“Save the Constitution”: too radical for the National Archives
I joined retired college professor and impeachment advocate John Nirenberg on Saturday for the final leg of his “March in My Name” Boston-to-Washington D.C. walk to demonstrate for impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
You can read more about John’s goals and views at his web site; suffice it to say he’s an articulate and persuasive advocate for impeachment, as he proved again in his remarks at the end of his and our march, across the street from the National Archives:
…even with the separation of powers, even with the checks and balances, even with the staggered election cycles, they put in impeachment. Because they so feared that the executive would be tempted to abuse his power much like the kings and queens that they were familiar with. […]
And yet today we find ourselves now facing a crisis of the Constitution… The Democrats have in their silence granted a pardon to the President and the Vice President … and future presidents. Not only has their silence granted them a pardon for their many crimes, but their silence has also amended the Constitution. By being silent and allowing a shift in power from Congress to the executive they have changed the document — they have changed the Constitution which …they have sworn to uphold… […]
We wouldn’t have ever thought the Constitution would be trashed peacefully, quietly, through silence.
But in some ways the most telling moment of the day came after we thought the day was over. John’s wife Allison wanted to visit the National Archives, where original copies of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are enshrined. However, she was wearing a yellow poncho with the words
Impeach Bush/Cheney
Tell Speaker Pelosi
(202) 225-0100
www.marchinmyname.org
And that wasn’t allowed. Allison, writing at “March in My Name”:
I tried to talk to the guard about my goal in being in the building – simply to see the Constitution of the United States. He wasn’t convinced and kept repeating his mantra, “Just take off the poncho and you can go in.” I asked him what was wrong with my poncho. He replied that they do not allow protests inside the building. I said that I was not protesting, that I was just an American citizen visiting the most important document of our country. […]
I asked for a copy of the policy that mandated I remove my objectionable clothing in order to see the Constitution. They would provide nothing… I asked them how the policy is practiced - that knowing how they interpret and implement the policy might help me understand the policy or law I was violating. They simply and finally said, “You will have to leave if you do not remove your garment.”
So she chose to leave.
And, as I was turning to leave, I told him he was part and parcel of the reason that I found it necessary to articulate my point of view to “Save the Constitution,” on my clothing. “You might want to read the Constitution before you leave work today to find out what this is all about.” I said as I left.
Outside, Allison told us, “I’m not going to take off a poncho with a political statement on it to go in and see the document giving me the right to keep it on.”
For more on the march, see my post “Walking to strengthen a weakened Constitution“; this post is adapted from it. See also my friend Michelle Bailey’s (”Impeach Them”) post, slideshow, and above all the excellent video she filmed, edited, produced, and uploaded this weekend. (I’d post it, but keep having trouble with embedding videos here, though obviously it can be done.)
Photo originally uploaded by Thomas Nephew
January 14th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
[…] From Takoma Park impeach organizer Thomas Nephew: Newsrack blog, American Street, photos […]
January 14th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
America wonders about the economy but America should wonder about defending the Constitution
Barrack Obama’s book called “Audacity of Hope” in the third chapter titled the Constitution is revealing. Of course it has the standard text book commentaries on the wonders of Democracy, the elements of the Constitution, and it’s founders, are tied up here, too loose and not as positive or siding with an open mind. Many of his characterization of the theme in organized constructive government is depressing, negative and leaves out the high value of sharing our founding fathers had is considered hypocrisy, and likely tied to what even he commits to imply, America is not ready for a black president.
Obama, highlights the genius of the Constitution, and specifically the thirtieth, fourteenth, and fiftieth amendments passed as a Union finally perfected. A very amazing statement that does not support harmony and unity Obama makes claim in his “Audacity of Hope” in the beginning Prologue.
In the third chapter page 97 last paragraph he starts with inspiration and ends with doubt, he says,
“How can I, an American with the blood of Africa coursing through my veins, choose sides in such a dispute? I can’t, I love America too much, am too invested in what this country has become, too committed to its institutions, its beauty, and even its ugliness, to focus entirely on the circumstances of its birth. But neither can I brush aside the magnitude of the injustice done, or erase the ghosts of generations past, or ignore the open wound, the aching spirit, that ails this country still”.
Very well said to cast away the founding circumstance of freedom and liberty from tyranny, casting away the birth of Americas Constitution? An incredible thing to say all while giving love and praise for beauty and ugliness. The biggest uncertainty is the very last statement suggested by Obama. But what are the Ghosts of past generations, or the open wounds, what is that acing spirit that ails the country. And, please, Senator Obama, if you don’t know what they are how do you expect to unite and change the country or the world ?
For in the beginning of Obama’s Prologue He said: “ That’s the topic of this book: how we might begin the process of changing our politics and our civic life. This isn’t to say that I know exactly how to do it. I don’t. Although I discuss in each chapter a number of our most pressing policy challenges, and suggest in broad strokes the path I believe we should follow, my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete. I offer no unifying theory of American government, nor do these pages provide a manifesto for action, complete with chats and graphs, timetables, and ten-point plans”.
From the Prologue to the third chapter is a monumental contradiction of ideals and personal thoughts Obama presents. A grand surprise for someone that taught the Constitution at the University of Chicago for ten years. A very sad surprise. Obama admits in the very start He doesn’t know how he would do anything. But clearly in his campaign speeches offers change you can believe in. Very extraordinary. So what are the Ghosts of past generations? What do does Obama mean about not to focus entirely on the circumstances of Americas birth?
January 14th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I guess I don’t see the problem with those particular words other than that they’re a bit flowery and vague. I can say that re impeachment, Obama’s against it because he implies, Bush and Cheney’s breaches are not grave enough to merit impeachment, and of course he’s agin all the nasty quarrely stuff impeachment would bring with it. On the other hand, Edwards opposed impeachment earlier in the campaign as well (would take Congress’ time away from other matters). I imagine Clinton’s not for it either, but don’t know for sure.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
“You might want to read the Constitution before you leave work today to find out what this is all about.” I said as I left.
Beautiful!
January 14th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
What irony. I’ve been down in that room, viewed all those documents (there was also an original Magna Carta copy at the time I was there), and been deeply moved… moved along, actually, by the guard, because I was taking the time actually to read the Bill of Rights. But based on Allison’s experience, if they had known what was in my mind, they would never have admitted me. If your reverence is for the principles as well as the parchment, the current crew in the White House doesn’t want you to be inspired by the documents.
Thanks for posting this; it is very revealing of the tenor of our times.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:45 am
[…] From friend and co-Takoma Park impeach organizer Thomas Nephew: Newsrack blog, American Street, photos […]
January 15th, 2008 at 7:41 am
I wonder if the same thing would happen in Philly. Someone with money and time on their hands should do an experiment - which national landmarks throw people out for wearing t-shirts with political text on them?
January 15th, 2008 at 10:50 am
…and which messages get punished — “Impeach Bush & Cheney”, “These colors don’t run,” “John Edwards ‘08″, “Mitt Romney ‘08″….
January 21st, 2008 at 11:45 am
[…] There’s a companion piece by Thomas Nephew to Allyson Villars’ story, cited here a couple of days ago in Encountering the Constitutional Twilight Zone. It’s about John Nirenberg’s walk from Boston to Washington to meet with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about reconsidering her decision to take impeachment of Bush and Cheney off the table. Along the way Nirenberg was joined by a number of people who accompanied him along sections of his walk and who added their names to the petition he carried to present to Speaker Pelosi. […]