I take it then, from your extensive discussion of the vote in Congress that you have abandoned your claim:

It was an executive order, dude. There was no vote in Congress.

made at Friday, June 13, 2008 08:59 AM. Or is this a Cheney/McCain "I never said that" type ploy.

This is just to keep the record straight and for use as an empirical data point in constructing your credibility index.

FMD, just to clarify. When I said the other day that the solution would look like Obama, I wasn't referring to his charisma; I was referring to his pedigree -- mixed race, young, ambitious and well-educated. He represents an American story outside the mythology which has dominated our politics for too long. If we don't know who we actually are, we can't be honest about what we'd like to become.

It's not that white Protestant farmers from Iowa are objectionable in any way -- although some of their values are, at least to me -- it's just that they aren't the only Americans, and haven't been for a long, long time.

My credibility is fine. Why you are even interested in this ridiculous piffle is beyond me but thanks for your concern.

Thomas c's original claim: An example of principled conservatism here at home

Roosevelt's decision in 1942 to intern Japanese Americans living on the west coast encountered virtually no opposition in the U.S. Congress. The most notable dissenter was Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio, the man known as "Mr. Republican" and the most staunch conservative of his time. Indeed, when the law criminalizing the refusal to evacuate one's home and accede to internment was passed, the only vote in Congress against the law came from Sen. Taft.

The wariness of overweening government power has historically been a hallmark of conservatism. It is only a slight exaggeration to suggest that conservatism, absent this wariness, is fascism.

-- thomas c

My Response:

It was an executive order, dude. There was no vote in Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

Opposition

Notably, one of the few voices in Washington opposed to internment was FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover opposed the interment not on constitutional grounds, but because he believed that the most likely spies had already been arrested by the FBI shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor.[1] First lady Eleanor Roosevelt was also opposed to Executive Order 9066. She spoke privately many times with her husband, but was unsuccessful in convincing him not to sign it...

No one in Congress gets to vote on an Executive Order and no one in Congress voted against Public Law 503. His claim that it was opposed by, or voted against, by Robert Taft is spurious.

If youdo a little research you'll see that Taft's objections were purely technical. He thought it was a poorly drafted law. He never opposed it on any other grounds.

Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio spoke briefly against the bill, although he did not vote against it:

I think this is probably the "sloppiest" criminal law I have ever read or seen anywhere. I certainly think the Senate should not pass it. I do not want to object, because the purpose of it is understood...

[The bill] does not say who shall prescribe the restrictions. It does not say how anyone shall know that the restrictions are applicable to that particular zone. It does not appear that there is any authority given to anyone to prescribe any restriction...

I have no doubt an act of that kind would be enforced in war time. I have no doubt that in peacetime no man could ever be convicted under it, because the court would find that it was so indefinite and so uncertain that it could not be enforced under the Constitution. [14]

The debate was no more pointed or cogent in the House, where there seemed to be some suggestion that the bill applied to aliens rather than citizens. [15] The bill became Public Law 503, passing by voice vote in both houses on March 19, and it was signed into law by President Roosevelt on March 21, 1942. [16] The law stated:

That whoever shall enter, remain in, leave, or commit any act in any military area or military zone prescribed, under the authority of an Executive Order of the President, by the Secretary of War, or by any military commander designated by the Secretary of War, contrary to the restrictions applicable to any such areas or zone or contrary to the order of the Secretary of War or any such military commander, shall, if it appears that he knew or should have known of the existence and extent of the restrictions or order and that his act was in violation thereof, be guilty of misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be liable to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for each offense. [17]

http://www.nps.gov/archive/manz/hrs/hrs3a.htm

The ACLU's West Coast Affiliate opposed it (National approved of it) so I guess they can claim to have had "principles".

But I fear that anyone like Pauliac who can post a cite to the very law adopted by Congress that criminalized failure to abide by Roosevelt's executive order, but still insist that there was no such law, is beyond reasoning with.

Now Pauliac wants to argue that Taft didn't really oppose the bill, but merely made technical objections. But Taft stated unequivocally "I certainly think the Senate should not pass it."

I will concede that my source for the claim that Taft voted agianst it was off base, to the extent that it was a voice vote and voice votes are not recorded on a vote-by-vote basis. But it is a stretch to believe that Taft could openly urge the Senate to defeat the bill and then register a voice vote in favor of it. We'll never know how he voted, but it is plain that he opposed passage of the bill.

Pauliac does not understand the difference between an executive order and legislation that implements and incorporates the executive order. My only claim in this regard was that the Congress had passed legislation criminalizing failure to abide by Roosevelt's executive order. Pauliac seems to acknowledge that such a law was in fact passed, but cannot acknowledge that he was wrong when he denied the existence of such a law. This a child's mind at work.

For the record, I'm not kissing Taft's ass. He is as far from me on the political spectrum as one could get. I was merely illustrating Glenn's point that traditional, principled conservatism opposed the kind of overreaching government power exemplified by the internment order.