Coronation

It's hard to imagine a lead sentence more perversely undemocratic than this, from Gina Holland of the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON -- His wartime powers undercut once before by the Supreme Court, President Bush could take a second hit in a case in which Osama bin Laden's former driver is seeking to head off a trial before military officers.

Oh, that meddlesome Supreme Court, always going about undercutting the wartime powers of our wartime president. Those whiny justices, always worrying about whether or not the executive branch's claims of unchecked, absolute power are constitutional. It's always "blah, blah, blah, rule of law, blah, blah, blah" with them.

If they keep this up, eventually they'll undercut everyone's power to break the law with impunity. And then where will we be?

Seriously, is this really how Gina Holland understands the role of the Constitution? As some kind of threat to the president's otherwise limitless power? This is the framework she presents. Read that again:

His wartime powers undercut once before by the Supreme Court ...

Are there no editors at the Associated Press who remember fourth-grade social studies?

President Bush's earlier claims to unlimited power were ruled -- with the definitive final say of the Supreme Court -- to be unconstitutional, illegitimate, nonexistent. He has no "powers" -- wartime or otherwise -- other than those granted to him by the Constitution.

Holland turns this on its head. She seems to think it is the courts' concerns about constitutionality and legality that are illegitimate. Not just illegitimate, but dangerous -- undercutting the president during wartime, after all, sounds like something that would weaken America.

If one accepts Holland's view then not only does the Constitution become irrelevant, but the Magna Carta starts to look a bit shaky.

Comments

[Andrew Reeves]

Are there no editors at the Associated Press who remember fourth-grade social studies?

At this point I ought to note that this lack of understanding basic civics has a fairly long heritage. Way back in Ye Olden Days when I was in the 8th grade (the late 80's), a fellow from the Angleton Chamber of Commerce would give talks to our history class once a week or so.

They were on the usual stuff about civics, but then there was one particular time when he was talking about constitutional protections for the rights of the accused. He very matter of factly noted that in the near future certain constitutional rights would have to be curtailed because of the problem of drug dealers.

What sticks with me about that talk to this day was not that he essentially said that constitutional safeguards are a refuge for drug dealers, but that he treated this statement as a self-evident truth.

The idea that the government has its hands tied in dealing with The Bad People has been (in the late 20th century incarnation) really been rolling along since the late 70's.

[Scott]

The idea that the government has its hands tied in dealing with The Bad People has been (in the late 20th century incarnation) really been rolling along since the late 70's.

The idea that the govt has its hands tied in dealing with The Bad Things has been really rolling along since the New Deal. All the govt is doing now is treating other parts of the Constitution (such as the Preznit being "Commander in Chief") like liberals treat the Commerce Clause (i.e. as a blank check for more govt power).

Don't make such a fetish of the mere literal text of the Constitution. It is a living document, after all. Could the Founding Fathers have imagnined the threat of terrorists with WMDs? EEEEEEEEKKKKKK!!!!!!!

[Nea]

It's the most mind-bogglingly cynical thing I've ever seen done in politics - declare a war and then declare yourself untouchable because you're a wartime President. And nobody notices how self-serving this is? Or how every time it looks like we've "finished" by bombing a country and putting up a new government, we suddenly open a new fighting front so that he can remain a wartime President?

[Matt Austern]

The Magna Carta started looking a big shaky several years ago, when this administration claimed the right to throw anyone it liked in jail for as long as it liked, without having to show cause to anyone but itself. That's the prerogative of a an absolute monarch.

[JM]

Nea: Yeah, I've noticed. Thanks for bringing it up so I don't have to get depressed writing it myself. Instead I can joke about it being like the USA giving birth with Bush as the father... "You miserable bastard, you did this to me!" "Aww, but honey, I'm your wartime president." "I don't care -- YOU did THIS to ME! AUUGH!"

[bulbul]

declare a war and then declare yourself untouchable because you're a wartime President.
IIRC, the President does not have the right to declared war, it rests solely with the Congress (Article I, section 8: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;").
Not that it matters, of course.

[al hill]

this old song is stillright on the money

The eastern world, it is explodin’.
Violence flarin’, bullets loadin’
You’re old enough to kill, but not for votin’
You don’t believe in war, but what’s that gun you’re totin’
And even the Jordan River has bodies floatin’

But you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Don’t you understand what I’m tryin’ to say
Can’t you feel the fears I’m feelin’ today?
If the button is pushed, there’s no runnin’ away
There’ll be no one to save, with the world in a grave
[Take a look around ya boy, it's bound to scare ya boy]

And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Yeah, my blood’s so mad feels like coagulatin’
I’m sitting here just contemplatin’
I can’t twist the truth, it knows no regulation.
Handful of senators don’t pass legislation
And marches alone can’t bring integration
When human respect is disintegratin’
This whole crazy world is just too frustratin’

And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Think of all the hate there is in Red China
Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama
You may leave here for 4 days in space
But when you return, it’s the same old place
The poundin’ of the drums, the pride and disgrace
You can bury your dad, but don’t leave a trace
Hate your next-door neighbor, but don’t forget to say grace
And… tell me over and over and over and over again, my friend
You don’t believe
We’re on the eve
Of destruction
Mm, no no, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

[Puck]

War destroys the victor as surely as it does the vanquished.

Churchill fought the most destructive war in history and lost the British Empire for it. Germany OTOH - now exhibits greater moral force in the Middle East than does America with it's cowboy (bomb first as question later) mentality.

The only good thing about Iraq is that is has depleted out reserves - so we cannot make war anymore. Now the neo-cons want us to bomb Iran and soon Syria. And we don't have the money and human captial to do it. And finally we have exhausted the ability of England and Europe to support us.

Watch carefully the neo-cons. They never wanted a democratic Iraq - all they wanted was a destroyed and destabilized Iraq. They win if we leave now. Yet we cannot afford to continue. Somehow the neo-cons always wni.

The only solution - don't start wars in the first place.

[chris]

You guys are lucky.

In Britain, Tony Blair just passed a law which allows the government to repeal Habeas Corpus any time it wants without consulting the legislature.

[Thad]

Wow. Again, I am happy the AP didn't hire me. I don't think I could work for a place praticing disgustingly subversive journalism.

[sally russell]

She should have said, Mr. Bush's CLAIM that he has unlimited power, quashed once by the Supreme Court, is about to be quashed again.

[Beth]

Churchill fought the most destructive war in history and lost the British Empire for it.

Yes, if only Churchill hadn't launched a war of aggression against his peace-loving, Nazi neighbors, the British Empire would still be intact, and freedom would flourish throughout the world under its beneficent rule.

[J]

Chris Hedges wrote "War is a Force that Gives us Meaning"--but I think he was being too genteel. It would've been more accurate to say, "War is a Force that Gives us a Woody." The average person might say they love their country and want to make a noble sacrifice--well, at least that they support the other people who are to be nobly sacrificed--but the fact of the matter is that the deep dark reaction of war-supporters is to the prospect of war is, "Wowiee! Gee-whiz! Woohoo! This should be exciting!!!" Maybe this wasn't a problem before the twentieth century when wars were usually fought over boring stuff like land rather than for thrilling ideologies. Or maybe it was only a problem beginning with the later 20th century when the movies and television began peddling the idea of war-as-exciting-entertainment. Whatever: It's a problem now.

This reaction has all manner of political benefits too. When the population is in "war mode," everything happens up-tempo. If you're a holder of power, you can do what you want and do it much quicker than you normally would and if it goes awry or seems to benefit you more than anyone else, you had better believe people won't question it as thoroughly as they normally would.

But back to the popular reaction: I'm generally opposed to the school of thought that draws a direct line from internet porn to Abu Ghraib, but I still recognize that many people in America strongly--and totally erroneously--connect violence and sex, and their reaction to either one is thus similar. The head-screwed-on-backwards attitude of Americans to war is of a forbidden indulgence that simply can't be resisted--which is the way we SHOULD look at sex but don't. The fact is that Americans vastly prefer the idea of celibacy (sorry "abstinence") to pacifism. Better to kill than to fuck.

[j swift]

Since would a implied power of the President trump an explicit prohibition anyway?

[Scott]

Since would a implied power of the President trump an explicit prohibition anyway?

When the explicit prohibition gets in the way of the govt taking some 'strong' action about something that scares people (whether it's economic or physical). If the people are scared and want the constitution 'reinterpreted' to allow for govt to protect them, then Society Has Collectively Spoken.

[L]

J, I think the problem has been developing gradually ever since the Civil War. It was the last war that took place substantially on US soil, and even then largely in the South. Ever since then, to Americans war as been something that happens Somewhere Else, to Other People.

Yes, there was Pearl Harbor, a single attack against a military installation in a territory that wasn't even a state yet. (Illegally seized about 50 years earlier, but don't get me started.) There were also the 9/11 attacks. Neither caused anything like the large-scale suffering of a war happening right where you live.

It's easy to go "WHOOOOO!" over something that's only happening on television, after all.

[bulbul]

Ever since then, to Americans war as been something that happens Somewhere Else, to Other People.
Couple of weeks ago I had the misfortune of being introduced to a staunchy conservative Republican fuc.... ehm... gentlemen. After a few minutes of his rant on how the European Union is evil and the United States, especially under Bush leadership, stand for all that is good and right, he turned to me and asked: "You know what the American dream is, right? Now tell me, what the fuck is the European dream?". I answered "Easy - no more wars." He looked at me like I just beamed down from the orbit. Now I know why.

[Puck]

In other words Beth - you're not really against war - as long as it's against your enemies. I'll just leave you with this from Joe Sobran's latest.

"To this day, I find it impossible to look back on World War II with pride or pleasure, let alone admiration for the men who wanted it. I do venerate the two great Popes, Pius XI and Pius XII, who saw it coming and pled for peace. They are the true war heroes."

[ajay]

Sorry, did you say Joe Sobran?

The man who wrote: "The 9/11 attacks would never have occurred except for the U.S. Government's Middle East policies, which are pretty much dictated by the Jewish-Zionist powers that be in the United States. The Zionists boast privately of their power, but they don't want the gentiles talking about it" - that Joe Sobran? Fired from the National Review for being too bigoted?

Nice source. Positively dripping with moral intelligence, I'm sure.

[Puck]

Yep - that Joe Sobran - fired for criticizing Israel and Zionist influence over American foreign policy. He's great isn't he. Truly a rare specimen - a man willing to speak truth to power and pay the price.

Getting fired is what always happens to people who criticise Israel (happening soon to Harvard's Mearsheimer and Walt).

[Scott]

I ran across this today and thought of this thread.....

They Thought They Were Free
The Germans, 1933-45
Excerpt from pages 166-73 of "They Thought They Were Free" First published in 1955

...What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter....

..."You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have....

..."But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D....

[Puck]

The American Constitution is always the enemy of tyrants (was there a greater abrogation of our constitutional rights than the arrest and persecution of Dr. Sami El-Arian? But remember it was trial by jury that freed him.)

Freedom of Speech, trial by jury, and a well-armed populace - don't let the Empire take these rights away.

[nieciedo]

Criticizing the policies of the State of Israel is one thing; ranting about a "Jewish-Zionist" elite that pulls the strings in American government, well that's just a little close to the merry old land of wacked-out crazy Nazi antisemitic conspiracy theories.

When you change your focus from the policies of the government of a predominantly Jewish country to pointing accusing fingers at Jews elsewhere in the world, that ceases to be "speaking truth to power" and becomes bigotry.

It's kind of like condemning all Irish-Americans or even all Catholics for the actions of the IRA.

[Garnet]

If the people are scared and want the constitution 'reinterpreted'

Did you guys have a referendum on changing the constitution that I missed? Seems like asking the American public whether they want to give Bush king-like powers would have made the news...

In other words, evidence please.

[bulbul]

It's kind of like condemning all Irish-Americans or even all Catholics for the actions of the IRA.
Nice sentiment and I certainly agree with you.
Just don't forget about it next time someone mentions the evil that is Islam and how all Muslims are terrorists.

[grenadine]

Great quote, Scott. It's always interesting to read a document from the 'distant' past and realize how relevent it still is.

[Beth]

In other words Beth - you're not really against war - as long as it's against your enemies.

No Puck, in other words I'm against idealizing imperialism and even more against shifting blame from the real perpetrators, and I'm in favor of calling bullshit when I see it.

And speaking of bullshit, your concern for oppressed peoples and human rights would seem a little less hypocritical if you weren't such an apologist for those genocidal totalitarians, the Nazis.

[cjmr's husband]

Godwin's Law is now invoked. Let's keep the Nazi references on topic, people.

[Beth]

cjmr's husband,
Not even Godwin would object to using the word 'Nazi' literally. My distinct impression, based on a number of Puck's posts, is that he is literally a Nazi apologist. If I'm proven wrong, I'll gladly apologize, but right or wrong I have not violated Godwin's Law.

[grenadine]

Can i call dibs on the law about all posts eventually invoking Godwin's law after previously invoking Nazis?

i'd call it Metagodwin's Law.

[bulbul]

My distinct impression, based on a number of Puck's posts, is that he is literally a Nazi apologist.

Dunno about that, I haven't noticed anything of that sort. But then again, it's not like I've been paying to much attention. At this point, I would like to say that supporting the free speech rights of jerkoffs like David Irving does is not Nazi apologism.
However, upon a brief glance into his blog, I do believe dude has some strange (read: fucking ridiculous) ideas about history and stuff. Serbia is the bulwark of Christendom (and has been for two thousand years), the Hague court exists to kill European nationalist leaders and alike.
My favorite, however, is this: "Sure, he (Milošević) was a thug. But the hour is late - our future is grave. And a thug will do." My take: the dude is simply pro-authoritarian.

And I declare you invocation of the Goodwin's Law null and void, cjmr's husband. This was, as Beth has pointed out, the literal use of the word in its historical sense. Better luck next time :o)

[cjmr's husband]

Here's a partial mea culpa: "niwdoG"

This thread is about fascism, so some discussion of nazis is expected. Scott's post above is on-topic. But let's not get
into Zionism and who's-a-nazi-apologist.

This topic is dangerous territory, so stay in the frying pan.
Recommended reading: Orcinus'
"Rise of Pseudo-Fascism"

[alex]

Anybody here ever hear of President John Adams?

The Alien and Sedition Acts?

More than 200 years ago, and not really passing the Constitutional sniff test.

[Beth]

supporting the free speech rights of jerkoffs like David Irving is not Nazi apologism.

Well, obviously. Why would you think I'd believe it was?

Anyway, cjmr's husband has a point, so I won't pursue this any further.

[Skyknight]

Bulbul: Pro-authoritarian, yet has it in for Cheney et al.? I have a feeling there's more strands to him than THAT...

[bulbul]

Well, obviously. Why would you think I'd believe it was?
Times being what they are, I feel this weird urge to say this. Plus, I read Puck's blog just before making that comment. It was not directed at anybody particular. Least of all you :o)

I have a feeling there's more strands to him than THAT
Dunno, maybe he does not dig every type of authority. Feel free to continue the analysis :o)

[Duane]

Dunno, maybe he does not dig every type of authority.

Maybe it's just competent authority he digs. Like Nixon.

[Scott]

Did you guys have a referendum on changing the constitution that I missed? Seems like asking the American public whether they want to give Bush king-like powers would have made the news...

In other words, evidence please.

The lack of complaints from the Americal public while this is going on is evidence.

[Majromax]

Ah, but referendums don't have any legally binding power in the US. In fact, there isn't even a credible way of conducting one. Thus, Bush's power in the US is governed by historical precedent -- he has as much as he can take until Congress or the Courts slap him on the wrist about it.

And with the Supreme Court being reluctant to take quick action with much of the controversial cases, this might last a while.

[Llelldorin]

Garnet, it doesn't take that.

Remember, the US Constitution is modelled on eighteenth-century colonial government. The President was modeled on the royal representatives that governed most colonies, and when it comes to the day-to-day conduct of government is essentially an elected king.

What's supposed to hold that in check is a prickly Congress, which has sole power over spending and is fiercely protective of its institutional privileges. To see the constitution working the way it was designed to, look at the Reagan or Clinton years---both men had to constantly beg, cajole, and negotiate with congressmen and senators to get anything done at all. Congress has rarely had the sort of "party discipline" that's so common in parlimentary democracies, and even when it has, it's traditionally been at the beck and call of congressional leaders, who have traditionally refused to defer even to Presidents of their own party unless asked very nicely indeed.

Unfortunately, Bush has a ludicrously compliant and disciplined majority in the House, and a Senate that could be an obstacle but that's led by such a political featherweight (the vastly overrated Bill Frist) that it's in practice as compliant as the House. Under these circumstances, his power is as a practical matter checked only by the Supreme Court. The problem is that the Supreme Court (unlike Congress) can't act actively unless cases reach it, and it's split right down the middle---four sane justices, four that seem to believe that the government can do no wrong, and one guy (Kennedy) who no-one can get a bead on. Under the circumstances, Bush might as well be a monarch--at least until 2006, or 2008 if the Republicans don't lose at least one house of congress in November.

The neat thing is that the "four sane justices" and the "four that seem to believe that the government can do no wrong" keep switching sides.

[Garnet]

The lack of complaints from the Americal public while this is going on is evidence.

Evidence of what, exactly? That people are 'scared and want the Constitution reinterpreted'? That people are too busy tryiing to put food on the table and a roof over their heads to demonstrate? That people are intimidated by Bush's fairly unprecedented use of security forces to quash dissent (remember 'free speech zones')? That people are so badly informed by the American media that they don't even know there's something to complain about?

Really, you might as well have simply said 'because I said so'. It'd carry about as much weight.

[bulbul]

In response to Garnet's response to Scott:
so bloggers and alike don't count as "American public"? A great number of them have expressed their views on this quite clearly and loudly. See the column to your right.

[Duane]

so bloggers and alike don't count as "American public"? A great number of them have expressed their views on this quite clearly and loudly. See the column to your right.

I think by "American public" he means the 30% of Americans that think Bush is doing a great job. Of course, Scott himself isn't able to educate others about the erosion of our civil liberties under conservative rule because he has his hands full trying to stop us 22 liberal Christians from helping poor people.

[L]

Duane, you exaggerate! Heavens to Murgatroyd!

30% "approval rating" means that on the scale "strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, strongly disapprove, or no opinion/undecided" 30% checked either "strongly approve" or "somewhat approve". That's not quite the same as thinking he's doing a "great job". (Which, if I read you correctly, only reinforces your point.)

Actually, most approval numbers are higher than that, but at the same time the "Disapprove" numbers are almost all over 50%, well over according to some polls. See http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

[Scott]

he has his hands full trying to stop us 22 liberal Christians from helping poor people

Help anyone you want. Just prove your moral superiority with your own resources instead of someone else's. Don't read just the "help the poor" parts of the NT (which can be spun to give you power) and ignore every time Jesus said to look after the morality of your own actions instead of obsessing over the morality of others (which would deny you power) to make yourself look good by comparison: the spec in the eye, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc. Y'all love those verses when the GOP wants to ban sex acts, but those verses apply just as much to you.

Evidence of what, exactly? That people are 'scared and want the Constitution reinterpreted'?

Yep. A handful of bloggers don't qualify as "the American People". Look, I don't want the constitution reiterpreted by either the left or the right, but the waves of general public apathy over Bush's behavior is pretty damn obvious. Compare the reactions to things like this vs. the reaction to, say, New Coke.

Spending Measure Not a Law, Suit Says

For anyone who took fifth-grade social studies or sang "I'm Just a Bill," how legislation turns to law always seemed pretty simple: The House passes a bill, the Senate passes the same bill, the president signs it.

"He signed ya, Bill -- now you're a law," shouts the cartoon lawmaker on "Schoolhouse Rock" as Bill acknowledges the cheers.

But last month, Washington threw all that old-fashioned civics stuff into a tizzy, when President Bush signed into law a bill that actually never passed the House. Bill -- in this case, a major budget-cutting measure that will affect millions of Americans -- became a law because it was "certified" by the leaders of the House and Senate.

After stewing for weeks, Public Citizen, a legislative watchdog group, sued yesterday to block the budget-cutting law, charging that Bush and Republican leaders of Congress flagrantly violated the Constitution when the president signed it into law knowing that the version that cleared the House was substantively different from the Senate's version.

The issue is bizarre, with even constitutional scholars saying they could not think of any precedent for the journey the budget bill took to becoming a law....

[bulbul]

Help anyone you want. Just prove your moral superiority with your own resources instead of someone else's.
Just curious, Scott: how much should the government and/or the people of the US give you back to make you shut up about the evil liberals/socialists/statists/progressives/whoevers taking your money and spending it on some bullshit?

[bulbul]

I don't want the constitution reiterpreted
What does it mean, 'reinterpreted'? I can only assume you speak of "adopting an interpretation different from the current one". If I'm right, what exactly is the 'original' and/or 'correct' interpretation of the Constitution?

[Garnet]

Uh-huh. I'm fairly plugged into the American political blogosphere, and I've never even heard of that one; how much do you want to bet that the average American, incredibly badly served by nothing more than CNN at best, knows more about this than an online political junkie?

The absence of evidence, Scott, as the old saying goes, is not evidence of absence. You have yet to actually produce any kind of positive proof that 'people are scared and want the Constitution reinterpreted'.

[wintermute]

Morons.org covered that on Monday, but it was pretty much the only source I know that's mentioned it, so far. And I went looking, after that, too.