Re: Could this be the rift that starts the civil war?
"I believe that in a case such as this, the legislative branch, the executive branch, ought to err on the side of life, which we have," the president said. "Now we'll watch the courts make their decisions."
Quite clearly, an embarrassingly blunt and ignorant admission by this president that the Constitution ought to overridden to institute his personal will. And, as you say, a quite clear threat to the judiciary to follow his lead or else...
Or else what, I wonder?
Just to put things into their proper perspective, and to understand just exactly how dangerous this man has become, let's all agree that the law of the land is not forfeit to the personal agenda of any individual, whether or not he's the president; and that he does not have the power to "err" or to choose to "err on the side of life," and has not in fact done so.
To err on the side of life would have been to stop Bin Laden before he hit the towers; would have been to bring down Afghanistan the minute it was certain that Bin Laden was hiding there; would have been to resist the Halliburton temptation to invade Iraq; would have been to boost the local budgets for law enforcement and firefighting and education and jobs, and would have been to raise the minimum raise for common people instead of the maximum profit for corporations.
To err on the side of life would have been to insist on a healthier, better educated population, free of war and paranoia, and not to have allowed the terrorists to win by terrorizing the country and making us stomp all over one another's rights.
To err on the side of life in accordance with the Constitution would have been to give it another century of vigorous life and allow it to grow into the dream come true of patriots-- a true universal piece of justice. That would have secured freedom into the future. In fact, the Constitution is pitted against the relentless shadow of death, and tries to institute freedom to save our lives in the face of tyranny.
No president has the right to choose to err, by which Bush here means the power to choose to skirt the law to do what he wants to do. He has abrogated his oath of office, and has thus committed high crimes, and ought to be impeached.
The Constitution must be saved from Bush and his associates. These people have got to go; their only restraint is the term limit, and, if you are willing to err for your own moral sense and discard the Constitution, why would you limit yourself to eight years?
My advice is to write in your choices for Senator and Representative-- name local leaders, don't vote by party or propaganda, and start in 2006 to replace the government by ballot. Write the name in clear printed letters, e.g., "JESSE VENTURA-- NONPARTISAN," or "BO GRITZ-- NO PARTY."
Let's hope that the elections in 2006 and 2008 will still be held.