Bush or the Constitution: Choose

I think Katrina Vanden Heuvel is on the right track with her suggestion about nationalizing the 2006 elections. She establishes her premise with the blockbuster Boston Globe story which lays out in unsettling detail the degree to which President Bush has succeeded in casting real doubt on the rule of American law.

According to the Globe, Bush has employed the conceit of "unitary executive" power to establish a precedent under which the Chief Executive is the sole arbiter of how, or even if, he will obey laws passed by congress. Too few Americans are aware of the fact that, aided and abetted by a supplicant congress, George W. Bush has become a de facto dictator.

Katrina says congressional candidates in all 50 states should be required to state whether they defend the constitution.

Here's one way to "nationalize" the 2006 election: Demand that all candidates defend the constitution. If that's a difficult or radical proposal, we might as well return to the monarchical system we overthrew some time ago.

(I have little doubt that quite a few Republican representatives (and, shamefully, a few Democrats) might well prefer that system--judging from how they've capitulated to King George's shredding of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.)

Defending our country means defending our form of government, as well as our physical safety, and that means defending the constitution from the vicious attacks emanating from this White House.

I agree, but I believe the strategy would be most effective if framed not as an open question, but as a choice: Do you stand with the Constitution of the United States, or with George W. Bush? This opens a debate on what, exactly, he has done to weaken the safeguards embedded in the constitution to protect the American people from a dictatorial executive.

Many of the incumbents running for re-election this year are among the culprits who have acted aggressively to weaken the checks and balances built into the American political system. It is entirely appropriate to ask them to explain why they did so, whether they will continue to do so, and why we should trust them with another two or six years as our elected representatives.