I would…
o Order the heads of the military to immediately commence an orderly and rapid withdrawal of all troops and equipment from Iraq and Afghanistan.
o Issue a formal, succinct apology to the people of Iraq for all acts of violence and coercion under the aegis of George Bush and his cronies, and formally disavow those acts.
o Order the heads of military to plan orderly and rapid closure of all military bases outside the borders of the United States and its possessions, including the return of all troops, the return of all equipment that is practical, and to execute the immediate sale or destruction of all weapons and defense systems that cannot be transported within a 90-day period.
o Issue a blanket pardon for all non-violent drug offenders
o Issue an executive order invalidating any past, present or future law that infringes upon the personal liberty to choose to import, grow, manufacture, carry, sell or consume any consumable substance as a matter of informed choice. This would in no way shield drug users from consequences of actions taken while under the influence of drugs.
o Order the closure of Guantanimo Bay and the transfer and release of all prisoners to their country of origin, or to asylum in the US if they prefer
o Issue at least one executive order to strike down one of the myriad unconstitutional laws violating the bill of rights
o Issue at least one executive order to strike down one of the myriad unconstitutional laws that does not pass muster under the enumerated congressional powers
o Issue at least one executive order to strike down one of the myriad unconstitutional laws that depends upon the topsy-turvy interpretation of the commerce clause
o Issue at least one executive order to have a supreme court judge arrested for violating the constitutional oath they swore as part of their office. I’d probably choose Scalia to go first, based on his nonsensical assertion in Heller that the government has the authority to tell citizens where they may carry arms.
o Issue at least one executive order to have a congressman arrested for violating the constitutional oath they swore as part of their office. For the first one of these, I’d probably choose the top sponsor of the bill that attempted to suspend habeas corpus, I think it was in the Military Commissions Act.
o At the end of the day, I’d make a short fireside-style speech explaining the difference between coercive, arbitrarily exercised government power, and authorized use of power as delegated to the government by the constitution. I’d go on to say that I consider it my job to defend the country and its possessions at their borders from foreign military aggression; to undo as much harm as possible that has been caused by out of control, coercive, unauthorized exercise of federal and state government power; to restore the income, property and liberties taken from US citizens by previous state and federal government misdeeds; to restore *authorized* power to the states, while reminding them they are absolutely bound by the bill of rights and other constitutional direction specifically to them; and finally, I would talk to the citizens about personal liberty and personal responsibility, explaining the concept that their right to exert personal power ends where another person’s body, property and family begin. I would state my intent to focus the government on the jobs of providing and maintaining transport and communications infrastructure, education, and healthcare in an environment where the greatest possible safety and security of the individual, property and family from aggression from any quarter was assured. I’d announce my intent to institute a program that assured any individual a safe bed, practical clothing, and (extremely) basic sustenance, should they fall through to the bottom of the country’s economic system.
o Then I’d duck into the white house, batten down the hatches, and get to work. I expect going outside would get me shot, so I wouldn’t. I’d just do my job. I’m sure that four years of desk work wouldn’t be enough to undo the unbelievable mess that the government has created anyway, and even if it was, one would have to be careful that the cure didn’t cause intolerable disruption, and frankly, that would be very, very tough.
#1 by Dave West on February 12, 2009 - 1:15 pm
Quote
Your last paragraph is probably more accurate than anyone might imagine. I have learned that several states may attempt to invoke Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. Following is a resolution by Oklahoma to do this. What is your opinion of this course of action? I am reminded of the saying “Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.”
#2 by fyngyrz on February 12, 2009 - 2:39 pm
Quote
I’m inclined to think sovereignty is a poor idea for a state. Most of them have neither the resources or the internal structure to configure themselves as a nation without great expense and effort – which would obviously not be supported by federal funds, and therefore would put a huge load on the citizens and businesses.
The best outcome (not likely, just best) would be for the states to put some pressure on the feds in some manner — instructing their citizens to submit federal taxes to a state holding intermediary, for instance — in order to get the feds to back down from the outright imperial stance they have taken over the years. Financial pressure is always better than bloodshed.
Alas, the odds favor the status quo, where sheer political inertia will keep the system going in the same direction, accumulating power at the top and taking it from both the states and the people. The population is passive, favoring safety over liberty; without involving the majority, change isn’t really possible in a nation structured the way ours is. In my opinion.
#3 by Dave West on February 12, 2009 - 4:36 pm
Quote
It would appear that you consider the Constitution defunct for all practical purposes. I do not argue that the realistic outcome is more likely as you describe for the reasons you have presented. Never-the-less I have great difficulty accepting that socialism (or worse) is a fate-accompli in a country with so much talent and ability to solve big problems. The thought of hundreds of thousands of lives that have been given to defend a piece of paper that is now essentially worthless does not set well with this 77 year old. My son, a 30 year old Army S/Sgt has just returned from a 15 month tour in Iraq; (his 2nd). Later this year he will be leaving the Army after ten years of service. The thought of telling him he may have wasted 10 years is not something any father could look forward to especially after encouraging him in his attempt to do the right thing. Although I will take your opinion under advisement I will not yet accept the thought that ALL IS LOST. I quit jousting with windmills years ago in favor of just burning them down (figuratively). That approach may be the answer now.
#4 by fyngyrz on February 12, 2009 - 7:46 pm
Quote
Dave, sadly, I do consider the constitution to be effectively defunct. It’s the last thing I want; I consider myself a patriot and someone who values liberty in the sense that the authors of the constitution seemed to view the idea; but observation leads me to conclude that there is no constitutional matter that the ruling 535 will not disregard, either officially or not, in the pursuit of their own goals. The evidence simply cannot be ignored.
The problems with burning windmills can be summed up as (a) they tend to fall on you before they’re entirely converted to ashes, and (b) even though they blocked the view and took up space, they were useful and now you have lost the use of them, and who will grind the grain?
I just don’t think revolution is the answer. I think we will sink deeper into this mutated imperial form of our intended government, one where the 535 gain more and more power, and eventually, the people will become agitated. The drug war wasn’t enough to do it (though I was a little surprised by that), the current push against sexual freedom hasn’t done it either, and so I think it’ll take something that hits people right at home… control or mandate or perhaps simply surveillance of some kind of in-home behavior.
The one thing that will probably cause some change is that as the government becomes more and more focused on its own people’s interests, it becomes less and less efficient at getting things done for the country at large. If the people aren’t happy, then change becomes more likely.
Thank your son for his service from me. Though the government misuses our soldiers terribly, and certainly this is the case with Iraq, we need them in case a day comes when a real threat arises.
#5 by Dave West on February 15, 2009 - 4:43 pm
Quote
Thank you Ben. You are truly a Great American.