Alas, A Constitutional Crisis

You might have been living under a rock if you haven't heard of Vice-President Cheney's latest defense against answering to the supeonas sent from Congress in order to answer for the firing of the U.S. District Attorneys. But, in case you didn't know, Mr. Cheney's latest statement defies the logic of any American who knows about the Constitution and the state of checks and balances in the United States Government: he is not of the "Executive Branch".

The funny thing about his statement is that it not only defies his position within the government, but also undermines the entire system of leadership in American government. So, if Mr. Cheney is not "part of the Executive Branch", well then, what is his role? Butcher? Baker? Chimney Sweep?

All kidding aside, his reply as well as the rest of the current Administration's refusal to comply with the supeonas from Congress on this stance has placed our system of government into a test for its life. The United States government is built upon a system of checks of balances, developed by the Founding Fathers to ensure that one branch would not supercede the other. However, in the Bush White House, the tenets of the system has been toyed with, especially with the endless Executive signing statements that continue to fill the hopper to deflect any attempts for accountability. And as a result, not only the current Administration has the reputation of being the most secretive; it has also harkened back to what Senator Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) commented as being "Nixonian".

Mr. Leahy, in his "Meet the Press" interview with Tim Russert, had spoken about even considering taking the Bush White House to court if they don't give up the documents supoenaed by Congress:

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Sunday he was ready to go to court if the White House resisted congressional subpoenas for information on the firing of federal prosecutors.

"If they don't cooperate, yes, I'd go that far," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. He was asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether he would seek a congressional vote on contempt citations if President Bush did not comply. That move would push the matter to court.

"They've chosen confrontation rather than compromise or cooperation," Leahy said. "The bottom line on this U.S. attorneys investigation is that we have people manipulating law enforcement. Law enforcement can't be partisan."

One would not wish for this to happen, but if there are no comprises about following the law and giving up the goods, then we might as well see our latest Constitutional crisis afoot in the present day.

There is a problem when the President and the Vice-President on Inauguration Day swear to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that they would uphold the Constitution in their duties as members of the highest offices of the land and do exactly the opposite through their manner, action and deed throughout their tenure in office. It becomes even more troublesome when there are alleged attempts against trying to uphold the laws written in the Constitution in order to preserve partisan reasons while ignoring that in the governance of the United States, that these laws are for everyone, not just for one set of people. Instead, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney convey the sense that they are allegedly above the law with their actions and that the very same laws that govern the rest of us as Americans are not for them. And it brings forth a very good question that needs to be considered in all circles in United States public life: should our leaders be held accountable? Do they get "blanket immunity" for their actions while others do not?

The tragic thing about the current Administration is that the wrongdoing and corruption that has happened over the past six years has been long and nebulous, it is hard to know where to begin to straighten out the problems that have been generated because of these past actions. What is more, is that the only thing that seems to be demonstrated from the refusal to comply with the law is the fact that it dictates that there are three different types of justice for people in the country: one for the haves, one for the "have-mores" and of course, one for the "have-nots". And it seems, for the "have-mores", they can use the law and work with it in order to get out of issues of accountability and responsibility. Equally as frustrating, the "have-mores", through their actions, deplete the seriousness and gravity of the law and mock it by simply telling the rest of us (in my old and most repeated phrase from time to time) to "let them eat yellow cake".

Maybe, it will take Mr. Leahy's action of taking the government to court in order to shed light on the reasoning why these prosecutors were fired and who was behind such a measure. Furthermore, it might demonstrate that the law is still taken with integrity even when trying to discern what is right and wrong. After all, the actions of Mr. Bush and his cronies set up a dangerous precedent: heck, if they can thumb their nose at the law, then of course maybe the countless hours and Constitutional conventions spent at the infancy of the American country were done in vain.

Especially, when there are the two leaders in the highest position of the land treating them as if they were not worth the paper it was printed on.