"You're probably right about that since they don't have enough time left to trash it entirely. In the meantime though, how the hell do you say with a straight face that these two don't govern with open contempt for the constitution?"
=============================================================
sea...
My statement about Bush and Cheney not wanting to "abrogate" the Constitution is based entirely on their lack of intent or desire to do any harm to the Constitution, and has nothing to do with how much time remains for them to do so. While you may disagree with them on some or, in the case of you and many others here, all the decisions they make, the fact remains that both are just men like the rest of us, and they are trying their best to do what they think is right for our country.
Whether or not you mind can grasp it, nothing that they have done is unconstitutional in their opinion. Even more startling for your closed mind, a large portion of the country agrees with them, including Constitutional scholars, despite incessant carping by the liberal media telling us that Bush and Cheney are taking away our Constitutional rights. Here is a concept for you to digest - just because someone interprets the Constitution differently from the way that you do, that does not make them evil men, or dictators, or despots, or Hitlers, or Constitution abusers. Most importantly, the fact that they disagree with you does not even mean that they are wrong. I know that goes against everything you hold dear, but it is true.
As is your custom, you view everyone and everything from your highly partisan liberal viewpoint. You use as support for your belief that Bush and Cheney are committing Constitutional abuse an article by another highly partisan left winger, Paul Starr, who writes for and helped to establish the "American Prospect", a very left wing liberal magazine. While the article does indeed agree with your viewpoint, that does not make it an accurate or true portrayal of what is happening. It is not inherently either right or wrong, it is just another opinion, in this case one that you agree with.
The Constitution, by its very nature, is subject to interpretation. If that were not so, we would not need judges like the Supreme Court to make those interpretations. Indeed, those judicial interpretations often change and evolve over time as the society changes, even though the Constitution itself never changes except for those rare times when it is amended. I would certainly interpret the Constitution much differently from the way you apparently see things. I think you are dead wrong in your interpretation, and you think it is I who errs, but that does not make me evil -- nor are you evil for disagreeing with me. We just view the document from different perspectives and tend to read our personal beliefs into it.
As I said in my original post on the subject, I firmly believe that anyone who thinks that Bush and/or Cheney actively wants to abrogate the Constitution has allowed his hatreds to disconnect him from reality. It is perfectly fine for anyone to disagree with what the administration does (I strongly disagree with a good number of their actions and thought processes) but you should not impugn their intent just because you disagree with them -- especially to the point of essentially accusing them of treasonous and subversive activity.
mlsoft
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
