I remember reading something by Gore Vidal once where he referred to the WSJ as "that fascist sheet." At the time, I thought it might be a bit of an exaggeration. I guess not.

Glenn, awesome and truthful article, as usual.

Your question:

That is why -- as jarring as it is -- it is actually necessary to ask presidential candidates whether they intend to exercise the power to imprison American citizens with no charges of any kind.

I suggest that a better question, for the Senator, Congressperson, pundit, or candidate is this:

What is your plan to restore Constitutional government and the rule of law?

And if they don't even understand there's an issue here, well, they're not a candidate for you.

Further, if Democratic Party wants to make it clear that they want to restore Constitutional government, and not just take over and "moderate the excesses" of the authoritarian system that Bush is creating, then they could start holding hearings on matters like signing statements and warrantless surveillance. They aren't, and that greatly concerns me.

If a president has unchecked power in times of war (crisis), then what incentive does the president have to work for peace? His good intentions? Ha!

Beyond this, you know that if a Democratic president tried these same arguments, the right would try to flay him alive.

It's horrifying that Mansfield thinks this country needs a Prince, whose power will trump the Constitution. It's also horrifying, and ludicrous, that he thinks that Prince should be George, God help us, Bush.

Glenn:

I appreciate the points you make about Mansfield's intellectual honesty in making his argument that the executive can override the law. Except that he fails to take responsibility for defining his defense of fascism just that.

It's dishonest to continue to reference this extreme right wing ideology as anything BUT fascism. The principles of Mansfield's argument certainly aren't contained within the Constitution. It isn't defensible as a precept of a democracy, and it deeply fissures and renders useless true debate about the nature of the executive branch in the US model of democracy.

Best to get it out in the open and subject to the light of day and intense scrutiny. Thank you for writing this story.

..don't need no stinkin' elections.

So, Sinclair Lewis told us and so seems more true every day.

Remember that fascism is not a one-size fits all ideology. Italian fascism diverged from German National Socialism is significant ways, and American fascism has its own unique characteristics.

Nonetheless, they share a central authoritarianism which is inalienably opposed to individual rights and limits on the power of the leader. Mussolini liked to be photographed riding horses and swiming barechested to display his fascist manliness. It is not a stretch to see the same fascistic fetish in Bushian brush clearning and flight suit wearing.

While it is true that this is the mindset that has governed this country the last six years, will that mindset immediately change if a Democratic candidate is elected president? I think there is a good deal of evidence to support that such a change would occur.

We see almost on a daily basis Republicans making speeches that are the complete opposite of what they said when Clinton was president. And as soon as they lost majority status in Congress, they immediately embraced the minority rights that they had previously denounced as “unconstitutional.”

In short, they do not believe in “our constitutional framework and our most defining political values” for Republicans. whom they would trust with having a tyrannical, all-powerful “leader.” They wouldn’t have that trust with any of the Democratic candidates so all of this mindset would become “no longer operative” if the Republicans lose the election.

We see this in the Justice Department scandal too. They want to enforce laws for Democrats not Republicans (who shouldn’t have to worry about braking the law because no one will prosecute them for it).

If the Democrats win the next election, we’ll start to see the Republicans carrying the constitution around with them like the old days, and they’ll suddenly find a fondness for the rule of law – as long as they’re out of power.

why the neocons are so unpopular with actual conservatives. Balanced budgets, limited involvement in foreign affairs (particularly foreign wars), limited intrusion by government into the lives of private citizens and the rule of law have always been indispensible parts of the American conservative canon. Given that Bush, Cheney and the neocons violate every one of those core tenets of conservatism, it's no wonder conservatives are beginning to abandon them. The only thing strange is that they didn't do it earlier.

Don't you think there's a good chance that the right's admiration for a strong, unitary executive that overrides the rule of law will expire around, oh, January 2009?

_Zach_:

If the Democrats win the next election, we’ll start to see the Republicans carrying the constitution around with them like the old days, and they’ll suddenly find a fondness for the rule of law – as long as they’re out of power.

Perhaps. But what worries me far more than the Republicans' reaction is, how will the elected Democrat act? The executive branch of our government has managed to obtain for itself unprecedented powers--ones that were clearly not intended for it under our system of government. Once a power is secured, will a successor--however well-intentioned--actually give it up? (I don't remember any presidents repudiating powers they obtained by dint of their predecessors' work, but IANAL.) And will either of the other two branches of government--one weakened by its own actions, the other compromised for the next many years by the President's--be willing or able to force it?

If any "leader" is above the law for even the tiniest, most temporary circumstances, then there is no "rule of law."

Rule of Law is Rule of Law, period. The moment anyone for any reason is exempted from the Rule of Law, the Rule of Law dies.

Anyone who advocates exempting any "leader" from the Rule of Law is advocating dictatorship.

This is either classic repug illogic, or an astoundingly blatant call for fascism.

The Rule of Law has been in critical condition since Nixon escaped prosecution, and on life support since bush senior escaped responsibility for Iran-Contra.

Now the bushies and their academic lickspittles have their fingers on the machine's Off button, ready to push.