Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Facing Down a Constitutional Crisis

By Gary Hart and Joyce Appleby, History News Network. Posted March 29, 2006.


The founding fathers never imagined an administration so insistent on concentrating executive power.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
What if People Actually Treated Religion as Just a Metaphor (Like Trekkies and Secular Jews)?
Greta Christina

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
15 Signs American Society Is Coming Apart at the Seams
David DeGraw

DrugReporter:
When It’s Crunch Time at College, Students Turn to Adderall
Erik Hayden

Environment:
20 Weird, Crazy Ideas for Helping the Earth

Food:
The War on Soy: Why the 'Miracle Food' May Be a Health Risk and Environmental Nightmare
Tara Lohan

Health and Wellness:
Pharmaceutical Giant Paid $500,000 to Psychiatrist Who Used Chicago's Poor as Guinea Pigs
Christina Jewett and Sam Roe

Immigration:
Dobbs' Resignation Was Long Overdue
Janet Murguía

Media and Technology:
Is Right-Wing Media Hustler Trying to "Blackmail" Obama's Attorney General over ACORN Videos?
David Edwards, Muriel Kane

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
New Right-Wing Craze: Using Bible Quote to Pray That Obama’s 'Days Be Few'
Amanda Terkel

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Hey Guys, Don't Want Kids? A Vascetomy Is Probably the Way to Go
Anna Clark

Rights and Liberties:
Economic Crisis Is Getting Bloody -- Violent Deaths Are Now Following Evictions, Foreclosures and Job Losses
Nick Turse

Sex and Relationships:
How Abstinence-Only Programs Perpetuate Dangerous Stereotypes
Martha Kempner

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Poseidon's Financial Shell Game: Why Is a Private Desalination Plant Asking for Public Money?
Peter Gleick

World:
Army Sends Mom to Afghanistan, Infant to Protective Services
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Gary Hart Joyce Appleby

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

George W. Bush and his most trusted advisers, Richard B. Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, entered office determined to restore the authority of the presidency. Five years and many decisions later, they've pushed the expansion of presidential power so far that we now confront a constitutional crisis.

Relying on legal opinions from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Professor John Yoo, then working in the White House, Bush has insisted that there can be no limits to the power of the commander-in-chief in time of war. More recently the president has claimed that laws relating to domestic spying and the torture of detainees do not apply to him. His interpretation has produced a devilish conundrum.

President Bush has given Commander-in-Chief Bush unlimited wartime authority. But the "war on terror" is more a metaphor than a fact. Terrorism is a method, not an ideology; terrorists are criminals, not warriors. No peace treaty can possibly bring an end to the fight against far-flung terrorists. The emergency powers of the president during this "war" can now extend indefinitely, at the pleasure of the president and at great threat to the liberties and rights guaranteed us under the Constitution.

When President Nixon covertly subverted checks and balances 30 years ago during the Vietnam War, Congress passed laws making clear that presidents were not to engage in unconstitutional behavior in the interest of "national security." Then Congress was reacting to violation of Fourth Amendment protections against searches and seizures without judicial warrants establishing "probable cause," attempts to assassinate foreign leaders and surveillance of American citizens.

Now the Iraq war is being used to justify similar abuses. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, providing constitutional means to carry out surveillance, and the Intelligence Identification Protection Act, protecting the identity of undercover intelligence agents, have both been violated by an administration seeking to restore "the legitimate authority of the presidency," as Cheney puts it.

The presidency possesses no power not granted to it under the Constitution. The powers the current administration seeks in its "war on terror" are not granted under the Constitution. Indeed, they are explicitly prohibited by acts of Congress.

The Founding Fathers, who always come to mind when the Constitution is in danger, anticipated just such a possibility. Writing in the Federalist Papers, James Madison defined tyranny as the concentration of powers in one branch of the government.

"The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department," Madison wrote in Federalist 51, "consists in giving to those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others."

Warming to his subject, Madison continued, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition;" the interest of the office holders must "be connected with the constitutional rights of the place."

Recognizing that he was making an appeal to interest over ideals, he concluded that it "may be a reflection of human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government." "But what," Madison asked, "is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

Madison's solution to the concentration of powers that lead to tyranny relied upon either Congress or the Supreme Court to check the overreaching of a president. In our present crisis, Congress has been supine in the face of the president's grab for unconstitutional, unlimited power, and no case is working its way towards a Supreme Court judgment.

If Madison's reliance on the ambition of other office holders has failed us, we need to look elsewhere. Can what Thomas Jefferson called the "common sense and good judgment of the American people" help us now? In the past, they have been a critical last resort when our leaders endangered the constitutional checks and balances that have made us the world's oldest democracy. But first the public must wake up to this constitutional crisis.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Joyce Appleby is professor emerita of history at UCLA and co-director of the History New Service. Gary Hart is a former U.S. senator and Wirth Chair in the Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado, Denver.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It's Time To Take A Stand
Posted by: thinkverybig on Mar 29, 2006 12:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IT’S TIME TO TAKE A STAND

Hello World! Hello America! I can feel the emotions of most Americans starting to brew and you know what? It’s about time. It’s time for us all to wake up and take a stand. Not as a democrat, republican or independent but as Americans, as human beings. Let us all put aside our petty differences and start working together for the common good of mankind. Let’s create a paradigm shift in the way we think and act and no longer succumb to the mass media. Let’s no longer allow ourselves to be trained or programmed information not of our choosing. Let’s start patronizing businesses that have our best interest at heart and boycotting those that are unfair in their practices, unfair to their employees yet reward executives up to 2500 times more financially. It’s time to take a stand. Let’s no longer be distracted by race but come together as one and question the wealthiest one percent. Why must you have so much and we have so little? Why must you have so much and poverty is still rampant throughout our country and this world? That of course is their greatest fear – the coming together of all races to address this great disparity, this great travesty. It’s time to take a stand. Let’s take a look at how small businesses affect our communities and start giving them our support. Let’s take a look at corporations having too much power and influence in politics therefore dictating to our elected officials their views and the things that benefit them and not us. It’s time for our elected officials to start working for us and not the lobbyists and corporations. It’s time to say no to corruption in our government and yes to decent paying jobs, a fair judicial system, fair immigration laws to all countries especially those of color, yes to fair trade to all countries especially those poor nations, yes to campaign finance reform, yes to increasing the minimum wage and no to pay increases for politicians alone, yes to protecting our borders and the list goes on.

Let’s get organized from grass roots to the mainstream to voice our displeasure at how our county is being run. Let’s be heard loud and clear. No more abuse by corporations, no more outsourcing of American jobs, no more cheap labor. With the wealth of this country, everyone should be paid at a decent rate to be able to live comfortably and provide for his or her family. Let’s not allow corporate and governmental greed to destroy our lives and the lives of others throughout this world for the benefit of a few. It’s time to take a stand and that time is now.


David J. Hudson
david@thinkverybig.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New Lessons Learned
Posted by: Tom Degan on Mar 29, 2006 2:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American people are aboout to relearn a lesson they learned exactly seventy-six years and five months ago to the day. Unrestrained, unregulated capitalism always, without exception leads to socio-economic casatrophe. George W. Bush is also about to learn something that Richard M. Nixon learned almost thirty-two years ago: The trashing of our constitution by those who would view themselves as "above the law" will always lead to their utter destruction.

There is now more than enough evidence to impeach and remove from office both Bush and Dick Cheney. It's either going to happen this year with the result being President Hassert or next year giving us President Pelosi. The republicans will go with the former plan if they're smart but I digress.

The checks and balances that were set up by the founding fathers have been severely trashed not only by the administration but, willingly, by the congress. That includes the minority party. Any democrat who was stupid enough to give our half-witted commander in chief the power to wage war without the consitutionally mandated congressional approval deserves anything that happens to them.

Honestly! Did you ever for a minute dream that we'd sink this low? In your wildest nightmare scenario, did you ever imagine that this once-great nation would come to this? Well, we asked for it, didn't we? We asked for it.

Pray for peace.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: New Lessons Learned Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: New Lessons Learned Posted by: Charaud
» RE: New Lessons Learned Posted by: Phenix
quite right
Posted by: rsaxto on Mar 29, 2006 3:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The authors are quite right and the solution is forthcoming: censure, impeach, jail where appropriate and legislation where appropriate. We need to give the stealers of power seizures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Constitutional Studies
Posted by: Urstrly on Mar 29, 2006 4:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not surprising more Americans are complacent about the power being grabbed by the executive; we are doing worse and worse at teaching the Constitution. The New York Times carried a story over the week-end about how reading and math are crowding out disciplines like social studies and science because they aren't tested. But, of course, in the case of the Constitution, we are being tested, and we are failing.

In the midst of a huge influx of immigration, many schools have dropped courses like civics and government with the excuse that the Constitution will be taught in US history classes—as if that syllabus wasn't already crammed. So when justices like Scalia and Thomas and Roberts and Alito come along touting more power to the president, most people haven't got a clue as to why it's so dangerous. We liberals ought to be holding teach-ins on issues like the writ of habeas corpus, unreasonable searches and seizures, due process and the Bill of Rights. If you ask me, the "unitary executive" is just another name for dictatorship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's amend Constitution
Posted by: Moonray on Mar 29, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans need to amend the Constitution to rein in the powers of the executive branch, especially the president's ability to deploy U.S. troops abroad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How to amend the US Constitution Posted by: stormchilde1975
Social Studies
Posted by: Maryanne on Mar 29, 2006 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is meaningless. It is a hodgepodge of miscellanea that should be eliminated. In its place we should restore history classes (US history, European history and also now that of Asia, Aftica and Latin America previously ignored), geography classes, civics, and local history. And English classes which have stressed creativity should also pay attention to grammar, spelling, and the ability to communcate. Reading classic works should also be a requirement.

And then the students can learn to think. You have to have some information in your head before you can develop sensible ideas.

(I had a required graduate course where the emphasis was not on the content of the course but that you talk; it didn't matter if you were disseminating actual facts or fantasies (never corrected by instructor) since just "participation" was the requirement. And people on this site wonder why this country is in such shape?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Social Studies Posted by: Robba29
Rev.
Posted by: Jerry on Mar 29, 2006 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IMPEACH BUSH!!
PROSECUTE THE PRESIDENTS PEOPLE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Follow the money." It's still the same old class warfare.
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 29, 2006 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hart wants the electorate to be a check on an unbalanced government. LOL

"It's still the economy, stupid." Eliminate the middle class, and the governing class can do whatever it wants. Self-government takes time and attention. Only those whose budgets allow plenty of surplus time and energy can participate, especially in any form of leadership.

As our middle class shrinks, the volunteer participation that has been the heart of our democracy shrinks. The only ones left to do the work of politics are those getting paid to do so (lobbyists) and those whose noblesse oblige permits. We can measure how many of those are "people of goodwill" by the quality of our political and economic life.

That's where we're failing as well. Too bad the recent street demonstrations for protection of Latinos did not include: So We Can Vote. Unfortunately, those who can don't.

We who can must. Si, se puede.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Factual v. Fictional History
Posted by: ocho on Mar 29, 2006 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The socially acceptable white man's history of America and other countries is about all anyone can hope to learn in educational insititutions. But if you spend a little time and research the facts you begin to understand that not all we are taught is accurate or truthful. The people have historically been force-fed the official party line to keep us complacent and "governed." Now that we have the internet and access to more information than we can possibly process in our lifetime, we can at least learn that there is usually another side to each story - to our history - that does not fit into the orderly universe that has been created for us by the rich and powerful white business men whose only responsibility is to their bottom line rather than the social and moral structure of this country. A good primer to tease your brain and begin thinking differently about how and why we got here to this point in time is Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. But don't stop there. Use your search engines and question everything you read, hear, and see. Only then can we begin to have meaningful conversations and discussions about the state of our country and the world. Otherwise we are doomed to repeat and repeat and repeat our mistakes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

***THE IMMEDIATE ACTION***
Posted by: krose on Mar 29, 2006 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IS TO CALL & WRITE YOUR SENATORS!

THE CENSURE VOTE IS FRIDAY & THE DEMS ARE A BUNCH OF WIMPS! THEY WILL VOTE "NO" UNLESS THEY ARE BOMBARDED ON THIS! ***(www.senate.gov)***

RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE ONLY 3 VOTES FOR CENSURE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Mar 29, 2006 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What are our indutrial Leaders' children thinking of their father's actions?

Will the sins of THESE fathers be addressed by their own? They'll be the ones inheriting the ruined world of their own making.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: rover Posted by: Lincoln fan
Down to the base
Posted by: darby1936 on Mar 29, 2006 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems apparant this administration is down to their base; those who would support Bush if he were caught at a peep show. Hopefully with the control of the House or Senate the Dems will have a shot of nerve as well as subpoena power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the more things change...
Posted by: MMiddle on Mar 29, 2006 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Always interesting to hear an appeal to the Founding Fathers in decrying our current political mess. Yet the F's, particularly Jefferson, were as down and dirty as anyone today when it came to protecting and expanding their turf(s). Jefferson was as ardent a "unitary executive" as Bush and Rove would like to be, and just as unethical in his efforts (though far more thoughtful and eloquent; thanks for the rhetoric!). Read, for example, "Jefferson's Vendetta" - straight-out history, not a crazy screed. And yet the nation survived and thrived - as it will again, through our efforts for it and our faith in it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War on America
Posted by: ng1944 on Mar 29, 2006 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was always war declared on hard working
american people by Wall street and corporate america,
wit zionists joining them and cristian extremists
with the help of puppets "Bush and co."
The war on Irak is just a tool to divert attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is no one asking Why
Posted by: FreeThinker33 on Mar 29, 2006 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As we sit here debating how to stop the neocon agenda, I wonder at why none of you ask yourselves why they are trying to grab power. Why do they want infringe on our constitutional rights? Why consolidate power towards a police state? Why build an untold number of detention camps on U.S. soil?
I am afraid the only answer that I can come up with is the scariest of all. And I assure you, it is not Islam, Iraq (though related), or terrorism (though I fear our actions will make that worse).
In 1999, Dick Cheney (then C.E.O.), warned his partners in Haliburton of the imminent threat of oil depletion and its economic consequences.
A huge proponent of the peak oil scenario is Matthew Simmons, once an energy advisor to Cheney and the white house.
If have not already, either read Long Emergency or watch the End of Suburbia.
This regime knows that global warming and the end of cheap oil are going to converge on us in the very NEAR future to give society a giant kick in the ass.
Start mentaly and physically preparing yourself for a second great depression like the world has never seen. As well, look forward to unimagineable resource wars. We've already started them.
I don't mean to be harsh, but you fool yourselves into thinking that the neocons will be brought down politicaly. They already grabbed the last two elections what is stop them from grabbing the next two.
Think you can count on your fellow Americans. We already knew Bush lied to us to start an illegal war of aggression, and the sheeple still voted for him again.
See you on the other side of Hubbert's Curve.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why is no one asking Why Posted by: boblecht
Erm, it's happening over here too!
Posted by: thriftwizard on Mar 29, 2006 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Same thing is happening to us over here in the UK - our Government are trying to sneak a Bill through which will give them virtually unlimited rights to change legislation without consulting Parliament, our elected representatives. This is being done under the guise of reducing "unnecessary" legislation... What's worrying is that hardly anyone seems to have noticed - our rights are being signed away with hardly even a whimper from the media. The same media that bankrolled the Government's election campaign...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

umm, yea actually
Posted by: Phenix on Mar 29, 2006 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The inevitable collaspe of the US Republic into an Empire has long since past but the collasep fo the US empire now seems imimment. Many people, well me for one, has seen this day coming since the days of NAFTA and the US' refusal the peace dividend.

Many people, believed that the US would eventualy fail because like other Great Powers it focused on its military instead of its economy. Once a nation turns towrds operating form a militaristic paradign it collaspses and is replaced by the power that focused on its economy.

Furthermore, the US style of empire is akin to that of the Assyrians who were extremely brutal towards conquered people and their empire was short lived. I have several friends who are from South America and I had asked them who the US reminds them of. When none of them answered I asked if the Monols would have been a good example and they all agreed.

Our nation has raped and pillaged the landscapse of innumerable nations and you now ask how we could sink this low. Tom, we've always been this low its just that no one in America could realize this fact b/c we were convined that we were fighting the good fight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

State of Emergency
Posted by: Ambassador on Mar 30, 2006 5:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The law is th law is the law!

A State of Emergency has existed since 1969 circa Iran Contra Affair. Only during a time of war is the President of the United States allowed to declare "executive orders." Executive orders gives the President the right to be King. It is at the discretion of the President as to how far he wishes to extend his kingship. Therefore, being at war already, whatever name you choose to call a war, is a moot issue. Congress has very litttle say by law.
The actions taken by Congress in reference to the President's actions are basically "lame duck." They can't stop him. Have they? Bush let the port issue slide to take away the focus on the pat on the hand that he recieved for introducing "K.G.B."
tactics in the U.S..
Bush said to the American people that he and his administration were asleep at the wheel. If Bush was an honorable man and President, he would have tendered his resignation. His own words proclaimed his criminal act of failing the number one responsibility of government -safety of its citizens! Yet, no one has called for his impeachment for direlection of duty as commander in chief. He already admitted his guilt. So, no one wants to use the law or it seems. Maybe they're affraid of goin to the guillotine!
His legacy is a TRILLION Dollar bill that the American people must shoulder for a country that isn't even a state. The result is generations of Americans doing without the rewards of the fruits of their labor as its used for non-Americans.
Anyone home?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Actually
Posted by: dlf on Mar 31, 2006 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Madison or Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that more safeguards might need to be added, to protect the minority (read people) from the majority (read plutocracy) now controlling all branches of government . In fact they called our current government the definition of Anarchy. This is an example of what is passing for critical think pieces these days. It is a great piece to stand beside your immigration pieces though. They probably required the same 15 minutes of conversation among like minded friends as research for the pieces.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They expected it.
Posted by: YogiBear on Apr 3, 2006 3:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The founding fathers never imagined an administration so insistent on concentrating executive power.

Actually, I think they imagined it all too well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don’t expect a revolution
Posted by: shangrilalad on Apr 6, 2006 4:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don’t expect a revolution, because it won’t be “we the people” versus the government. If we are lucky, there will be civil war between the left and Rabid Right. If we aren’t lucky, because no leaders emerge to organize and lead the left, then our country will become a quasi-religious-fascist state characterized by inquisitions and genocide.

The division between the left and right is greater now than during the civil war because the Rabid Right has cunningly combined fascism with religious fanaticism. Even now, after all we have seen, I don’t believe those on our side truly grasp what we are up against. The Rabid Right has been brainwashing their storm-troopers with vicious hate-mongering for decades, and they are straining at the leash to wipe us out.

Will we submit to fascism and religious fanaticism, or will we fight?

Most of us are far too comfortable to risk a fight, I’m betting most think we can weather whatever comes by keeping our heads down and mouths shut.

Good luck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement