Filibuster failed. NOW UP OR DOWN.

The current support for Alito for Supreme Court is 57 to 38. That is with 4 Democrats and 1 Republican listed in the C-Span analysis. That means that if those opposed and those undecided had made a stand against cloture we would still be filibustering or debating. Cloture passed 72-25 with 53 Republicans and 19 Democrats supporting the end of debate and a scheduled vote up or down tomorrow.

The fact that a vote is scheduled does not mean that debate is over and I suggest those wavering to read Senator Max Baucus's statement today on why Samuel Alito does not meet his criterion for approval.


Here is a plea that I sent earlier to Senator Conrad of North Dakota:


Dear Senator Conrad

Your oath is to the constitution, the constitution begins "we the people", Alito is for voting his conscience and giving the president that power over the law. You have a choice that is very difficult, but do not bet that things cannot get worse because of your choice.
To me it is clear,
NO ON ALITO!
NO ON CLOTURE!
NO ON CHANGING SENATE RULES!

If you can not find in in your conscience to vote 3 "No"s, at least protect the tradition and duties of the senate (by supporting the filibuster by not changing the Senate Rules), as distinguished from the House which actually should put new light on your point that you represent your constituents.

Here are my points. The filibuster survived, it just did not work. Republicans did not have to resort to changing or violating Senate rules and messing with it's traditions and the way it protects the constitution.

But that does not mean that Senators still cannot consider carefully when they uphold their oath to protect the constitution, and not just vote their party line or their conscience or resort to the political calculus which says they are representing their constituents.

CUT THAT

BU** SH** OUT! [see note]

Munch Munch. At the G-8 a few weeks ago, Bush had some ideas for Putin between chomps, that the U.N. should tell Syria, to tell Hezbollah to cut that S*** out. If that is the "nature" of how the world works, then please try it in his own back yard. The two above expletives represents links to the RNC.

Dems Rejoice: Ruling Weakens Terrorist Surveillance Program

Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda To Weaken National Security

The linkage of Democrats and liberal judges to a weakening of anything are a cut and run from their sworn duty to uphold the constitution and fight for democracy. The only enemy the Republicans can defeat are the phantom "do nothings". No body wants to stop law enforcement or the military from any efforts to protect America, they only expect that we do so under the constitution or they have literally ripped the heart out of the foundation of this nation and the hope of the world.

Picture this:
An elephant with King George the 43rd, stomping on the constitution and strangling the founding fathers in their graves.

Note: The links actually represent a lot of "hard work" meaning a filtering of opinions that may have individual merit as opinions or snippets of facts, but the image of Democrats as terrorist reflect the intention that must be shoveled back with the image above.

TM-R (day 21)

Barely half-way though a period of review, today we have another quixotic mess which I was barely able to wade through.

HOWEVER I DID,
BUT ONLY AFTER THESE ACTIVITIES TRANSPIRED:

Last night my local Democratic Legislative district passed a resolution to urge our senators to support Russ Feingold's move to censure Bush.

HERE IS MY PLEA TO THEM THE DAY BEFORE:
Since impeachment procedures can only begin in the House, please support Senator Feingold on his resolution to censure President Bush for illegally wiretapping without court order.

This measure should get a full committee hearings with sworn testimony that will hold not only the administration accountable, but Republicans who won't uphold the constitution, accountable.

The argument is that this is a political stunt. It is also a constitutional stunt. If politics is not used at it's fullest to protect the constitution, it will be used to circumvent it. If it is not clear to partisans on our side, it is on the other. Even swing voters would likely prefer a clearer choice than between those that break the law and those that will not uphold it.
[boldness added here]

While some "loyal opposition" may call boldness an Impeachable Strategy and resort to political calculus and even the physics of gravity like trickle down...

My reply:

Gravity does not apply in politics!
Bush (or a con) knows that will does.
Gravity is a two way street and while the masses may pull down the politician's bootstraps, only real leaders with courage can choose to pull up the bootstraps of the people.

Those who will not stand up for clarity from the administration and those who cut and run from the constitution and conversation, have no lack of will to trust, but little faith or courage to verify. Only that makes the process quixotic.

Original Intent?

Strict Constructionists?

Life begins at conception, what about right to privacy.
Yes? No?

Are either of these in the constitution? No.
But they both fall under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now this does nothing to make things any easier, except to prove that it is not as simple as those that have the answers think it is. Also that even their positions cannot be sustained without complicated gyrations, usually known as hypocrisy, that would be contrary to the "rights retained by the people" which are protected by powers reserved "to the people". This would stand orginal intent on it's head, while even the power of the people need to be checked.

See the link?

String Cheese Theory?

Or Quantum Theory of Mitt ?

Related Strings:

Ouch[!]

Q E D [!].

You** Tube
Double* Ouch![?]

[Matter / Anti-matter ?  The Declaration of Independence does not have a preamble. Note that Speaker BaneOr misquoted the Constitution, which does have a preamble.  He was quoting the Declaration of Independence which does not have a preamble.  It matters that Rachel Maddow did issue an apology.  Should it Anti-matter that NewsBusters thinks it does? Quote:

 Of course, if she or her crack fact-checking team at MSNBC had done their homework, they would have found "We hold these truths to be self-evident" does indeed come from the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence and not the Preamble to the Constitution as Boehner said. 

     It seems they gaffed their own smug face.

Alas, when one fact checks, especially as arrogantly as Maddow does, you should be completely accurate or you end up looking like a bigger jackass than the person you're mocking.
That oughta wipe the smug, condescending smirk off her face!

Right?]

[Speaking ***^ of Flip Flop? QED!
And I don't mean cue Ed, nor buy George or Bill-E-Club !
But D E^^ Vo ! ?]


*Schoolhouse Oops?
Woe? [!]
** Original Rachel Link is missing under You "THE Word".
*** Bingo [!]

^ Think Progress's link on President Obama's personal evolution.  It is the people that must make the political and legal fight. A president's opinion does not make either federal or state law.  Not that he is not responsible for interpreting and enforcing them.

^^  a day that will live in infamy?
NOT!  Thom Hartmann caller on radio.

5-10-12  Related Issues? Or matters ?
Now with Alex Wagner "The Book of Mormon".

Image of Original In Tent

Re: Sources

C W
Homer, Plato**, Hell'nistic, Hamiltonian/Jeffersonian *: Evolutionary Thinking***.

* less than random link/Google of the day?
not fully read yet,
never completely endorsed, unlike Labelists [Well...not exactly.]

** lede not

[The under lying(pun) under standing(literal) as well as substance, regards semantics. Now that is a pretty firm line for a fluid foundation.
See W(hint pun/ribble)
The history of the constitution falls into this spectrum. The Federalist Papers were an argument, for what does not matter, it won and lost, as the amendments suggest. The constitution was signed but not without compromise. And we were never on the same page again. This is my perspective without the usual qualifiers.]
*** How prophetic?

[Unoriginal In tent: related links without hints]
[On the other hand... looking for spectrum.]

[Given the field of the Republican Presidential race, no apologies are in order. Excuses maybe, blame yourself. BTW: not disappointed by Herman Cain, to drop out but carry the mess age to the table. But in honor of the Federalists, the non-party party, here is a third field or party or option. Caution!]

[NPR: Re-education]
[Update: Herman

True Ledership

No, that is not Leadership, it is the pinnacle of the process.

[9-29-11 Under review re: lede*** (does not require a follow-up as the link morphed) But I am trying to find the lost link This one.]

A lede*** requires a follow-up. Like the constitution has its first three articles or branches of the government, the tetrahedron has its base as a triangle and another dimension, and what is the point? That is political. There are the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary braches. But what is the point? Or rather the base*?

We the people...

of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

* Oh the humanity
[Another problem? Or anti-pragmatics? The narrative will evolve and involve: Highways or the Low(or No) way. Not to hop the Scotch or translations but...Lock Low Mond?]
["In a perfect world the president ought to wish"...[*]NOT! link(for quote) to be** provided later The Place for Politics.]

** Note: not that I have viewed all the links, but many provide the contrast between progress and anything butT-headism.
[Speaking of Process under-LedeRship.]

*** ledership is not always easy to link: Gunn takes Shot at Alley's Weight.

[Speaking Bane Or Analogies: if spending is the coke, then the debt that Reagan and Bush racked up are illegal debts that need not be paid. Explain that to the defense, healthecare and financial industries(the wealthy) that they need not be paid. In fact, that may actually help regarding the ledership and 2012, if the people realize who the dealers of debt are.]

Delta Dawn


Whose your Daddy?

Rolling Stone. The T[?] (Or the t[!])

[Sum of the some game: War is hard work and progress even more tricky, but a few want(scratch that need) a quick fix.]

[*] [9-21-11 Update: It is regretable that I cannot find the MSNBC segment for the quote above, but as for follow up, pandemonium may be embedded somewhere(not).]

Separation of

Church and State is not in the constitution... technically or more accurately, verbatim, it is not. I really thought that Christine O'Donnell was smarter than this. Oops I guess I am too, that was her point. The video does not do justice to the article. Not that that was its job. Bottom line, the real issue is a confounding of science and religion. One is a method or process, the other a structure and sometimes authority. But I think a better verbatim is...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" If I may be so bold.
(And then there are other* issues.]
*How no means yes (Ctrl F link)and the relationship of science to authority(or is it soveriegnty?): an imbedded yet incomplete theory.)

Who Are They Calling Elitist?

By Eric Altermann
[now fully read]
My reply:
Who are the "cultural elite"? I think it is pretty "fair and balanced" to say that it is "people who only think they know better than you". It is also a label brought to you by people who don’t think they need to, and don‘t know they are, but don‘t either. The same people who brought you the "culture warrior". The same people who brought you "trickle down" * . The same people who brought you "lift yourself up by your own bootstraps". The same people who now probably don’t have boot straps, no matter how much they rely on the bottom line. The same people who think the bottom line is all that matters. The same people who don’t see people as the bottom line. The same people who see corporations as people. The same people who put people under the trickle down, rather than in the first line of the constitution. The same people who can’t read the second line of the constitution but can read the second amendment, and don’t worry again about the 1st amendment. Of course unless you are far enough above the line to own a corporation. And then of course it is best to forget about what people are, or what one owns, until of course, it comes to democracy. Then it is stay the course of course, don’t ask the people. But more important is, don’t ask, don't tell...US.

* (nfr) - This is an actual footnote from Wikipedia **:
"A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[4]

It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory. [5] - David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director "

And from the other "fair and balanced" perspective called denial, Thomas Sowell wrote of The "Trickle Down". Economics Straw Man (nfry), and claimed: "No such theory can be found in even the most voluminous and learned books on the history of economics. It is a straw man." Who apparently is not elite enough to be an economist ***, but was allowed into the ranks of politicians, businessmen and budget directors.
** Now, Wikipedia should not be considered the most authoritative source, but it is usually sourced, so don't be elitist. And reading footnotes might put you in that crowd or is it not needing them.
***(The strawman and Stockman (nfry), not Sowell (nfry) .)

Throwing this out.

Cut tax breaks for advertising. That would probably make them more efficient, but it would certainly not help Palin's crusade.

As long as I am tossing out nuggets, how about:
One stockholder: One vote!
If you want more than your share? Buy it. *
Now that is tergiversation.(Changing one's opinion.)
Actually a ludicrous leap, but which demonstrated tendencies to let the market fix it. But maybe a tax break for investors up to a limit, per company, to distribute the vote. If you want more than one vote, buy shares in more than one company. Maybe corporations need a new hierarchy **. They are not in the constitution, but the word "welfare" is.(Pre-amble) There are three branches of the government, and the separation of press and business is as important as church and state, though not directly a corollary or balanced. (First Amendment) The point is (well) there is a lot of water under the bridge or rubric of precedence, which may be undermining our fundamentals, AKA "the people".

* update: The irony or unsatire slipped in here. I was going to clarify the Buy It crack, but I had already explained the ludicrous leap: Tax incentives or regulations which would revalue the voice of people and money.
** corporations are not in the constitution, they are and have been constituted by government and people. With all the irony of the moral hypocrisy over the death penaly and cloning, just how have we allowed the creation of such Leviathans.

WATERBOARDING THE LAW

Mukasey Rx Gumbo "Goodbye Democracy, and All That..."

"Lawbreaker in Chief"

One Too Many Cooks: Rx LAW

Thank Kerry

and or Whitehouse?:
"Legislation Banning ‘Caging Lists’ Introduced in Senate" Daily KOS
Belated fixes for CAGING? Not to mention my comment on the "Mukasey Rx Gumbo" (firstlink.) *


MY COMMENT OF SEVERAL DAYS AGO:

Senators:[Democrats on the Judiciary]

The Mukasey nomination must be opposed. He refuses to answer a question on a crime that is in the Military Code of Justice as well as International Law, and Bush excuses because the nominee has not been briefed and if that were required in a time of war, then no nominees could be confirmed. By this form of logic, Bush has no accountability and Congress has no role of oversight in a time of war.

The Guardian "It's not fair..."

Bush says nominee cannot answer a question if something is illegal, even if the administration is not doing it?

This must be investigated and the president held accountable for lying on this count, if anything counts.
There should also be an investigation on the scrap of paper quote.

Capitol Hill Blue
Bush swears

Scraps? Worse. Bush swears at the constitution rather than upholding it. Are you?

[While I was very impressed with the reasoning of Senator Feinstein
in this
IT DOES NOT MITIGATE MY CONCERN!
Just how can we expect Kyl-Lieberman
to hold Iran accountable,
when we cannot hold our own.]

[Finally after not necessarily reading all of the above, I DID READ THESE:
How Schumer & Feinstein May Blow the Best Chance in Years to Stop Torture,
Stoptorture The Harvard Anti-Torture Coalition

and
Mukasey's testimony raises question: Is the president above the law?
Dan Rather Hearst Newspaper ]

[ALSO See this Grim News IMPEACH CHENEY! Register your support at www.CallCongress.org ]

* What is mentioned in the constitution is the press, and here is what is left of it.

"just supposed to 'call balls and strikes'-"

Sotomayor on the letter of the law.
A Smile to Set the GOP on Edge.
by Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post

Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy
by George Lakoff, TruthOut / Perspective

The logic of perspective and experience demonstrates the dynamics of interpretation. The framing of the question under the dynamics link almost makes moot the need to follow the arguments that supposedly "demolish" the supremacy of the courts, yet seems to demostrate the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. That being the dymamics of the power to the people and the foundations of justice in the constitution. It seems that it is only in the lack of the people to call into question a law that it not find itself before the court.
[And before one points out that there is no spirit of the law in the constitution, neither is there the word "letter" or "balls or strikes", let alone "policy" or "corporation", except in the privacy policy of the web page.] Without the spirit of the law as interpreted and argued by all three branches for the people, there is no foundation or principle let alone moral high ground for our exceptionalism.]

[6-2-09: ThinkProgress.org The Two Faces of Opposition ]

Fear and Running

in the Republican Party. 
It could be said that the 1st Amendment of the constitution kills more than the 2nd Amendment.

Amendment 1-  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2-  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I was going to go with "gunning" instead of "running", but I did not want it to suggest* a 2nd Amendment solution.  But with Romney running on an ad that misunderstands English, that is only one bullet point to my argument.  "You didn't build that." is completely out of context**.  But out of context does not necessarily mean misleading.*** 

Post asterisks:  The impact of the first amendment on what gets done has more impact on life and death than the fallacy that anyone is going to kill the second amendment.[**]

* b.s. (blog search) to be footnoted
** (no pun on con text but I need to replace[*] the Daily Rundown links)
*** not to suggest (not exactly)
[*] close enough for blog work
[**] There are very constitutional reasons for the political calculus of this rhetoric to influence and create reality.  But from another dimention, NorMan GoldMan has a rhetorical rant (not not it) that could fit Romney's rhetorical style in a silly Obama ad that could decimate [***] the Romney race.
[***] Pardon the Palin term, but not her.

[Post bracketed asterisks: regarding the NG rant, "that" is not quite "it" but on target, in more ways than one.  But in appreciation of the nature of our progress, it is not about any new legislation.  It is not about obliterating the constitution or its amendments or even new amendments.  Old taxes and legislation are always on the table, for all three branches of government, and the people are the deciders. C-heading and lede!]

[Follow-up of sorts.  But first a note on "gunning" as a rhetorical term.  I'm sorry I can't give proper credit, but it may be embedded in the links above.  However, Lawrence O'Donnell, noting the Brian Williams interview of Romney was not my original follow-up, but may be on target (That is not a course.) Ouch.  Guns don't kill people, people do.  Find them(Ctrl F)? What about the law?  Not for the silly season, or gatlin salad?  And oh no, not atTax of the meta4rhetoric.  I really think there is a problem with the use of Senator Thelma for Patty Murray, since she puts Boehnor at the wheel.]
[Transparency Destroyed?]
[Re-sorts of sorts... sort of, or not, of course.  This was basically an exercise in logging some clips of some MSNBC shows.]

[My best to Wendy & Ed Schultz!]

[7-26-12: update and effect (label)]
[Scroll up to "Post bracketed"]

MARCH 4TH, 1789 Began the March

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TOOK EFFECT

March 14th, 2007 is the day by which
Washington State Senators need to hear from you.

If you are not with the constitution, what are you?

President Bush, before his first campaign was over said,
when it came to the law his conscience was his guide.
Where will your's lead us?

Romney takes leap

of faith with religion speech
CNN Politics.com -/- Power Line

"I'm not going to be giving a JFK speech,"

-/-

"Freedom requires religion..."
"A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."

"public domain"
"the religion of secularism"
"tHEy are wrong"

"trust"
"the equality of human kind"
"to serve"
"liberty"
"public square"
"under God"

"these convictions will indeed inform "

"constitutional order"
"free exercise"

"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate..."

Enough?

In John Adams’ words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

I return to the quote he used. And note that the preceding words are all parsed from his speech. If you don't "trust" that, use control find (Ctrl "F") on your keyboard and screen for the words you choose to "verify". Rather than read between the lines, I will let you leap between the segments above and now I will do the same with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

You will find "under God" in neither but you will find "God" is in the first paragraph of our Declaration of Independence.
Once and only there.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed...

I could "of course" cherry pick or parse more words, but it is all in the putting together. You might want to search other words like "creator" or "power" and you will find no more of the former and much of the latter and where, but this...

I will leave to you.

[Note: I have taken the liberty to italicize some words and some bold, and here note that a -/- (dash slash dash) gives separation between the sources and parsed words at the top of this post, while in the blockquote -- (two dashes) actually are each one long dash and are for emphasis it seems or high light.]
[It is not that it was a bad speech, but he is "no Kennedy" and may be a better "Reagan". But that is a double-edged comment. ]

"Caesar's work"

"The View"

After a quick Google or Yahoo(!) I found an anachronism. Of course everything is, if you are trying to catch up with history or follow John McCain. But it was his leap from "founding fathers" to "In God we trust".

Ok, now follow me: He believes in God, he believes in the Constitution, "God" is not in the constitution, "trust" is. Nor is "Creator", so who made these things up. "Being" and "Power" is; usually in relation to requirements and connections to the people.

Ouch! I did not know I was going there. But the point is the flip-flop from his "no litmus test" to his interpretation or "quote" interpretations as exposed on the grill, I mean "The View". For those not down with computers, the point is that embedded in the above links is the fact that the motto of the United States is "In God we trust" and came about in 1956. And for those who are reminded of the Pledge of Allegiance, it was changed in 1954. And back to the history of our motto: e pluribus unum: "Out of Many, One." I guess this is McCain's interpretation of change or quote interpretation, or nuance.

[And speaking of stretch, as in Caesar's Salad, I refer to the tossing of "isms" as coat of arms. The dressing and heat of the kitchen metaphors, makes her no Truman or Teddy, but she has been referred to as "Reagan in a dress" and it should be checked if her lipstick is teflon.]

The Most Dangerous Game

Maybe We Should Take the North Koreans at Their Word Tikkun.org
Yet Republicans?

(Bring the moral ground back to earth, Senator Graham)
(Quibbling over meanings: Making over interpreting law and policy. *
The issue is the use of words and the foundation of our nation on the constitution for the purpose of justice for the people. After that it takes a village idiot and a dictionary. There are only three branches of government. None supreme, but they have their separations in the constitution after that "it is not a location" but it is out there. There is no department of interpretation, but the courts do decide and the rest must interpret. That all three branches make law is a valid charge in their following it or not and the process keeping up.)

* punctuation neutral but bold links have been fully read and recommended if not bluntly. It must be remembered that any justice, executive or legislator can say anything, but it is the court that answers the question of law whether it is 5-4 or 8-1 and understood or followed or not.

[ 6-2-09: Not what I meant, exactly. ]
[ 6-9-09: No. Newt ]

Executing (the) Constitution

Investigations foiled may be just a matter of "plausible incompetence".

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General


Law change a matter or "plausible denial" OF DUTY to uphold the constitution and RIGHT to delay justice.

White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts

Terrorism: The bogeyman that is needed for a culture of fear.

Gitmo Got More

I don't know if it is mentioned here and I must look over my previous work, but the big news is the 8-4 [* should read 5-3 SEE BELOW]vote overruling Bush on his preemption and rendering of the constitution. Justice Roberts was sidelined because of conflict of interest rules that he upheld by recusing himself from the decision on a case that he had earlier ruled on.

That fact [his recusal] is mentioned but I do not think it is categorized as the big news, but it is a critical blow to a "unitary executive" if any Justice he selects must be "fair and balanced" not to mention follow rules,laws and the constitution.

Now it is a matter of not making new laws that will run this stay-the-course vicious recycle.

[* should read: "5-3" - keeping with my policy of not messing with my posts without notation, I must have done some wierd math, which indicates I should slow down. There were also no labels till now, and the thought of Hit and Run.] and a "run"+"Bush" search was what brought me here.]

Bush the United

Bush the Unitary*

The founding fathers are blue, or at least purple, meaning they are rolling over in their graves with sadness if not hopping mad. This image began as an intent to remedially read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by highlighting it in color for those that need help standing up for the principles contained in them. America should really be red as in the color of anger that the Republicans accuse Democrats of being full of. Doubly red for the embarrassment that we are exporting "so called Democracy" while undermining it at home.

A little color in their cheeks should be left over for the "so called Liberal Media" which if it were really so liberal, would be shouting from the roof tops or at least on all networks about a law suit brought by a few in Congress suing Bush for violating the Constitution by signing SB 1932 which that did not pass through the House. Not to mention the 750 laws that Bush has signed but noted he will not follow. OK...That is my slight exaggeration. The "he will not follow" not the number 750 necessarily (one is enough). These should be under the heading of Bush Pre-Justice, not to mention Pre-Legislate and Pre-Administration, and never mind chain of command. READ THIS:
Article II: Section 2. paragraphs 2 and 3

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law : but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone***, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

My bold and italics added instead of the color code that should insight(i).

It should be noted how much emphasis there is on the senate and the law regarding the powers of the executive. Rememeber how "philosophy" was so important in his selections for appointment, not to mention** loyalty.

* link added after the first two paragraphs posted here.

(i) = intentionally construed.

** link added last and is noted as not necessarily balanced and not fully read by myself but from what I did read, had already selected here the pertinent sections that refute.

*** It may be important to explain here (it seems) that these executive powers are only vested by law, by the senate, to whom they alone choose.