Gonzales Not Chief Law Enforcement Officerposted by Bill Arnett @ 2:02 PM Permalink
Something has bothered me for a long time now and just drives me crazy (like I haven't been there before), and it is something so simple and, I thought, so well known that it baffles me as to why more people don't see it.
I'm sure that everyone in the world remembers the Clinton/Lewinsky debacle that resulted in the impeachment without conviction of Bill Clinton. Everyday on every station all the Republicans preached was that "the chief law enforcement officer" of America, constitutionally required to "…take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" had committed perjury, an offense so heinous that the "Rule of Law" demanded that he be prosecuted.
They were right: Article 2, Section 3, describing the duties and responsibilities of the president, does contain the provision that, "…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…" which obviously makes the president the chief law enforcement officer of these United States. Not the U.S. Attorney General, the chief prosecutor for the U.S.
So why do the Republicans now claim that the U.S. Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer? Is the semantic change an effort to reduce the tarnishing of the office of the president at a time when, arguably, the president is the most prolific law-breaker in American history? Is it so the "Rule of Law" the rethuglicans used to swear to be the guardians of won't apply to bush?
It just makes me wonder. But one thing I know beyond doubt: The GOP, the republicans, the presidential sycophants in congress and throughout the bush maladministration have forever forfeited their right to claim belief in the "Rule of Law."