Letters to the Editor
What Constitution?
Published Letters: 129
-
@ mocaldem regarding Obama and the unitary executive theory
[Read the article: Today's coverup of surveillance crimes and Barack Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for noting that Obama taught Con Law at U of Chicago, not Harvard (he was Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review when he attended there, right?). I agree there are some pretty significant differences between UChi and Harvard Law in many respects, though I can't say as to whether that would itself affect Obama's perception of the role of the Executive under the Constitution. Nor do I agree that the fact Scalia taught there proves anything, or that Scalia's views on some aspects of the Constitution necessarily predict views on all others. For example, the gun decision pretty much stands on its own footing in my mind.
The Scalia [dissenting/minority]opinion I find most ludicrous and most telling on a "unitary executive" front would be the habeas case, in which he blathered about islamists trying to kill us and posits "dangerous times" as a basis for constitutional interpretation of the separation of powers principle, which I believe is far more extreme than any rational constitutional scholar would embrace, and it is this which supports my belief that Obama would not buy into this kind of fear mongering as a guidepost for constitutional interpretation.
That, however, is just what I think. Seeing your post, I tried to Google "Obama unitary executive" and did not immediately see any "position statement" issued by Obama. Indeed, I found a June 30 article in Huffington which kind of addresses the general question of how the unitary executive theory might travel into a next administration -- calling McCain's embrace of it a "lock" but suggesting there is no definitive Obama pronouncement. Here's that link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-shaw/what-will-happen-to-the-u_b_109836.html
If I'm wrong and Obama is angling to advocate a unitary executive interpretation, then it's to the mattresses. I don't think he is going there. And we know McCain is.
-
further @ mocaldem
[Read the article: Today's coverup of surveillance crimes and Barack Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]not to belabor anything, but my assessment of McCain's views of Article II and the unitary executive theory these days was informed largely by GG's June 3 post, found here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/03/mccain/index.html
-
Meanwhile, there are other abominations to abhor....
[Read the article: Democrats' strategy: Strength through bowing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush & Co. know no shame, and no effort to appeal to reason, no invocation of the rule of law before them, results in the slightest acknowledgement or the least deviation from a path toward utter dictatorship.
The FISA amendments were and are one thing, all bad. Think they'll take a breather now? Take a look at what Mukasey argued before a congressional commmittee this morning:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/09/durbin-mukasey/
I know, I know, Pelosi took impeachment "off the table." She should be impeached or at least opposed for that political maneuver, blah blah blah (oh, and I agree with that). And we all recognize that "everyone" understands that it's "too late" to impeach Bush et al, blah blah blah.
But COME ON. What exactly does it take? I say it again, Congress has a wide open calendar in August. Who the hell really wants to sit in a football stadium anyway? Hold hearings on Kucinich's resolutions!
Is the universal recognition of the Democrats' cowardice registering not one iota? Meet it, counter it, take affirmative steps to commence impeachment proceedings!
-
correction and clarification
[Read the article: Democrats' strategy: Strength through bowing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I asked "Is the universal recognition of the Democrats' cowardice registering not one iota?"
The question should have been finised with the qualifier "within the Democratic Party".
It is certainly self-evident that the Bush Administration has recognized this for years and that it is the lynchpin of the directly confrontational strategy which, being unopposed, has put this country in the position it is in. If Bush thought anyone was going to actually oppose these maneuvers, our world would likely be a very different place today. That's the difference between dictatorship and democracy. Sorry for the obvious oversight.
-
re: Mukasey
[Read the article: Democrats' strategy: Strength through bowing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Silash is exactly right. Article 8 from the War Crimes trials at Nuremberg:
"The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determine that justice so requires."
And nobody asked Mukasey to explain how his position squared with this fundamental principle of jurisprudence, imposed and enforced by the United States of America at Nuremberg, is somehow inapplicable to the actions of the Bush Administration? Oh, I forgot, that might be confrontational and the Democrats wouldn't want to offend anyone.