some of them spoke about it just last night.

[warren pease]

32. How is that possible?

How did restoration of Constitutional rights -- such as amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, along with habeas corpus, just for starters -- become a "far left" issue?

I haven't really noticed that sentiment expressed here in so many words, but I suppose the beatings people take for supporting Kucinich or advocating impeachment or criticizing Feinstein and Shurmer for that wretched vote or expressing support for anything that Ms. Nancy or Happy Harry have relegated to the legislative netherworld could indicate an implicit apathy about Constitutional rights.

Personally, the fact that my communications are under constant surveillance and that I can now be arrested, my assets seized, held for up to three years without charges or legal counsel, "rendered" to some medieval dungeon in the US gulag and tortured -- all because I detest BushCo and everything it stands for -- is somewhat disturbing. Thought crime, known as dissent in civilized countries, is a basic right. Being arrested for harboring anti-government ideas is as unamerican as the divine right of kings -- although I suppose we're pretty much there as well.

These are issues that are so vitally important to the continued viability of the republic that I really don't see how anyone could be apathetic about them. But... if it's important to preserve the fiction that BushCo is a collection of reasonable, honorable civil servants with whom you can reason and bargain, I suppose ignoring what they've done to the Constitution is necessary.

On the other hand, congressional leadership could publicly acknowledge what about 3/4 of the people already know: that BushCo is infested with bloody-minded madmen intent on using any means at their disposal -- including nuclear weapons -- to continue their outrageously blatant and unconstitutional resource grabs and defeat the godless Moor in one last grand crusade. Such an acknowledgment would make it mandatory that impeachment and removal from office proceed immediately, which would get Ms. Nancy's panties in a wad and make Steny Hoyer quiver in fear that the DLC apple cart was about to be upset.

It shoots the hell out of that tired nonsense about losing the time and focus they need to advance their legislative agenda -- all of which will die on Bush's desk anyway unless the veto pen is removed from his and Cheney's hands. It also blows to hell the weak argument that impeachment would be a "distraction" and inflict "pain" on the American people.

Personally, I'd love to be distracted by the sight of Cheney in handcuffs or Bush in an orange jump suit. And rather than pain, my overarching emotions would be pure, unbridled joy, followed by a huge sense of relief, then probably followed by a return of anger and the visceral need to see them brought up on federal charges of high treason, tried, convicted and imprisoned for life in some hellhole like Leavenworth or Parchman. Or maybe Abu Ghraib. No Club Fed for these bastards.

Anyway, this is already way too long for a simple question. But any and all attempts at an answer would be most appreciated.


wp

[HamdenRice]

35. I hope you'll post this as an OP -- so well stated! nt

[rhett o rick]

51. I agree completely. You do such a good job of stating it. My post was purely reactionary. nm

[sce56]

54. It is just a joke to the BFEE. But Darth Cheney has Evolved

See

[Usrename]

71. I hadn't seen that cartoon. Thanx for the link.

"Honey? I'm stuck here till the cock crows."

"Excuse me."

lol

[H2O Man]

16. Well said.

I think that the democratic party is the Constitutional party. But there are some anti-Constitutionalist interests that are tumors on the party in the sense that John Dean once spoke of a "cancer on the presidency." I will always be loyal to the Constitution, and opposed to tumors.

Nominated.

[HamdenRice]

21. There is a political realignment taking place

along those lines. In addition to the traditional "Democrat" and "Republican", "conservative" and "progressive" contrasts, there are now constitutional restorationists and non-restorationists (or at least those who don't think restoration is urgent). The result is the very strange types of admiration across the old lines. That's why some DUers are cheering Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul. It's not that Buchanan and Pual have admirable policy positions on any policy issues we care about; it's that they are restorationists, while someone like Pelosi has many admirable policy positions but is apparently not a restorationist.

[lateo]

18. Also giving the Telcos immunity.

This is another huge letdown by the Democratic leadership. We shouldn't even be having this discussion.

[cali]

19. I can agree with almost all of that.

I've never put party over core tenets of constitutional law. Where I disagree, is that those who don't want to impeach are de facto operating from base reasons. I certainly don't think Bernie, who isn't even a dem, is operating that way. And that goes for others. I'm for impeachment, but I try and understand that not everyone who disagrees with me on it is automatically a traitor to the Constitution.

[ecstatic]

22. Does that also equal empowering Repubs?

In a wasted, Nader-vote type gesture?

[Lerkfish]

23. that's also what the DLC supporters always say

but it never addresses the point.

its a way of ritual shaming of viewpoints that call attention to how our current represetatives are not representing us, nor the constitution.
Shame on you for asking our representatives to represent our interests and uphold the constitution as they swore to do when they took offfice!

Shame on you, democrat! for expecting democrats to stand up to fascism and tyranny. Shame on you! you must be defeatists, you must be doing the work of the republicans for asking democrats to stand up to republicans!

shame on you, democrats! for shame! How dare you promote the idealism of democracy! that makes you enemies of democracy!

war is peace
ignorance is strength
freedom is slavery

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Loud cheering on the side

BRAVO

[JAbuchan08]

25. All this talk of wasted effort

is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What's your alternative? Oh, yeah do nothing but talk.

On edit:

I'd kind of like to see the Dems with a super-majority, just so I could see how they would puss out with all the odds in their favor.

[Poll_Blind]

24. I agree. n/t

PB

[libnnc]

27. That's my stand as well.

It IS a no brainer.

And anyone who tries to spin or dance around that fact is full of crap.

[guruoo]

29. I do not believe that any of our Presidential candidates want to do this

"If they want to take the party and country down the road of unaccountable,
unconstitutional government and perpetual war, then they are in effect asking
us to choose between the party and the Constitution."

It's going to take years to reverse the damage that
bushco and the neocons have inflicted upon our country, and our Constitution.
Have patience.
Think outcome.

[earth mom]

30. Bravo!

:applause:

[cuke]

33. How do we restore the Constitution without a party?

And please note, I didn't specify that it be the democratic party. I just don't see how we can have any hope of restoration without an organization. Nor am I saying that strong criticism of the party is wrong.

I guess I just don't see how people seperate things from each other, while I see things as more interconnected.

[Usrename]

73. How does a party that ignores criminal conduct restore any laws?

This shouldn't be, and most likely isn't, a partisan issue. Yeah, I said that. For the most part, Americans of all stripes will agree that it's just plain wrong to imprison innocent people without a trial, or for that matter, to torture innocent people. Most everybody agrees about this fundamentally. (Many people may not accept certain facts, like the fact that we are torturing people, which is a whole nuther can o' worms, and perhaps a completely different discussion.)

I still believe that a majority of Americans don't think that torture is wrong. Not when it's used on the folks who deserve it. Do you see how this entire issue has been turned upside down? A lot of the democratic rank and file, not just the Bush-bots, have bought into this twisted logic. It's exactly the same as arguing that we shouldn't have laws that prohibit breaking-and-entering because this would only prevent people from rescuing babies from burning buildings. It's all nonsense.

And still, I think, a real majority of Americans have bought into this concept about torture. I don't know of any main-stream church or other moral authority that teaches any alternative to this official agenda on torture. An ethics course in law school, perhaps, but nothing that I would call main-stream. And at least a few of our own powerful party leaders are definitely confused by this issue of torture.

So what is the party's role about this? What should it be? Should a position on torture and renditions be part of a party platform? If it isn't, then what good is having the party in the first place? Certainly you can see that, since both parties are complicit, neither one is any guarantee as a bulwark against fascism.

I could continue along this line and make a very similar argument about corporate crime and corruption and bribery. The leading presidential candidate for our own party practically brags about accepting corporate bribes, because all that corporate money somehow represents the will of the people. I am not kidding. And again no main-stream church or other moral authority is teaching any alternative to this nonsense.

[cuke]

95. Since you obviously didn't read my post

I will return the favor

[Usrename]

116. I did read your post, and I agree with it.

We have a conundrum that hasn't been answered yet.

[Sparkly]

34. "except Hillary" -- this has gotten ridiculous.

The top three Democratic candidates are not that different from each other - not in terms of policy proposals, and not in what they'd be able to do and not do with Congress.

Kucinich stands out. Gravel stands out. The others have much more in common than they have differences. Clinton does not stand out in that group.

[Mrspeeker]

36. I'll chose a rewrite

Its far over due!

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. I've considered commisioning a T-Shirt

I'm a single Issue Voter

My Issue is the restoration of the US Constitution

[kelligesq]

39. Bravo to the OP . n/t

.

[Honeycombe8]

42. Well, the Dem. Party leaders are, for the most part, responding to their constituents.

And the Dem. voters, for the most part, are saying that, as of now, they are most likely to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Some posters speak as if a few leaders are off on their own doing things that the majority of their constituents don't want them to do. Think about it. If they were to do that, they would not get re-elected, and they would not have been re-elected previously.

They are responding to the masses. Some disagree with the masses, and they may be right, at least in their thinking. But this being a democracy, it is the viewpoint of the masses that matter most.

I have read that most people do not want impeachment. Most people DO think our liberties are being taken away. Most people want us to leave Iraq as soon as possible, in an orderly and responsible way (without leaving the Iraqi people to suffer genocide and such). These are the things that I have heard, at one time or another, from ALL of our Dem. candidates. Except Hillary - you are right about that. I have not heard her views on the losses of our liberties. Could be I've missed her statements on that.

It's a false choice to say that it's either the Constitution or Hillary, though. I'm not a Hillary supporter at all, but she is not opposed to upholding the Constitution, and it's really not fair to cast her in that light.

[omega minimo]

44. No. They're not.

[Lerkfish]

45. I would strongly disagree with most of your post. we are NOT being represented

[Sparkly]

63. Is that the "royal 'we?'"

[Lerkfish]

70. its the people what voted them in on an anti-war wave

I include myself one of those

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. THey are?

polls now say a MAJORITY of Americans will support impeachment.

So they are...

Ok.

[cuke]

67. I wouldn't be surprised if your argument is unchanged from when a majority opposed it

[jgraz]

56. Pelosi's district voted 60% in favor of impeachment. How is she responding to their wishes?

[Greyhound]

86. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to establish that claim, or is this just another

"gut feeling" masquerading as fact? All the polls I've seen indicate just the opposite.

[lame54]

47. I'm with you - watch this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qGwvSwOP7Ow

[stranger81]

48. hallelujah . . . . couldn't have said it better. [n/t]

[MissDeeds]

49. The Constitution gets my vote

Every time.

[jgraz]

55. K&R -- excellent post

:toast:

[kelligesq]

58. NYT Quote "Americans are a people in clinical depression,they know their Consititution has been

vandalized and they dont see a return to it any time soon" Unquote

That about says it all.

[HamdenRice]

72. Can you give me a link for this? I would really appreciate it! nt

[Usrename]

77. Sound like Frank Rich -

"We are a people in clinical depression. Americans know that the ideals that once set our nation apart from the world have been vandalized,..."

Nov 11 column: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/11rich.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[kelligesq]

81. Yes, so there are readers of the NYT here :D - watching C Span

and the bookfare and the questions everyday people are asking the authors, notice the authors dont talk down to the people as the "anchors" on CNN do - purty durn intelligent and well informed
populace ! makes you proud.

[Usrename]

85. There are some real smart folks here.

The OP definitely belongs in that category. Good company to be in.

[kelligesq]

76. Op-Ed piece Nov 11 07, url below

very last paragraph

http://lastgoodname.blogspot.com/2007/11/clinical-depression-of-people.html

[Tab]

59. Nobody fucking listens to me

Any more than they seem to listen to anyone else, but in my eyes, if impeachment isn't for shit like this, then what is it for?

Who authorized Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer to take impeachment "off the table" ?? Not my table - it'd be front and center. This is EXACTLY what it's for, and it's EXACTLY what everyone had in mind in the '06 elections. The hell with SCHIP, interstates, healthcare, and all the other stuff, which ARE important, but the core threat to our constitution and government is paramount, and needs to be dealt with before ANYTHING else. They either better have one heckuvan alternate plan in their back pocket, or I suspect they will never see the light of office again.

[Seabiscuit]

89. It's our job to kick every one of those Vichy Dems out of office asap.

And replace them with progressives.

[fascisthunter]

60. Work Hard to Change the Party, from "the Ground-Up"

I will not leave the Democratic party.... I will change it for the better. No more DLC.

[personman]

61. I try to be loyal to humanity

Often this requires disregard for, or even opposition to, elite parties and documents.

The Constitution for example, is currently protecting the right of less than 10% of the population to control more than half the wealth and land of the nation (and therefore, power), in the form of property rights.

Is that really much different from denying those same things to the rest of us? Isn't it after all the people, the labor, that produces this wealth?

Just a thought.

-personman

[kelligesq]

64. What portions of the Constitution do that ? You said

"The Constitution for example, is currently protecting the right of less than 10% of the population to control more than half the wealth and land of the nation (and therefore, power), in the form of property rights."

[personman]

69. The 14th Amendment, in the form of property rights.

James Madison, founding father and "Father of the Constitution", seems to have known that wealth and property would concentrate in the hands of the few, to the detriment of the many. He realized the people would push for a more equitable distribution of wealth.

"The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability." - James Madison

14th Amendment (excerpt):

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

-personman

[kelligesq]

75. You oppose the 14th Amendment giving the right for any citizen to own property?

and forbids the government to take it away?
(of course then we didn't have voracious banks, credit card companies, and mortgage brokers or the
Federal Reserve )

[Usrename]

78. It's the parenthetical part of your post that has the most importance.

The userers and the money-changers, cast them all out...

[personman]

106. 14th and 5th, sorry.

From wikipedia:

The fifth and the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution, for example, provides explicitly for the protection of private property:

The Fifth Amendment states:

Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It's precisely because I don't think government should deny us access to property that I take issue with private property.

To give a right to a property exclusively to one person is to deny it to all others.

My right to free speech doesn't impede on your right to free speech. However, if I own a piece of property, it's denied to everyone else in the world.

So we have this situation where the vast majority of people have no right to most of the land of their country.

Land of the free... but seriously...get off my property or I'll shoot you... :P

Then there is the whole hierarchical authority component to it. If private property is protected by law, the more property you own, the more protection you have. Someone with no property, in this specific example, would literally have no protection under the law. So to the rich man with property to protect, the property law is great. To the poor man with nothing, the property law is just another factor stacked against you, having only a negative effect on your life if any.

It makes the "equal protection under the law" part especially ironic. Laws do not protect us equally. The more you have the more protected you are, the more you need, the more oppressed you are by them.

"Property is theft." "Property is freedom." - Pierre Proudhon

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Perhaps I've missed this

but what parts of the Constitution protect the elites? I mean from readying the document

[L0oniX]

62. Amen

:yourock:

[helderheid]

74. Excellent post. I think that would be a great bumper sticker: Pro Constitution.

[Bolo Boffin]

93. I know a LOT of right-wingers you could sell that one too, as well. n/t

[helderheid]

118. so do I!

[D23MIURG23]

79. Thank you

[Bolo Boffin]

82. Luckily, that choice isn't in question here.

Because "impeachment is off the table," the Constitution has been trashed?

Overhype a situation much?

[kelligesq]

83. Excellent OP Post. It's obvious the DLC

has chosen their party over the Constitution.

[Mark D.]

88. Good Point ... BUT

I was worried you were gonna say you'd vote for the corporate liberal Ron Paul.
The only one who, yes, would be worse than Hillary, Guliani, any of the others.
Oh, he'd end the war, cancel the WTO/Nafta as Kucinich would but it's where
the similarities end. Sorry for being redundant about this, but I've said it here
before. Many are flocking to him as if Dennis isn't running. I mean the populist,
protectionist independents & those right of center who find Dennis too left &
are just plain stupid or selfish to think eliminating tax on the wealthy, cutting
protections for workers and the environment and having the elderly and sick
fend for themselves are all 'acceptable' aspects of ridiculous Libertarianism.

[upi402]

90. Yep me too

If neither party will preserve our republic, then we need to start healing the disease by first acknowledging it exists in both.

[Norrin Radd]

94. k+r

[tofubo]

96. that's why i'm running against bean

i will never vote for a republican for national office (i only did so once, the last time rostenkowski ran, he didn't deserve reelection, and shortly thereafter went to jail)

we decried the republicans for putting party over country, we as democrats, cannot do the same, and ms bean, too many times, on too many important issues, voted with the republicans, bush dogs need to go, and to do so, they need to be contested in the primaries

http://tofubo.blogspot.com/2006/10/republic-is-dead-long-live-republic.html (last years post) will have an updated one (and a "real" site) soon

[Le Taz Hot]

97. Welcome to the fold.

":hi:

"CONSTITUTION BEFORE PARTY!

[regnaD kciN]

99. Is this another one of those threads...

...we need to alert on in order to drive the "traitors" from our midst? :sarcasm:

[Perry Logan]

100. The Democrats are our only shot. If we don't support them, both country & Constitution are screwed.

[Oldenuff]

102. You might want to remember this as well...

All the current "frontrunners" voted for the Patriot Act.There are only three candidates who had the backbone to "just say no" to this terrible waste of legislation...Restoring the Constitution surely should be Numero Uno Objectivo,but how the heck can we trust one of these "frontrunners" who lacked the backbone to oppose the PA then,to now be worthy of protecting our Constition?

How can we trust anyone who would vote for such a travesty?I can't...and I won't.

It's one thing to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do,it's another to do the right thing for political expediency.

[burythehatchet]

103. Indeed

[Tesla]

104. send this to the Congress!

"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."

[CT_Progressive]

109. I'll vote for the most liberal party that I feel can win.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2181672

[The Stranger]

110. The Constitution TRANSCENDS Politics and Political Parties.

It is the FIRST AND FOREMOST issue. Any Democrats who cannot protect the Constitution are not Democrats. And they are far, far worse.

Best post on DU in months.

[mmonk]

111. Me too.

I'll pick and choose based on the constitution and rule of law. Looks like I'll be concentrating on elected judicial positions in 08.

[Genki]

112. Lest We Forget

There is new legislation (2004) called The Constitution Initiative ( http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative ) which makes the study of the Constitution a requirement for all federal employees of the executive branch and for all schools and universities receiving federal funds.

The bill was sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd, the Senate's unofficial constitutional scholar.

Sen. Byrd also carries a copy of the Constitution in his pocket and frequently wears a Constitution lapel pin directly underneath his Senate pin (http://byrd.senate.gov/index.html

http://pinsforpatriots.com/

[fascisthunter]

113. After the 2006 Election and Pelosi Claimed "Impeachment is off the Table"

I decided to vote my true convictions and not fall for the lesser of two evils. This tactic of forcing us all to vote for whoever wins the nomination would sit better with me, if the corporate media and wealth didn't dictate who that nominee was. Money has too much of an influence on our political system for the "lesser of two evils" to really matter for me.

As H2O has mentioned, we must remove the "tumors".

[jpgray]

117. But why didn't the founders see it that way?

It's inarguable that the attacks on the Constitution should be resisted on all fronts, but that they are not isn't something new or inexplicable. If you believe that's worth severing ties with the party, why didn't you do so decades ago? Unconstitutional behavior is nothing new. Why wasn't Adams impeached for signing the Alien and Sedition acts, for example? You'd think the founders would know their own business on that score, yet they chose not to impeach anyone involved in such blatantly unconstitutional behavior.

[Usrename]

121. I don't think anyone wants to impeach Bush for signing any act of Congress.

It's his criminal activities that are at the heart of the issue. Treason, Bribery, and Other High Crimes...