The Legal Foundation of the US

As the months go by, increasing numbers in America come to realize that disastrous, corrupt, evil shits control the White House and Congress. As more details come out about the total disdain of Bush, FEMA head Brown, et al. that number is going to increase even more.

The problem is, will Congress impeach Bush? They're starting to realize that as Bush's popularity tanks that continuing to support him in any way could cost them a lot of votes. However, the Republicans also know that Diebold and the other electronic voting machine companies are on their side. Unless there is a big swing against a congresscritter they're going to rig the vote and blame discrepancies on polling errors. And given how blatant they are with their corrupt ways, it would take a seriously big swing to convince them that they couldn't get away with it. Hell, they're that fucking evil they'd probably do it anyway, because what can people do about it. So it's by no means certain that Congress would impeach even if 90% of the US were begging them to do so.

The Grand Jury investigating the Plame outing is rumoured to have considerably widened its scope and is investigating various criminal acts of many senior administration officials (possibly including Bush and Cheney). It is also suspected that Fitzgerald has advised the jury of its full powers (the ability to act on its own whims and not be limited by the prosecutor in what they look at) in case he is removed and replaced by some pro-Bush puppet. So it's possible that a "terrorist" attack will hit the building where the Grand Jury sits, killing all members and destroying all records. More likely is that Bush will just pre-emptively pardon everyone under investigation because these evil fuckers really are that blatant.

So what's left? There is one ultimate recourse. For use only where all other means of addressing grievances fail. It is described in the legal foundation of the US. The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" but without this foundation the Constitution itself would be deemed illegal. That foundation is the Declaration of Independence. It was written after the continuing depredations of an insane dictator called George finally became too much to bear. Now that the US is struggling under the continuing depredations of another insane dictator called George is it time to take a look at this document in order to learn what might become necessary.

Some may quibble about me calling the Declaration the legal foundation of the US. But it most certainly is. The acts of rebellion were illegal under the (British) laws imposed upon the colonies. In fact they were (and still are) considered illegal by most countries. And because, at that time, most countries were ruled by kings, even Britain's enemies would have been reluctant to stand by as the colonies rebelled lest their own suppressed populace get ideas. So it was necessary to create a legal construct that justified the rebellion as an extra-ordinary reaction to extreme misrule (other kings could relax unless their own rule was as bad as George's).

On to an analysis of the pertinent sections of that hallowed document.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If your government is a fucked-up bunch of corrupt, evil bastards, you have the right to change it. In a functional democracy you can do that by voting but, of course, when a fucked-up bunch of corrupt, evil bastards have taken control then voting isn't going to work.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

You shouldn't embark on this course of action lightly. But the founders had extensively studied history and knew that people put up with a hell of a lot of shit before they wake up. And this is the case today: it has taken a lot of Bush evilness to wake up enough Republicans that now over 50% of the US thinks Bush is a disaster. The scary thing is that it's only around 55% and not the 99.9% that it should be, thanks to Fox and NBC (owned by General Electric, which makes fuckloads of money supplying all those bombs that were dropped on Fallujah).

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

"Long train of abuses and usurpations"? Check.

"Reduce them under absolute Despotism"? Check.

It is the "people's right" and their "duty" to "throw off such Government." You don't just have the right as American people to get rid of the smirking chimp, it is your duty.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

Substitute "president" for "King" and "United States" for "Great Britain" and this still applies.

[Long list of specific grievances omitted. Replace them with your own grievances about this insane, evil, corrupt chimp called George.]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Some of the bolder Democrats in Congress have tried to get redress for blatant, corrupt, evil acts but have been smacked down by Hastert and Delay (or their underlings in various committees). They have written letters of complaint to the President that were completely ignored. Not a "the President understands your concerns but feels they are unreasonable." Not even a blow-off "tough titty." Just a refusal to respond.

Obviously, the Declaration was written by that body called Congress, which declared independence from Britain. Now the tyranny is not by the British King and his lickspittle Parliament but the US President and his lickspittle Congress. But the principle is the same in either case:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The only way the founders could "alter or abolish" the tyrannical regime that oppressed them, and "institute new Government" was by rebellion. A war of the people against the tyrannical rulers. The founders knew that there was a possibility that the US Government would be corrupted from within because it had happened many times throughout history (read the Federalist Papers). That's why the First Amendment includes the right to "bear arms." An uprising by armed citizens was able to defeat the British. An armed uprising by Vietnamese was able to defeat the US. An armed uprising by armed citizens of Afghanistan was able to defeat Soviet invaders. The current armed uprising by Iraqis will surely defeat the US. Even if the US military sides with Bush (by no means certain because the majority of them are as disgruntled with Bush as everyone else is) they could not prevail against an armed uprising. Of course, in some countries (such as Nazi Germany) the people just went along with the fascist takeover because it was too much hassle to do anything about it (and I have a horrible feeling the US will go the same way).

This is very much a last resort. You exhaust the legal means first because you are not as corrupt and evil as your enemy (if, in order to avoid your enemy beating you and imposing upon you that which you think is evil, you have to adopt those tactics of your enemy that make him evil in order to defeat him, then your enemy has defeated you). You try to avoid it because unless those who support armed rebellion vastly outnumber those who do not, there will a lot of bloodshed.

As I said, very much a last resort. One to be used only when all other legal recourses have failed. But it is a legal recourse (or else the United States is an illegal entity) of last resort. One that must be kept in mind if all else fails. I hope it doesn't become necessary and that impeachment or Grand Jury indictment is all it takes to expunge this evil.