[Newspoetry] notes on the overthrowing of constitutionality

[DL Emerick]

Viewpoint neutrality.

Stories of audience packing, for Bush's so-called "public appearances" should prompt the media to conclude: the President is not engaged in Presidential activities, but in personal partisan politics.  Therefore, they should stop mentioning that the president is in town, that he has seen anyone.

The courts oughyt to hold that a PUBLIC APPEARANCE, supported travel by public funds, requires no violations of VIEWPOINT NEUTRALITY.  The President -- to use AIR FARCE ONE or any tax-payer funding or facilities -- must invite and confront people who may happen to disagree with him and his administration.  He may not discriminate against people holding views contrary to his own.  He is supposed to be the faithful executor of the law.  He is not supposed to be the promotor of his own bills into law -- which is a constitutional function of the legislature -- a power delegated by the people.

A president has only one legislative power -- a right to trump, by veto -- bills that do not command a solid legislative sense -- which the legislature may override, then, by a 2/3s majority.

But, this presidency thinks its the Congress to be itself to be a king and its legislature to be a privy council... of no real weight in the schemes of governance, if the King has a mind to some other action, despite the lack of their general and widespread advice and consent.  Instead, this king wants to tell them "bare majorities" are enough of a foundation in law.

So, if lawyes have always been counselled to think of the law as a bad man would, then why is it not most prudent for Americans to think of their government as if it were filled with bad men?

No public official ought to be presumed to be acting in the public interest!  That deferential standard of the Courts is simply contrary to the spirit of democracy, when it comes to executive action, or legislative process - to legality itself.  Majority rule is not what we desired -=- when we built this government -- we desired, instead, widespread consensus -- and we thought we had distributed power enough in the federal government that only a widespread consensual government could ever have been possible.

But, Bush and company have totally overturned the historical assumptions --- and thwarted the broad consensus thesis that underlies the Constitution's theories of self-governance.