Author Topic: Strong executive or Rule of Law?  (Read 11971 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« on: May 03, 2007, 02:07:15 AM »
The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"

(updated below)

The Wall St. Journal online has today published a lengthy and truly astonishing article by Harvard Government Professor Harvey Mansfield, which expressly argues that the power of the President is greater than "the rule of law."

The article bears this headline: The Case for the Strong Executive -- Under some circumstances, the Rule of Law must yield to the need for Energy. And it is the most explicit argument I have seen yet for vesting in the President the power to override and ignore the rule of law in order to recieve the glories of what Mansfield calls "one-man rule."

That such an argument comes from Mansfield is unsurprising. He has long been a folk hero to the what used to be the most extremist right-wing fringe but is now the core of the Republican Party. He devoted earlier parts of his career to warning of the dangers of homosexuality, particularly its effeminizing effect on our culture.

He has a career-long obsession with the glories of tyrannical power as embodied by Machiavelli's Prince, which is his model for how America ought to be governed. And last year, he wrote a book called Manliness in which "he urges men, and especially women, to understand and accept manliness" -- which means that "women are the weaker sex," "women's bodies are made to attract and to please men" and "now that women are equal, they should be able to accept being told that they aren't, quite." Publisher's Weekly called it a "juvenile screed."

I'll leave it to Bob Altemeyer and others to dig though all of that to analyze what motivates Mansfield and his decades-long craving for strong, powerful, unchallengeable one-man masculine rule -- though it's more self-evident than anything else.

But reading Mansfield has real value for understanding the dominant right-wing movement in this country. Because he is an academic, and a quite intelligent one, he makes intellectually honest arguments, by which I mean that he does not disguise what he thinks in politically palatable slogans, but instead really describes the actual premises on which political beliefs are based.

And that is Mansfield's value; he is a clear and honest embodiment of what the Bush movement is. In particular, he makes crystal clear that the so-called devotion to a "strong executive" by the Bush administration and the movement which supports it is nothing more than a belief that the Leader has the power to disregard, violate, and remain above the rule of law. And that is clear because Mansfied explicitly says that. And that is not just Mansfield's idiosyncratic belief. He is simply stating -- honestly and clearly -- the necessary premises of the model of the Omnipotent Presidency which has taken root under the Bush presidency.

This is not the first time Mansfield has expressly called for the subordination of the rule of law to the Power of the President. In January of 2006 -- in the immediate aftermath of revelations that President Bush had been breaking the law for years by spying on the telephone conversations of Americans without warrants -- Mansfield went to The Weekly Standard and authored a truly amazing article, which I wrote about here (see item 2).

Unlike dishonest Bush followers who ludicrously claimed that Bush's eavesdropping was not illegal, Mansfield embraced reality and candidly argued that President Bush possesses the power to break the law in order to fight The Terrorists. The headline of that article presented the same mutually exclusive choice as the WSJ article today: The Law and the President -- in a national emergency, who you gonna call?

In that article, Mansfied claimed, among other things, that our "enemies, being extra-legal, need to be faced with extra-legal force"; that the "Office of President" is "larger than the law"; that "the rule of law is not enough to run a government";..........................
[.....................]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2007, 02:27:04 AM »
The closest we have come to a strong executive was FDR. No right winger-he.

Rule of law....pffft. Pack the Supreme Court

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2007, 02:34:12 AM »
We'll look forward to when Lanya actually presents a CASE law, being judically addressed regarding Bush's supposed "illegal wiretapping" vs the continued use of leftist opinion pieces
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2007, 04:10:56 AM »
"-- the necessary premises of the model of the Omnipotent Presidency which has taken root under the Bush presidency."


He of one Veto.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2007, 02:22:48 PM »
He of many "signing statements" that say, "I'm above the law. It does not pertain to The Unitary Executive."
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2007, 02:42:52 PM »
He of many "signing statements" that say, "I'm above the law. It does not pertain to The Unitary Executive."

Signing statements hold no weight under law.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2007, 03:09:51 PM »
He of many "signing statements" that say, "I'm above the law. It does not pertain to The Unitary Executive."


Have there been many (any ) examples of a federal official enforcing the signing statement rather than the law?

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2007, 03:22:11 PM »
If it is for torture, how would we ever know?
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2007, 04:17:04 PM »
If it is for torture, how would we ever know?

Show us an example.  Or is this one of those Tee-like scenarios where lack in proof of X is proof positive of X.  Lanya appears to be of the mindset that torture is SOP for this administration.  Perhaps she could expand on what her definition of torture is vs what the general theme of what torture is considered to be.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2007, 04:51:23 PM »
If it is for torture, how would we ever know?


What are you complaining about then?

A problem you don't know exists?

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2007, 03:33:16 PM »
Plane...What am I complaining about?

What I'm "complaining' about is the president's use of signing statements to say, "If I feel like we need to do X to a prisoner/ enemy combatant, I, The Decider, have the right to order it done."

And that is one, unamerican. Two, leads to our captured soldiers getting tortured in turn. Three, uncivilized. Four, immoral. Five, unChristlike. Six, illegal according to Geneva Conventions. Seven, illegal according to UCMJ. I could go on.  But I won't.  You have to be told these things?
Oh, and unconstitutional.
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2007, 03:41:16 PM »
The lefts continuous portrayal of signing statements as either unonstitutional or bind under law is either based on ignorance or willful misrepresentation of the facts. I can see no other possible reason for their duplicity.

Fact is their statements carry as much weight as a signing statement under law, that is nada, zilch,  nothing.

But hey if they want to squander their low credibility reserves any further, that is their call.


sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2007, 04:04:09 PM »
The lefts continuous portrayal of signing statements as either unonstitutional or bind under law is either based on ignorance or willful misrepresentation of the facts.

Given the track record, I'll go with the latter     >:(
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

domer

  • Guest
Re: Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2007, 04:25:01 PM »
Signing statements are a political-legal tool in the Bush Presidency, objectionable in coordination with other attributes of a perceived (and reasonable-to-say actual) imperial style presidency. (This tendency toward imperium, in my view, is a product of the security crisis Bush faced shortly into his term, significantly accentuated by his personal style of leadership coupled with the emanations from the ideology he embraced.) The signing statements attempt to steal a march on Congress, whose intent, of course, solely governs matters of statutory interpretation in a court of law. Yet, the executive has a somewhat ambiguous role in interpretation in at least two regards: choosing how to enforce the law (and signaling that intent) in an effort that might be considered a notice function on a law's scope, that is, advising citizens beforehand (before enforcement is actually attempted) how the new law will be enforced (the executive has some discretion in this regard, but how much is the question with the proviso that there is an absolute bar to overriding the Congressional will), and previewing the administration's position in court should litigation develop over the law's interpretation. In another, subtler purpose, the signing statement can be used to shape political debate on the instant law itself or other laws similar in nature. Whatever else can be said, it is my opinion the signing statements, routinely not extraordinarily used by this president, making the edge-of-defiance of Congress banal and not special, is a clear encroachment into another coequal branch's prerogatives and is objectionable in its cumulative nature.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Strong executive or Rule of Law?
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2007, 04:28:16 PM »
Are signng statements unconstitutional?

Yes or no.