Now the rule of law has two defects, each of which suggests the need for one-man rule. The first is that law is always imperfect by being universal, thus an average solution even in the best case, that is inferior to the living intelligence of a wise man on the spot, who can judge particular circumstances. This defect is discussed by Aristotle in the well-known passage in his "Politics" where he considers "whether it is more advantageous to be ruled by the best man or the best laws."

--Mansfield

That sounds like the writings of a fool. Child's play. How can it be that the rule of law has defects that suggest the need for one man rule, without it being sorely obvious that the same sentence could be turned on it's head against the defects of 'one man rule'? Especially after that one man having been in the cowardly imbecilic form of George Bush for the past six years?

If George Bush hasn't made it abundantly clear that one man rule is no man's land for America, a recipe for disaster...then I can't imagine what it would take to get it through the skulls of people like Mansfield how wrong he has been and still is about the wonders of one man rule.

I'd be interested to read what it is that Aristotle actually had to say about the subject.

They write about John Edwards' haircut and John Kerry's windsurfing and which political consultant has whispered what gossip to them about some painfully petty matter, but the extraordinary fact that our nation's dominant political movement is openly advocating that most radical theories of tyranny -- that "liberties are dangerous and law does not apply" -- is barely noticed by our most prestigious and self-loving national journalists. Merely to state those facts is to demonstrate how profoundly dysfunctional our political press is.

-- Glenn Greenwald

That problem is the biggest reason why you posted this repugnant article. Especially since that article was published in the high profile WSJ. Isn't that correct?

I don't know if I'm overlooking something about Salon's options. But Firedoglake.com has an option called "Spotlight". It gives readers the opportunity to send a link or article posted on FDL to news papers, television stations, and just journalists in general, all over the country. Does Salon have anything comparable for readers to take advantage of?

WSJ

Especially since that article was published in the high profile WSJ.

As Silence pointed out, the article appears to be only online, not in the print version - but I'd wager that that's only due to its length, not its content.

Thanks. I didn't see Silence's post until just after I posted mine. I had read the article at the online edition of WSJ but didn't know it was, so far, not in hard copy WSJ.

"But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."

--John Kerry

"The omission is significant".

--Paul Dirks

Correct.

"...Augusto Pinochet come to mind. After weathering the storms, these countries have come back as bigger and better democracies than ever."

-- nabalzbbfr

Well, that sentence and the rest of that ridiculous post by navelgazor clinches it. The he/she/it is a phony. No one but perhaps GWB himself could be that stupid.

I see. You are a strict constructionist then, letter of the law kind of guy? For future reference.

-- shooter242

You've become less and less capable of defending your indefensible position as time passes, Shooter.

I guess since this post of yours is in defense of the navelgazer you're also singing the praises of Pinochet? Is that correct? That is, after all, what navelgazer was doing in the post he/she/it posted that you are defending.

It was great when that power was being used to keel-haul bigots in Mobile, but the power outlives the problem, and you end up with the same authority being used to coerce medical marijuana users in California, who also are not engaged in interstate commerce.

As much as I agree that medicinal marijuana state laws shouldn't be be crapped over by the feds, I think it's deep into the bullshit zone to use it as an example in the same breath as segregation and even slavery.

kovie's answer

You may well be right that the courts sometimes issue unconstitutional rulings, but what remedy does that same constitution provide to deal with such situations? None that I am aware of.

Says the shoot: The remedy is elections and judicial appointments. It may not be the timeframe you like, but it is a remedy all the same. Tsk.

-- shooter242

Here's another alternative. It applies to judges, too.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

I think that was the point of checks and balance. Some ideas take that long [years] to mature into action, abolition for instance.

--Spitter242

No, most checks and balances take a matter of days or maybe weeks but not years.

Such as the House passing a bill. It goes to the Senate. Senate passes it. Sends it to the Executive branch. Executive Branch signs or vetoes bill. If vetoed, House does it all again within days or weeks. No "years" involved.

In the case of people at Politico, our motivations are simple -- to write interesting and worthwhile stories and to put those stories before largest possible audience.

--John Harris

But not necessarily in that order, right, Mr. Harris?