[Peace-discuss] Chris and Me

[John W.]

I'm not quite sure how it happened, but Christopher Dodd and I are on a 
first-name basis, and he writes to me.  A lot.  So I took the liberty of 
composing this little reply to one of his more intimate missives.


>John,
>
>It's been a busy day, but I wanted take a moment and let you know that I 
>have decided to place a "hold" on legislation in the Senate that includes 
>amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's 
>assault on the Constitution by providing personal information on their 
>customers without judicial authorization.
>
>I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, 
>and I have.
>
>It's about delivering results -- and as I've said before, the FIRST thing 
>I will do after being sworn into office is restore the Constitution.
>
>But we shouldn't have to wait until then to prevent the further erosion of 
>our country's most treasured document.
>
>That's why I am stopping this bill today.
>
>I've gotta run, but please visit my campaign website for more details.
>
>http://www.chrisdodd.com/fisa
>
>Chris


Chris, I'm not sure how you and I got to be on a first-name basis, but I 
like it.  I like it a lot.  I'm very flattered, actually.  I'm hoping that 
you'll invite me over to your house sometime, and maybe help me qualify for 
things like Medicare, Section 8 housing, etc.

Meanwhile, I'm going to go out on a limb here.  I'm going to presume on our 
budding friendship to remind you, just between you and me, that there 
really is no such thing as the "rule of law".  It's a myth.  It's kind of 
like that alternative version of the Golden Rule: "Them that has the gold 
makes the rules."  The rule of law, properly stated, is this:  "Them that 
has the power declare what the 'rule of law' is at any given moment in time."

I studied law for four years, and tears used to roll down my cheeks as I 
learned in detail just how politicized and ideological the Supreme Court 
actually is, how profoundly unjust our "justice" system is, how greatly the 
scales of justice and mercy are weighted against the poor and 
disenfranchised.  When America's greatest Supreme Court Chief Justice, John 
Marshall, can invoke the "law of discovery" and the "law of conquest" as ex 
post facto rationales for stealing land from Native Americans, as he did in 
a famous early case, one realizes with a vengeance just how hollow the 
"rule of law" really is.

And Chris...the Constitution doesn't merely need to be restored.  It needs 
to be revisited, revamped, revitalized, to account for the profound changes 
in American life over the past 218 years.  Our Founding Fathers, the 
"Framers" as they're called, apparently didn't anticipate the Industrial 
Revolution and the rise of multinational corporations.  Until the 
corporations and those they're able to purchase in the federal government 
are brought under some measure of control and accountability, the 
Constitution will be constitutionally unable (if you'll pardon the pun) to 
establish Justice, promote the general Welfare, and do those other things 
that it declares as its purpose in the Preamble.

"Accountability" is a key word here, Chris.  We've misplaced it in 
America.  We've somehow lost sight of the notion that a government's sole 
legitimate purpose is to enhance the quality of life for ALL of its 
citizens AND their posterity, not just the top 1% in the short term.  Until 
our elected representatives recognize and reclaim that notion of genuine 
accountability, America will continue to rot from the inside out just as 
every other Empire throughout history has done.

The U.S. doesn't have far to go before it collapses like an empty suit of 
clothes with no body inside, Chris.  I know this  with absolute certainty, 
and deep in your heart you know it too.  It's all up to you.  I hope you 
respect my intelligence and integrity enough to do what you have to do to 
make America the great country it COULD be.

Your friend,

John Wason