Amazing how those pesky Tea Party goers and their merry band of supporters can create so much trouble talking about the constitutionality of the latest directives in Washington.
The Jones resignation has to mean more than just the removal of a man from CL2009 that expressed the thought that the federal government was behind the deaths of September 11. This must be a movement to revisit the question of whether CL2009 should be removed in its entirety.
Now, I'm not saying that the president should not be able to pick and choose who he would like to work with within his administration. After all, he did win the election. However, CL2009 has become more like a federal mandate or law passed without the consent of the people (through their elected officials in Washington) than it has a collection of teammates willing to assist a sitting president. And that is the concern that many Americans have with CL2009 - as well as the reason why it has to come down in its current form and be rebuilt under the constructs of how we do things civically in the USA.
Uncovering some of the more radical positions and statements that Mr. Jones has placed on record (unwillingly or otherwise) must lead to the continued focus of other radical positions that CL2009'ers hold (compulsory abortions? involuntary sterilization? look it up) to uncover whether we should allow CL2009's existence another minute.
The American people have a right and a responsibility to hold accountable those elected officials and presidential appointees for behavior that impacts the direction of the country. Even if Americans are not living up to that responsibility as much as they should (although they are doing so more now than they have in recent times), they must never have that right taken away from them by their president through some form of de facto shift from how we conduct government in the USA. It is the republican form of government - not a democracy nor a czardom, for certain - that allows the United States to be the bastion of freedom, hope, and transparency for the world. It is time to reflect that proud example once again, and barriers to reflecting that - those such as CL2009 - must be both re-examined and, eventually, removed.