I would compare "The Weekly Standard" (or The Weaklings Substandard, if you prefer; I know I do) to Dr. Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer, but in their own brutal and otherwise flawed way, Dr. Streicher and Adolf Hitler still do represent a form of idealism, however misplaced and distasteful one may regard it. I would never assign such high motives to cretinous vermin such as William Kristol and George W. Bush. For that matter, when people describe (as they often do) so-called neo-"conservatism" as 21st century American fascism, I invariably reply neo-"conservativism" is an entirely separate political phenomenon from fascism. And that its actually a good deal worse.

The mere fact of your confusion shows a deeper understanding of and appreciation for our founding documents than Bush, Ashcroft, and Gonzales put together. Yes, "executive priviledge, famously abused by our hero Nixxon, is the refuge of scoundrels. Ideally, the courts exist to adjudicate frictions between the other two co-equal branches. Law is inherently impure and fraught with contradictions. It is also a growing, living thing, which is why the slavish adherence to "original intent" by Scalia, et al, is preposterous on its face. By amendment, social change, civil war, and other means, none of them easy, American law is vastly different than it was 230 years ago. That is as it should be. You don't have to much further than the franchise, which is the truest coin of the realm when it comes to political power and its exercise, to see what this change means. Until quite recently, in historical terms, you could not vote unless you were a white land owning male of the age of majority (21 at the time, now fragmeted so that you can vote at 18, die for your country for no reason at 18, but you can't drink, or, in some states, enter into legal contracts.) The Federalist Papers and other ancillary documents contemporary with the constitutional process are interesting, but they are not legal precedent and they are not case law. Only half joshingly, I would say the best test for constituationality is: if someone from the Bush administration did it or said it, it violates the Constitution. They've abrogated half of the Bill of Rights. They think habeas corpus is a quaint, antiique relic. They're wrong, and, in my view, impeachably so.

Reading this thread this morning was both enlightening and confusing. Admittedly, I am weak in Constitutional Law so I pose these questions in complete innocence. Are the arguments made and rebutted in this thread really that tenuous? Has the Constitution been rendered virtually useless due to the Executive and Legislative Branch’s interpretation for convenience? Is it really possible to read one sentence in the Constitution and derive two different implied meanings? Is it possible that the justices of the Supreme Court can decide law based on their interpretation of the Constitution as well as other considerations? One letter writer maintains that decisions are made by justices with an ear to what is agreeable to the greater public at any given point in time. To quote: “They (the justices) get a feel (of) what will produce approbation from their peers, and the ideas they here (sp.) talking to spouses, friends, children, and parents will all form the context in which they interpret cases.” I understand why this might make sense in some ways but is this not a dilution of constitutional law? Is not using prior precedent setting cases to deliberate and decide subsequent more contemporary cases further diluting Constitutional law?

This whole notion of Presidential veto power is confusing to me as well. Assuming that Congress holds the power to fund the military, does not the President’s power to veto ultimately trump the Congress? Assuming the Congress has the power to authorize and de-authorize funding wars or military actions, does not the President’s power to veto said funding again trump the Congress? In effect, does the veto not give the President control of the purse strings?

The whole issue of protecting presidential confidants, advisors, cabinet members and their staff under the umbrella of protecting national security seems to undermine the function and responsibility of congressional oversight. How convenient it must be for this president to cite that we are at war and therefore you cannot question me or anyone I have had conversations or communications with about anything as it could reveal information about how we operate in our war against terror. In this presidency, ostensibly anything and everything can be construed to somehow be linked to war against terror.

It seems to me that an argument can be made that the President has near dictatorial power. Again, I am honestly confused by all this as it pertains to the tenets of the Constitution? What kind of government do we really have today? Can anyone explain to me how we can honestly call our government a democracy? I am having a hard time understanding how the Constitution has any relevance on the way this country is actually governed?

I am troubled that this country is dissolving into anarchy based on the apparent ability of the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government to use and interpret Constitutional law for personal empowerment. If they were serving the majority of Americans best interest it would be less alarming but under the current circumstances, I think there is an unprecedented level of abuse of power. This thread is probably dead but I would sure like some answers to my questions and help in clearing my confusion.

Hey nameless, the Weekly Standard *is* the touchstone of moderate American political thinking, at least for cable news pundits.

The liberal media mostly pays attention to liberal intellectual institutions like The Washington Times.

Where does Greenwald live if he considers the WEEKLY STANDARD at the center of the American political spectrum??

If he wants to buy a bridge or two, have him contact me

It's a lengthy response, so it's on my blog:

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2007/04/power-of-redefined-and-poorly-chosen.html

Collin

Not only are these modern day fascists against the principles of our founding fathers while they seek dictatorial powers for the nations number one power abuser, but these a-holes will even admit to hating the very government they work for when you get them drunk enough. Right before our very eyes they have been selling our government out to corporate interests while shoving privatization scams down the throats of Iraqis, which the American voter has refused since Reagan for good reason. These country wreckers have flaunted their incompetence to the point of allowing one of America's greatest cities to be destroyed with no hope of rebuilding to this day. Americans should find themselves a candidate that at least doesn't despise the government they serve. Americans should call a spade a spade and recognize when they are becoming victims of a coup. Then again, Americans don't even know a controlled demolition when they see one.