Letters to the Editor
-
Executive power
I do not want to be seen as an advocate of the "Unitary Executive." Such a theory has no basis in American constitutional law or practice. As one of my law school professors stated (at quite a reputable law school): the administrative bodies of the federal government are not clearly assigned to the executive branch, and they exercise a combination of legislative, executive and adjudicative powers.
However, it seems to me that Glen is simplifying the case massively when he insists that "[o]ne of the primary, defining attributes of a civilized society that lives under the rule of law is prosecutorial independence."
That's simply not true. The power to prosecute has *always* been understood as an executive power. In England, all prosecutions are brought in the name of the King or Queen (Rex v. Smith or Regina v. Smith). Here, they are brought in the name of the people: United States v. Smith. Prosecution is, quite literally, the power to execute the law.
The hallmark of a civilized society is *not* independence of prosecutors, but the independence of the judges who must adjudicate the claims brought by the executive against individuals. It is the separation of justice from administration.
That is why judges, but not prosecutors, are given life tenure under Article III of the Constitution. That is why no one would assert that our *judges* serve at the pleasure of the President -- although the phrase is continually used by and about prosecutors.
It also is why habeas corpus -- the procedure by which a person may challenge the legality of her or his detention by the executive in an *independent* court of law -- is *the* Great Writ -- stemming from the Magna Carta and the English Revolution.
In other words, our Constitution foresaw and prepared for the probability that prosecutors would not be independent. To protect us, the framers gave the people and the other branches of government the power to check that lack of independence (Congress may use the power of the purse or impeach any federal officer, the courts have jurisdiction directly under the Constitution to adjudicate petitions for writs of habeas corpus, and, of course, the people have the power of election). It is a wonderful thing that up to now our Department of Justice has acted with restraint and in a (mostly) non-partisan fashion. But that is not how it *must* be or even what our Constitution expected.
Again -- I do not want to be misunderstood as supporting Bush's insane practices and abuses. But the remedies for his outrages are at hand and they do not run through the Department of Justice.
-
@jdmf
Again -- I do not want to be misunderstood as supporting Bush's insane practices and abuses. But the remedies for his outrages are at hand and they do not run through the Department of Justice.
I take it then that you see relatively less benefit coming out of the contempt of congress issues with Miers et al., and better to go right to impeachment (if this were a perfect world, etc. etc...)
-
The judiciary affords only one-way protection
@jdmf -
Yes, an independent judiciary stands as the primary check on prosecutors who abuse their office by persecuting the innocent. But it is powerless to force prosecutors who refuse to call the guilty to account.
For that you need prosecutorial independence.
-
Further down the spiral
I quit. Fuck 'em. At this point if Congress suddenly had an epiphany and realized that it is their legal, constitutional and moral DUTY to impeach the current administration it would still be a matter of making the bastards comply.
I find there is no hope left but in the solace of music. I find that Fighting Naked by HUMANWINE is providing the perfect pre-apocalyptic soundtrack for these twisted times.
I'm ducking out of the echo chamber for a while to try and spread the word on right leaning message board. I will walk the information superhighway like a virtual David Banner . . .
You wouldn't like me when I'm talking politcs . . .
-
Second Amendment
That old Second Amendment keeps looking better and better, doesn't it?-- Michael Bowen
They've got that covered. Between this,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203345.html
and Halliburton's domestic construction projects combined with the Constitutional rights the Administration has rescinded, whatever weapons we citizens are legally allowed to own can't compare. Peashooters vs. cannons isn't even a close analogy.
-
One can only wonder ...
... what will compell the Bush Administration to turn over the reins of power in Jan. 2009 if a Democrat is elected president.
Previously, that would have been an unimaginable scenario in America. However, the legal groundwork seems to have been laid to take the unitary executive theory to its next -- and irrevokable -- step.
-
Congressional innaction
While the Democrats were in the minority in congress, I was continually disgusted that none of these members would take radical actions to protest the administration's, as well as the Republican majority's, abuses of power. It's not as though the Republicans have not been staging radical actions of their own for trivial reasons over the last decade or two.
I agree with you. The only course of action now for congress is an existential one. I think articles of impeachment should be drawn up immediately for Bush, Cheney (and perhaps for some of their underlings as well) on the basis of inherent contempt of Congress and of the Constitution.
-
"U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will."
In less mealy-mouthed times, this was known as the führer-prinzip.
-
IMPEACHMENT IS ONLY RECOURSE!
The Bush administration is obviously daring the Democrats to impeach George and Dick. Clearly the congressional Democrats are not going to get any support from the Attorney General's office or the Supreme Court because both are controlled by the neoconservatives. Especially the Democrats in the House need to shut up about the arrogance and criminal behaviors of this administration if it is not going to vote articles of impeachment. They have the majority to do so and a veto proof majority is not required. Come on Democrats stop bitching and act, NOW!
-
@ Mona - Probably a wise choice
@LWM
I'm back to ignoring you, and that is all I will say in any thread where you address me with non sequitur nonsense.
-- -Mona-
Considering how vociferously we all know you campaigned for impeaching Clinton over a blow job. If you can't answer my questions because they expose your own hypocrisy I'll take that as a sign you are at least aware of it finally.