“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Presidential Oath – Article II, Section 1,  U.S. Constitution

President Bush, like many of his predecessors … from Adams, Jefferson and Jackson to Lincoln, Wilson and FDR … has asserted extraordinary presidential powers, beyond those permitted under the Constitution, in response to various national “crisis”.

However, the Bush Administration has taken the exercise of extra-Constitutional powers to a new and frightening level.  In addition to continued circumvention of basic Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure in pursuit of the so-called “War on Drugs”, are the President’s:

  1. Assertion our country is “at war” and the post-911 Congressional military force authorization entitles him to “use all necessary force” which he has taken to grant himself almost dictatorial wartime powers.  Yet, only Congress can declare war, a step it has not taken.  Further, Congress can not empower the President with powers not otherwise permissible under the Constitution.
  1. Willingness to abrogate constitutional protections of American citizens whom he, alone, decides to be enemy combatants, thereby denying those individuals the right to counsel, to be confronted by their accusers and to a speedy and public trial.  Indefinite, solitary confinement is an anathema to our system of jurisprudence.
  1. Assault on the rights of American citizens to be free of unreasonable governmental prying into their private affairs without probable cause and issuance of a warrant by a court of competent jurisdiction, exemplified by;
    1. The Patriot Act permitting, among other things, the FBI and other governmental agencies on-demand access to personal financial, medical, business and credit records as well as library activities, while threatening criminal penalties against those from whom the records are sought if they inform the person being investigated.
    1. Ignoring requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to obtain a court order before eavesdropping on telephone and other electronic communications of American citizens, even though obtaining one can be delayed up to 72 hours after the fact.
    1. Initiating demands of AOL, Yahoo and Google for records related to search requests and sites visited to see if people are possibly violating certain criminal laws.
  1. Signing some 500 bills passed by Congress while adding a “signing statement” reserving his right to ignore laws or sections of bills to which the he is opposed and instructing the Executive Branch to act as the President dictates, not as the law requires.

This is the same President who, in making judicial appointments, boasts he is looking for judges who will look to the “original intent” of the Constitution.  If original intent is the standard, then each of the above actions violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution and fundamental liberties.

The President and his minions need to be reminded:

  1. The fact that prior Presidents unilaterally suspended civil liberties does not make it right or constitutional.
  2. The President is Commander-in-Chief of our military forces, not the American public.
  3. The Preamble clause to “provide for the common defense” is not an enumerated power of the President.
  4. Rights (9th Amendment) and Powers (10th Amendment) not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the People and the States, respectively, not to the president.
  5. Of Sandra Day O’Connor’s words that the post-911 Congressional Authorization was “not a blank check for the President when it comes to the civil rights of the nation’s citizens.”
  6. We are a nation of laws, not men … and the President is not above the law even in times of a national emergency.
  7. Demands on ISPs represent yet another governmental fishing expedition designed to skirt the Fourth Amendment and does not have anything to do with national security.
  8. Meantime, the vast majority of 911 Committee recommendations to minimize the potential of future terrorist attacks have not been acted on.

Americans should also be concerned about what happens to millions of records, phone conversations, emails, library records and even web searches not of immediate national security interest to “big brother”.  Do they trust their government to destroy them as promised?

The Administration’s assertion that those who speak out against its policies and question the limits of presidential authority are somehow unpatriotic “in a time of war” is appalling!  Rather, the free flow of ideas, even when they fly in the face of the aims and actions of those in power, is a supreme act of patriotism in a vibrant democracy.

That said, the President can and must be able to fight terrorism and protect America and Americans, both at home and abroad, but must do so within the law!

For those who argue, “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you shouldn’t worry,” a word of caution … their ideas and lifestyles may come under scrutiny under a different President.

A democratic government is, by definition, cumbersome and far from risk-free.  Will we look forward to living in less risky environment, one with increased government oversight and fewer liberties … or will we have the courage of our founding fathers who intentionally restrained the powers of the federal government in an era fraught with risks no less daunting that those posed by Al-Qaeda?

On the 300th anniversary of his birth, Benjamin Franklin’s admonition that, “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor safety,” is worth remembering.