Letters to the Editor
-
Bush's near dictatorial power.
Thanks, once again, Glenn, for the insightful commentary. You are a modern day Tom Paine.
-
Don't you read your Hayek, Tokyo Tom?
Or are you too busy serfing?
Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism.
Friedrich Hayek, 1981 interview in El Mercurio
You understand that Bush is a "liberal" or "neo-liberal" in Hayek's global political context. Jim is correct. These people are definitely not interested in anyone to the "left" of Bush (centrist in the context of American politics) having unchecked executive powers. If Richard Viguerie is involved, I'm not interested, either. Are you a troll?
-
Wha?
Richard Viguerie and Aaron Russo are hardly people I would want to associate with.
Some of you are incredibly politically naive.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Viguerie
Russo supports that racist Ron Paul for president.
Not all anti-war positions are equal. I'm not anti-war. I'm opposed to the Iraqi debacle because it endangers us more than it protects us and does nothing but strengthen the real threats we face in the region.
-
I agree with Jonathan Hoag
I can't wait to see how the Republicans will feel about congress "micromanaging the war" with a President Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. They won't stand for a Democrat to have the sort of power that Bush has wielded over the last five years.
-
Oh PUHLEASE
Let's review what he REALLY said:
True enough, but they sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war. So no, the Constitution does not put Congress on an equal footing with the executive in matters of national security.
This means that not only this president has the Constitutional mandate to be commander in chief and to affect foreign policy, but EVERY PRESIDENT does.
But you're not fearmongering, are you? No.
-
PUHLEASE yourself!
This means that not only this president has the Constitutional mandate to be commander in chief and to affect foreign policy, but EVERY PRESIDENT does.
-- jgderuvo
Where was their (and your) belief in an unfettered executive from January, 1993 through January, 2001? Not all of us were born yesterday, you know.
-
All the presidents
This means that not only this president has the Constitutional mandate to be commander in chief and to affect foreign policy, but EVERY PRESIDENT does.
But you're not fearmongering, are you? No.
That is what the author means, but he is completely incorrect. The President's constitutional authority in military matters does not extend to authority in funding, which is specifically granted to Congress.
I have a feeling besides, that the author will suddenly develop some perspective on the separation of powers if (god forbid) H.Clinton should be elected president. Probably you will too.
-
The Federalist Papers
When anyone invokes the federalist papers as evidence of what every single founder thought of the constitution red lights should start blinking. John Jay, Hamilton, and Madison had radically different interpretations of the constitution, yet they put their differences aside to write the Federalists as one big constitutional sales pitch to the American people .
39 Delegates at the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution last time I checked, taking the word of one of them as the opinion of the entire body is stupid to the extreme . . .
-
Hamilton did want presidents
to serve for life (thank God he didn't get his way), so possibly Hamilton did intend his statement from Federalist 70 to describe a president with absolute power.
BUT (and a very big BUT it is), that is not how the Constitution was written. So Goldfarb is wrong, wrong, wrong.
-
Not only are the against the Constitution
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.
-
A response
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
-
weekly standard
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
-
Anonymous should watch a little cable news.
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.
-
Saturday morning and I am lost in Constitutional confusion. Help Please!
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.