An open letter to Congresspeople

A US federal district court just ruled that the Bush regime violated the law with its program to spy on Americans. The fact that this is illegal is plain to anyone familiar with US wiretapping laws.

The judge went so far as to say, "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." Well duh! It's amazing that we have to be reminded. Bush needs to be reminded too -- he is wasting tax money to appeal the judge's decision.

Bush's crimes are almost as startling as his administration's incompetence. But with those crimes in mind, I'm amazed that more people are not advocating impeachment.

So a few weeks ago I decided to write a letter to my Congresspeople and to get their opinion. This is not about politics, this is a straightforward issue of whether we will defend the Constitution and protect the rule of law. This was the letter I wrote:

As my elected member of Congress, I believe you swore an oath to uphold and to defend our Constitution. I am glad there are citizens so bold to stand up for our most cherished principles.

We now know the Bush administration lied to the American people and Congress about the justifications for going to war in Iraq. It has now been revealed that President Bush, like Nixon three decades ago, has carried out illegal wiretapping programs against the people of our country. The is a stark violation of not only our laws but also of the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that President Bush violated the Geneva Conventions -- a duly enacted treaty which our Constitution calls the "supreme law of the land." Even a bi-partisan commission of the American Bar Association has determined that the President's blatant ignoring of laws by issuing hundreds and hundreds of "signing statements" is destroying the systems of checks and balances that our Constitution depends on.

These are serious offenses which constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors. I urge you to support impeachment immediately, in order to save the Constitution.

I would like to hear your thoughts on these most serious issues and impeachment, and how your oath to uphold and defend our Constitution factors into your views.

I wrote that to my member of the House of Representatives (only the House has the Constitutional power to impeach a president) and to both my Senators. It's now been about a month. Guess what I heard?

Nada. Zip. Nothing. Not a word. I'm guessing that the tactic is for most politicians to just ignore any talk of impeachment.

Thoughts? Like the idea? Hate the idea? There are many sites that will easily allow you to write letters to your Congresspeople.

0

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Will politics destroy America?

"But even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals."

I like to know something about the players. We know about Bush. Here's something about the Judge.

Detroit Free Press
Judge could alter war on terror
Taylor is to rule soon in spying case

BY DAVID ASHENFELTER
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

August 7, 2006

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, 73, is expected to rule any day now on the legality of the U.S. government's domestic spying program. (AMY LEANG/Detroit Free Press)
Anna Diggs Taylor

Job: U.S. district judge, Detroit

Age: 73

Background: In 1979, she became the first black woman to be appointed as a federal district judge in Michigan. Before that, she was a lawyer, civil-rights worker, county and federal prosecutor and City of Detroit lawyer.

Family: She has two adult children and is married to S. Martin Taylor, former director of the Michigan Department of Labor and former vice president of Detroit Edison. He also is a University of Michigan regent.

News: Taylor is expected to decide soon whether the Bush administration's domestic spying program is unconstitutional.

Anna Diggs Taylor never planned to become a federal judge.

But opportunity knocked.

She never intended to become the first black woman to serve as chief judge of the U.S. District Court in eastern Michigan.

But she accepted out of a sense of historic duty.

Most of the accomplishments of her 49-year legal career, Taylor said, resulted from good luck and heeding the advice of her junior high school English teacher -- work hard, get good grades and the doors of opportunity will open.

Even for a black woman in the segregated 1940s and '50s.

Now, the 73-year-old matronly judge who has spent her career shunning the spotlight is back in the media glare.

Any day now, she's expected to rule on the American Civil Liberties Union's request to strike down the Bush administration's controversial domestic spying program. The ruling could affect the civil rights of millions of Americans and alter the course of the administration's war on terror.

Although Taylor is a liberal with Democratic roots and defended civil-rights workers in the South in the 1960s, people who know her say she will follow the law -- not her politics -- in deciding the case.

"She'll rule based on what the law requires, not on what people perceive her biases to be," Southfield lawyer Harold Pope III said last week. Pope is a former president of the National Bar Association, a prominent black lawyers' group.

Pope said Taylor, a former City of Detroit staff attorney who defended Mayor Coleman Young's efforts to integrate city government in the mid-1970s, ruled against Pope and Detroit in 1993, declaring unconstitutional a program that reserved municipal contracts for minority vendors.

"She's not going to let anything stand in the way of a proper analysis of the law and the facts," Pope said.

Taylor couldn't comment on the National Security Agency case because of judicial canon. Neither would the lawyers in the case.

The ACLU sued the NSA in January, calling unconstitutional its program of intercepting international phone calls and e-mails of suspected Al Qaeda members without obtaining search warrants first. The suit says the program has hampered journalists, scholars, lawyers and others trying to speak to sources overseas.

Justice Department lawyers say the program is vital and legal -- created after Congress authorized the Bush administration to combat terrorism following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They want Taylor to dismiss the suit, saying the case cannot proceed without divulging state secrets.

Although four other suits challenge the legality of the NSA program, the Detroit case is the farthest along.

The administration wants all of the cases, along with about 20 lawsuits filed against telecommunication companies suspected of giving phone records to the NSA, transferred to Washington. The ACLU hopes Taylor will rule before that happens.

Taylor was born Anna Katherine Johnston in 1932 in Washington, D.C. Her father was treasurer of Howard University. Her mother was a homemaker and a business teacher.

After the ninth grade, Taylor's parents sent her to Northfield School for Girls in East Northfield, Mass. -- one of the few prep schools that accepted black students -- to groom her for a career.

Although being separated from her family was difficult, Taylor credits the school with broadening her horizons and preparing her for the prestigious Barnard College at Columbia University in New York, where she earned a degree in economics in 1954.

Three years later, she received a law degree from Yale. She attended on a scholarship and was one of only five women in her graduating class.

Unable to get a job as a lawyer at New York or Washington, D.C., law firms -- a near impossibility for black people, especially women, in the 1950s -- Taylor turned to the Solicitor's Office of the U.S. Department of Labor. She became a lawyer there with the help of J. Ernest Wilkins, then assistant secretary of labor and the first black person appointed to a subcabinet post. He also was a friend of her father's.

"I'd be unemployed today if it hadn't been for that man," Taylor said in a 1984 interview with the Michigan Bar Journal.

In Washington, Taylor met Charles Diggs Jr., son of a wealthy Detroit mortician and a rising star in Congress.

They married in 1960 and moved to Detroit.

The following year, she became a Wayne County assistant prosecutor.

In 1964, five months after the birth of the first of her two children, Taylor went to Mississippi to defend civil-rights workers who were jailed for registering black people to vote.

The day Taylor arrived, three workers -- James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner -- disappeared near Philadelphia, Miss.

Taylor, her brother, another law student and Detroit lawyer George Crockett Jr., who eventually became a Michigan congressman, drove to the Neshoba County Courthouse to inquire about the missing men.

Sheriff Lawrence Rainey Jr., who was implicated and later acquitted in the men's deaths, was less than helpful, Taylor recalled. As Taylor and the group walked back to their car, they were menaced by a crowd of angry white people who shouted racial slurs at them.

"We were afraid we were going to be killed," Taylor said.

In 1966, Taylor became an assistant U.S. attorney in Detroit, but left the following year to manage her husband's Detroit congressional office.

In 1970, she went into private practice.

During the next five years, she and Diggs divorced. She also campaigned for Coleman Young, helping him become Detroit's first black mayor.

In 1975, Young asked her to become a staff lawyer to defend his programs to integrate city government.

A year later, she married S. Martin Taylor, then director of the Michigan Employment Security Commission.

In 1979, three years after she campaigned for Jimmy Carter's presidential bid, Carter rewarded Taylor with a lifetime appointment to U.S. District Court in Detroit.

Taylor was the first black female federal district judge in the U.S. 6th Circuit, comprising Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

In the years that followed, she presided over high-profile cases and made some waves.

In 1984, she sentenced Ronald Ebens to 25 years in prison for beating 27-year-old Vincent Chin to death with a baseball bat outside a Highland Park bar. Ebens, a laid-off autoworker, was angry about Japanese car imports. Chin was a Chinese American.

An appeals court overturned the verdict and Ebens was acquitted at retrial.

"The entire experience was a wrenching one from start to finish," Taylor said later.

In 1984, Taylor banned nativity scenes on municipal property in Birmingham and Dearborn in ACLU lawsuits.

The same year, she publicly rebuked then-Chief Judge John Feikens for racially insensitive remarks about the ability of Young and other black leaders to run city government. They later became friends.

In 1998, a year after Taylor became chief judge, Judge Bernard Friedman blasted her for her role in an effort to have a suit challenging the University of Michigan's use of race in its law school's admission policies assigned to another judge who was handling a similar case. Taylor's husband is a U-M regent.

Lawyers say Taylor is fair, pleasant and dignified, yet in firm control of her courtroom.

"She is smart as hell," one lawyer told the 2006 Almanac of the Federal Judiciary.

In January 1999, Taylor went on senior status, continuing with a smaller caseload.

On Friday, she will be inducted into the National Bar Association Hall of Fame during its conference in Detroit.

Legal experts wouldn't predict how Taylor might rule in the NSA case.

But even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this case is all about."

Contact DAVID ASHENFELTER at 313-223-4490 or .

Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.

Write more!

I use to write letters too. Both to politicians and media. I don't now how much I can change the world by doing that. I think it's my duty as a human to try to make the world better and if lots of people did the same I'm sure it would matter. As long as it's only a few people who makes their voices heard I'm sure the politicians doesn't care to much.
The fact that they don't answer the letter is no prof that they doesn't read that you write. But it's much possible that they don't cause they have assistants who read the mail and maybe (I don't now) censor them too. Politicians have sensitive souls and doesn't want to hear other things than praise.
Best response I ever get - this was before all our members of the parliament got a personal secretary and was forced to read their mail themselves - was one time then I send a letter to all 349 members of the Swedish parliament and question, with arguments, if they where psychopaths. That mail hit the target and I got 25 replies. Some of them real angry. :-)
To send out 349 mails I collected the addresses and used a mail merge application. If you want answer and biggest possible reaction try to avoid that the mail looks like it was mass-produced. I think it's inportent to make the mail feels personal and with the receivers name in it. The mail merge application help you with that to.

Oh... the outrage!!!

Where was all this outrage when Bill Clinton lied to the American people, perjured himself, and went about molesting women?

All pent up

It was all pent up, just waiting to elect W. Ok, IntnsRed, now you can just link to your post on the old site rather going through all the work of rehashing your rebuttal of my careless use of the word elect :-).

Re: Where was all this outrage

As I recall there was greater outrage over President Clinton's sexual misconduct than there has been over President Bush's aggressive dismantling of the U.S. Constitution--at least that's the way it seemed from the press coverage, which is not always the most reliable indicator of the public mood. And don't forget that President Clinton was impeached, although not removed from office. Despite the impeachment rhetoric that one sees here and elsewhere, impeachment does not really seem to be on the horizon for President Bush.

Furthermore, some of us were at least as worried by President Clinton's public policies as by his shameful treatment of a subordinate. The man who went around saying to the poor and working class, "I feel your pain," was doing far more to dismantle the welfare system and to promote global capitalism than any Republican had ever done.

Debating which U.S. President is the bigger cad, however, may be a distraction from the fact that the U.S. is now facing a constitutional crisis. With the complicity of federal elected officials of both major parties, the U.S. presidency has been invested with virtually unlimited authority, undermining the most fundamental principles of government upon which the U.S. Constitution is based. The sheer number of elected officials who have forsworn their oaths to protect the constitution is both staggering and disheartening. What remains to be seen is whether the federal courts will join in destroying the U.S. system of government.

So, where was the outrage over President Clinton's behavior? It was there with a vengeance all the way to impeachment. The more distressing question is: why is there no more outrage than there seems to be over the fact that in recent years almost every federal-level elected official has betrayed his or her oath of office, over the fact that the system of government established by the U.S. Constitution is being overthrown by the very persons who have sworn to preserve it?

--oldfolio

If we don't defend our

If we don't defend our freedom, and maintain our security, then what good is the constitution for us? What good does a constitution do if terrorists are free to walk about our country and blow people up without anybody trying to catch them before they do? How do you propose that we deal with Muslim extremists who want very badly to kill innocent people on our own soil? If President Bush and our other elected officials hadn't taken measures to improve and maintain our security, how much liberty would we really have now? Is it liberty to live in fear? Is it liberty to ignore threats and stand by while we are attacked? Does the constitution mandate that our domestic security forces work blindfolded? How else are they supposed to protect us?

Syndicate content