Letters to the Editor
-
The maximum stakes game
It should be pretty obvious by now that Bush is playing a maximum stakes game. He has long since decided that his is the only will that matters on anything, therefore, there is no incremental measure that congress can employ to reign this administration in. If they issue subpoenas to find out what's really going on, he categorically denies their authority to do so. If they (could) issue a law he doesn't like, he'd refuse to enforce it. At a fundamental level, he has completely hamstrung congress' ability to act in any meaningful capacity.
This leaves only one option open to congress. The only power that Congress truly has to compel the president is the power to remove him from the presidency. That's the nature of power. You have to be willing to use the power you have, or it is useless.
Pres. Bush employed exactly this tactic to great efficacy with his Generals in Iraq. If a general didn't do/say what Bush wanted, he was dismissed. This occurred until he found Generals who would toe the line. Congress, also, must be willing to dismiss a President that will not execute the office of the President in a competent (and legal) manner. Anything less is nothing at all.
-
Was Bruce Fein in agreement with Olson in 1984? Were all Republicans?
I’d like to point out that this “warped view of our republic” - the denial of prosecutorial independence, and the idea that Executive Branch employees are beyond the reach of the law, emanated from the Reagan Justice Department in 1984 – when none other than Bruce Fein worked there.
Did he have anything to say back then about this radical viewpoint? What about other Republican legal scholars at the time – did they speak how about Olson’s outrageous legal opinions?
If no one did, and they were silent just as Republicans in Congress are today, isn’t it fair to conclude that the contempt for the law and our checks and balances inherent in these legal opinions is not a Bush phenomenon, but a long-held Republican Party agenda?
I don’t have access to Nexis-Lexis, so I would love to see someone who does research the reaction to Olson’s legal theory back in 1984.
If Bruce Fein was silent, were there other prominent Republicans who stood up for the rule of law and prosecutorial independence? Who was upset that Olson was putting Reagan’s employees outside of the reach of law?
-
No, but this "concern troll" angle is better...
If the Democrats contest this, they will ipso facto weaken the legislative branch.
-- nabalzbbfr
than the tack the other troll took. Tell your troll commander that you want more pay that the other guy. I'll be your reference.
-
The Rove Factor
There are skeltons in the DC closet. Undoubtedly, those skeletons belong to politicians of both parties as well as the press. Never underestimate the Rove/Chaney prediliction to criminal enterprise; i.e. blackmail anyone? Not for nothing did they expand the NSA program.
(I think we may all come to the conclusion that Larry Flynt is the most courageous citizen in the country. Put out a bounty, start taking names, and make the SOB's resign.)
-
I'll take Anonymous' "maximum stakes game" one step further -
If the power to impeach is not used against this administration, it ain't never going to be used again...or at least not with a straight face...
If not now, when?
-
Zack
Was Bruce Fein in agreement with Olson in 1984? Were all Republicans?
It's a good question. You are right that many of the abuses now have their roots in Reagan era theories, and it seems quite likely that Reagean right-wing theorists like Fein did not actively oppose them. They almost certainly supported them.
There is, of course, the possibilty that they have changed their minds as they saw how these theories can be abused. But it is also true - as the EPA dispute demonstrated -- that while the Reagan administration asserted theories like this, they rarely actually followed though, at least compared to the current administration. They were treated more like starting points in a negotiation (which are usually, by their nature, extreme), not actual beliefs to be steadfastly maintained. For the Bush administration, there is never any movement from these extreme positions. They are truly believed and clung to. I think that might account for the difference as well.
-
Fucked?
Well, how fucked are we? And when do we stop grabbing our ankles because Bush asks (tells) us to?
-
Inherent Contempt
The House should bring a highly targeted "inherent contempt" action in one of these cases to disprove the Executive branch's theory. MSNBC Countdown in the past week mentioned in passing that Congress delegated these actions to the DOJ to spare Congress the daily hassle of handing out justice. Well, it now appears there is at least one situation where Congress has no choice but to wade in and mete out justice, where the Executive Branch declares it has dictatorial power.
As for the public having "Stockholm Syndrome," that's a wonderful phrase but I think the problem is that most people believe there is no problem. Why? Because the media tells them there is no problem, in this case, by not covering these constitutional issues. If people knew, and were educated about what has been going on, you would see real restiveness and pressure for change. That probably explains the increase in the number of people who think impeachment would be a good thing, from the 20s and 30s to the 40 percent and above that you see in the past year. People are starting to wake up because of the accumulation of these events which have triggered editorials and small news coverage. It's lack of knowledge, not a stunned buy-in from being held hostage.
Sadly, I think Glenn's point also is well-taken: it'll require a Democratic President exercising these dictatorial powers and the Republicans revolting (for partisan reasons, not because they love or believe in the Constitution) before these issues are resolved.
Glenn also is correct to note that some of these issues might not break Congress' way. But we do need to have these issues tackled head on, immediately, to bring this Administration and future Administrations to heel, into a balance of power.
Finally, the Democrats desperately need 2-3 people who can get face time on TV easily and who can make loud and persuasive cases against this extreme executive power nonsense. The opportunities and outrages are there. What's missing are the voices of opposition.