H07141
Alito Filibuster: It Only Takes One
The “unitary executive” doctrine that US Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito advocates allows the President to cite his “powers as Commander in Chief to ignore laws he doesn’t like, spy on citizens without warrants, imprison citizens without charges, authorize torture, order assassinations, and invade other countries at his own discretion.”
The Senator who begins a “disciplined filibuster focused on protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights” could attract “traditional conservatives as well as moderates and liberals in a cause larger than any political grouping”. That Senator could create a turning point in American history, and spark a broad defense of the principles of the democratic Republic – principles that “many Americans hold as dear as life itself”.
[Posted By hungeski]Republished from consortiumnews.com
With the fate of the U.S. Constitution in the balance, it’s hard to believe there’s no senator prepared to filibuster Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, whose theories on the ““unitary executive”:http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/011106.html” could spell the end of the American democratic Republic.
If confirmed, Alito would join at least three other right-wing justices – John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – who believe that George W. Bush should possess near total control of the U.S. government during the ill-defined War on Terror. If Anthony Kennedy, another Republican, joins them, they would wield a majority.
Alito’s theory of the “unitary executive” holds that Bush can cite his “plenary” – or unlimited – powers as Commander in Chief to ignore laws he doesn’t like, spy on citizens without warrants, imprison citizens without charges, authorize torture, order assassinations, and invade other countries at his own discretion.
“Can it be true that any President really has such powers under our Constitution?” asked former Vice President Al Gore in a Jan. 16 speech. “If the answer is ‘yes,’ then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?”
The answer to Gore’s final rhetorical question would seem to be…
Posted by hungeski
for democracy; against fascism - http://TheParagraph.com










