Man eats his hands for fear they may be possessed!

No not really, though I thought of this due to a recent event in Vermont. Apparently the town of Brattleboro decided to issue a non-enforceable petition to repudiate Bush and Cheney for violating the Constitution (big C not little c). The great thing is that some lovely citizens wrote to the council about that local petition. Lets look at one of the comments....

"The petition prompted Brent Caflisch to go to his computer in Rosemount, Minn. "Maybe the terrorists will do us all a favor and attack your town next, our country would be much safer with several thousand dead wackjobs in Vermont," he wrote.

It went on to say terrorists could kidnap the three Select Board members who voted in favor, "cut their heads off, video tape it and put it on the internet.""

Woah... theres a lot of glare coming off of that dome! Apparently there were many more (Approx 60) sent along this line of thinking. What does this petition actually say?

It reads thusly: "Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?"

What basis do these people have to indict Bush and Cheney for crimes against the Constitution? Well... let us have a history lesson...

The presidential oath of office is located in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution. Every president, and vice president must swear to it before the nation and god.

This part is pulled from the US National Archives, enjoy!
"The Presidential Oath of Office was set down in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The oath originally proposed was much shorter, requiring the President-elect to swear only to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States." James Madison, a delegate to the Convention from Virginia, believed that the Chief Executive should be bound by oath to support the articles of the Union—the very document the Convention was struggling to create. Along with George Mason, another Virginia delegate, Madison proposed that the President also be made to swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""

So what does this all mean? It means the President, and his Vice President swore an oath of office and are expected to abide by that oath. The oath says they will Preserve, Protect and Defend, not simply one of those actions, but all of those actions. Though if Bush did not swear that oath then I guess he did not do anything wrong... oh wait...



I guess he did swear that oath.

Now every president is going to make mistakes, but it can be argued that this one actively violated that oath. One can argue about the Executive position lately on Due Process, Eminent Domain, First Amendment Freedoms, Fourth Amendment Rights, Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel and so on. Why am I saying all this? Simply to illustrate that this town council has a reason to issue such a petition. Whether one agrees with it or not.

So what pisses me off about this whole issue?

What the fuck are people thinking when they suggest that terrorists should come in and kill thousands of Americans? They claim to support Constitution devouring laws that Bush issues 'for our own safety'. Yet they want to violate Bush's intent to keep terrorists from killing Americans? This makes no sense. Also, since when does wanting to protect the constitution make one a friend of terrorists? I thought it was a very American thing to want to protect our freedom and our founding document of law. They like to argue that to protect freedom we need to give away our freedom. I find that to be an illogical statement.

Regardless of whether you agree with that Vermont town or not, I say try to use reason and abstain from wishing terrorist death upon your fellow citizens. Where has the capacity for logical rebuttal or civil disagreement gone? Fear of terrorism, fear in general, erodes an individuals capacity for clear thinking. Perhaps this serves as a lesson that this kind of illogical fear, which can drive people like Mr. Caflish to wish such heinous things up on his people, is still alive and in need of remedy.