Thoughts on this?

Someone posted this as a response to why the Dems shouldn't work on impeahchment right now. I have removed references to the group, and the individual. I respect that he has a different opinion, but, I must say I am not even sure how to react to this. I wasn't alive when Nixon was President (or was maybe 9 months old), and I remember the shock and disappointment I felt when reading about the internment camps for Japanese-Americans. This fifty-year test seems to me a cop-out in a sense - "Let's let someone else worry about this."

What about the oath of office?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

If I recall, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and the SCOTUS later shot it down. And the Japanese-American internment camps, FDR rescinded his order and Congress awarded payments for loss of property and formal apologies were issued (too little, too late, I say).

If we were to follow this questionable logic; that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures, it still doesn't pass the test. Are we safer now than we were pre-9/11? NO!

We're already going to be passing a disaster off to many generations, so we should dd more to it? Bush has already packed the court with conservatives. I don't see Thomas, Scalia, Scalito, none of them leaving anytime soon.

So, here it is:

"I am one of the few who agree with you on this ....xxxxx. In my mind the acid test for action is the question, "What action will best protect our constitution fifty years out?" In other words, what should progressive people be pushing for now that will result in the preservation of the U.S. Constittution in, say 2060? Historically, Presidents from Adams to Lincoln to Wilson to FDR to Nixon have stretched the constitution in times of stress (Alien and Sedition Acts; suspension of Habeas Corpus; Supression of speech deemed "Bolshevik"; internment of Japanese citizens; Watergate). In only one case was impeachment the remedy. In all other cases, patient use of the political process produced courts that restored the constitutional protections. The way to "protect and defend" the Constitution is to reelect Democrats in Congress and elect a Democratic President who will appoint intellectually honest justices and judges to the Supreme Court and lower federal courts."

Thoughts?