We may make an economic comeback but we have never been in this bad of a position politically before. Never.

We have been getting into a very bad political position for quite some time now, considerably longer than most of the posters on this board wish to acknowledge.

The seeds of the current problems were planted long ago and have fully bloomed in the hearts and minds of Americans. Americans fully support stormtrooopers kicking people's doors in in the middle of the night. Of course it never occurs to the average American that it might be his own door that will be kicked in next, he isn't doing anything wrong so has nothing to fear.

Given the reception my message garners, even among supposed "liberals", I seriously doubt there is any hope of salvaging a free nation from the dregs of freedom we have left. Even "liberals" don't really care that our nation has become the largest incarcerator of human beings on the planet, and even "liberals" make jokes about prisoners not dropping the soap in the shower.

The black male canary of freedom in our coal mine has long since expired.. The rest of us will follow suit sooner or later.

"I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments . . .

I believe the Administration's use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy – which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center."

What has Obama done in senate to change these practices? Nothing. So why are we suppossed to believe he will as president? We have absolutely ZERO reasons to trust either he or Clinton will do anything to change Bush's tyranical laws any more than McCain will.

Glenn, I enjoyed your new book. The book you cite today also points out the power of language in these trends toward executive power, in this case not the use of effeminate language or tough, manly metaphors but with militaristic language including Wars on Poverty, Wars on Drugs, Wars on Terror, etc. This military rhetoric is so ingrained into the executive abuse of their Constitutional duties and limitations that is seems to me that changing the terminology of it all is going to be one of the keys to a Democrat winning this November.

I've come of the opinion as of late that we have a system of government that is almost architected to avoid the unpleasantries of discovery and accountability, and thus destined to reap perpetual malfeasance because of it.

...

If you couple this with a tacit acceptance of an extra-societal ruling-class, then it ought to be no wonder why accountability and politics don't intersect frequently. -- naschbac

I didn't say this specifically (and probably wouldn't have said it as well as you have) primarily because I assume most intelligent people understand this already. Perhaps not. Either way, it shouldn't be an excuse to stick our heads in the sand and avoid our responsibilities as citizens just because we perceive that "things are looking up." The ruling class will not check themselves. We are going to have to do it and until we do, we will be stuck with the government and politicians we deserve.

Link at my name to the dumped documents. Sorry for the OT, but thought you might want the FYI.

Thanks again Glenn,

This is not only about the vital issues you brought up, it's also thinly veiled code for Roe v Wade, gay marriage, who knows what else.

Having been exposed to the other way of doing it a lot, and while it isn't pretty, I do think the Founding Fathers kind of blew it in the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches. Right now, we have an executive branch of government that is essentially answerable to nobody at all besides the American people every four years. Yes it limits the powers of Congress all to crazy, but I am no longer sure that that is such a good idea.

Prime Minister Pelosi sounds a lot better than King Bush, and I am sad that we have to hang so many expectations around Obama's (or Clinton's) neck, when they enter the Oval Office. For me, down with the kings, elected in corrupt elections or appointed by a politicized judiciary.

Well, to take it back a little, if you really read the Constitution, the House of Reps really has the ultimate jam, they just don't exercise it much these days. If they had a bit less separation from the executive, they just might. But a Republican judiciary is the least of our problems.

What has Obama done in senate to change these practices? Nothing.

He voted against the Military Commissions Act. And sponsored amendments to limit its power. And he voted for the restoration of habeas corpus. And against warrantless eavesdropping. And against telecom amnesty. And against Michael Mukasey's nomination. And against the nominations of Executive power worshipers John Roberts and Sam Alito.

I tend to favor amending the Constitution to much more strongly limit the Executive.

Forget the Amendment. They should just retype Articles One and Two and put a line on the bottom where you can sign saying, "I have read and understand this" and call it a day.

First, I'm sure there are examples of activist judges. While Glenn appropriately contrasts the (smaller) problem of activist judges to the (larger) problem of the Unitary Executive, many will dismiss his argument because it does not acknowledge the problem of activist judges. I fear that they will interpret this article as marginalizing a very real problem, and they too will marginalize the article in response.

Second, I appreciate contrasting McCain's response with Obama's, but I think it would balance the post more if part of Clinton's response were quoted as well. Clinton supporters will likely see this as unbalanced and will likely marginalize the post as a result.

That said, those points are both potential straw man arguments that should be defused early. I think the problem with "activist judges" is that the right-wing is unhappy with some of the rulings. With enough effort, I could certainly find "activist judges" that the right-wing likes (because they expand the power of businesses by giving them things like personhood, or they recognize unreasonable executive powers like State Secrets). I also think that Obama's opinion is more important, since he is the Democratic front-runner and most statistically likely to be the nominee.