Constitutional Democracy? A Quaint Concept

By Crowned Prince Wolfowitz

New Washington, D.C. - Although my expertise is in the area of nation-building, not Constitutional Law, having served the Empire well for these 21 years I feel qualified to comment on the difference between our Benevolent Imperial system. and old fashioned Constitutional Democracy.

For over 200 years, the country that preceded our glorious Empire was enslaved by the quaint notions of equality and justice purportedly embodied by the Constitution. But were people back then really better off than people today?

People are freer today, not in the physical sense or in the sense of their thoughts or speech - those are droll benchmarks. No, people today are freer in the sense of not having to live in fear. The Empire has created a secure place for people to raise their families. People no longer need fear being assaulted by a violent criminal; encountering a blue-haired, tattooed, everything-pierced freak approaching them on the sidewalk; talking to someone whose views don’t totally agree with theirs; religions other than Christianity; or, God forbid, a homosexual being a bit too fem in front of their children. That is genuine freedom. And that is something no constitution can ever guarantee. Only the benevolent authority of the Emperor can guarantee such freedoms.

But what about specifics? First of all, consider the complexity of the Constitution. It's 17 pages long, for goodness sake. It’s so open to interpretation that the courts wrestled for years with simple issues like capital punishment, first swinging one way, then the other. Such flip-flopping is confusing to the public. Our Imperial system is so much more black and white: the Emperor decides guilt or innocence and metes out the appropriate punishment, even if it means execution. It doesn’t get any simpler or fairer than that.

Then there are the amendments. The mere presence of amendments, proves that the Constitution was flawed from its inception. Nevertheless, take Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What on Earth does that mean? Not one citizen in a hundred could possibly understand that phrase. Moreover, it clearly contradicts the tradition of the country. The country that created this constitution was a Christian, God-fearing country. To insert the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is a glaring contradiction and probably a typographical error.

Or take Amendment 4:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Talk about your run-on sentences. But in any case, what the heck does that mean? Were it not for this silly amendment, the law enforcement establishment back then would have been far more effective. By monitoring people’s communications, spending and travel patterns, TV viewing, radio listening, book reading, and web surfing habits, and many other personal things, unfettered by this silly amendment, the police of the time could have anticipated and thwarted many acts of terrorism and civil disobedience before they occurred.

But my favorite one is Amendment 6:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Liberal terrorist apologists frequently used this amendment in the dark ages preceding the Empire to try to secure the release of suspected terrorists. Thankfully, for the people of the time, their Supreme Court , which was largely appointed by sensible, conservative presidents, sided with the government of the time and kept those pesky terrorists behind bars where they belonged. Ultimately, when it was clear that the policy of indefinitely keeping the terrorists behind bars, without access to legal council was unconstitutional, the government was ordered to set them free, but thankfully, that was when the Empire of Emperor Bush I was founded, so they were not actually set free. One can only imagine the horrors these terrorists could have unleashed on the world had they been set free.

In the early days of the Empire, before the PureThought program was created, some rabble-rousers in the Empire made a fuss that Emperor Bush I was not legitimately elected. In fact, Emperor Bush I was duly elected in a landslide victory - a fact affirmed by the Supreme Court of the time - and thus given a mandate to fix what was wrong with the Empire. The fact that the Emperor was reelected five more times, as evidenced by his Glory’s title of Emperor Bush VI, proves that he is the legitimately elected Emperor, and that the collective wisdom of the citizens is that the Benevolent Imperial system works. Complaints that most of Emperor Bush’s opponents in elections for the position of Emperor have died in unfortunate mishaps is irrelevant. Incessant suggestions that these deaths are not accidents is nothing more than paranoid ranting by the vast left-wing conspiracy. Fortunately, PureThought is expunging such treasonous thoughts from the Empire.

So all in all, I’ll take the security - and sanctity - of our Benevolent Imperial system any day over an ambiguous Constitutional Democracy.

Related stories:
Kerry-Gore Demand Another Recount
Social Security Payments To Increase
Ten Commandments Updated