US Politics was: The Fate of VM ... 4442

You are arguing from the standpoint of the wording of the U.S. Consbreastution, how a government derived from that document is intended to function, and how for the most part it used to function. Unfortunately the Bush administration has demonstrated that if you have lock-step authoritarian control of a majority of both houses of Congress, so that you don't have to worry about impeachment or any serious Congressional oversight, then with less than honorable leaders many of the Consbreastutional checks and balances cease to function. The current President and VP and their staff have repeatedly demonstrated they do not believe themselves bound by their oaths to uphold the Consbreastution and have even been quoted as deriding the Consbreastution as merely "a piece of paper".

Bush II has declared in signing statements the unconsbreastutional power to amend or ignore laws pbutted by Congress. When the courts rule that his domestic surveillance is unconsbreastutional, he merely appeals the ruling and continues business as usual. As long as most agencies of government are run by those with blind allegiance to the President or by those who need their jobs and serve at the pleasure of the President, the President can issue unconsbreastutional directives that are still obeyed. The only recourse in such cases is a Congress that is willing to cut off funds for illegal activities (which might be "ignored") and-or investigate and impeach all those in the Executive branch engaging in unconsbreastutional behavior. The current authoritarian Republican leaders in Congress clearly have no intent to do either as long as they are in control. The only recourse the U.S. citizens have at this point is to remove control of Congress from those Republicans and restore oversight.

--