Nice simple question that cuts through all the crap.
There are those who believe we elect monarchs whose decisions and judgments
are to be unquestioned ( a la Alexander Hamilton whose only caveat was that
*he* should be the monarch ).
There are those who believe we elect fellow citizens whose human fallibility
require us to be ever vigilant (a la John Adams; architect of the three
legged Constitution, complete with those pesky activist Judges). Even
though he was President, he continually warned of the need to be skeptical
of fellow humans who attained power and authority. The design of the House,
Senate and Executive was not good luck. It was based on an understanding of
human beings in positions of authority. Our government was designed to work
DESPITE the fact that it was made up of mere mortals.
Me, I am with Adams. I think Democracy is like marriage: The inexperienced
think of the sex. Once you mature, you come to understand the work required
to keep it going after the fire turns to embers.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
I just re-read what I wrote below. I do not mean to overrun the original
topic, but I cannot bring myself to delete what follows. Apologies and you
have at least been warned.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What we are seeing now is a test of Adams' design. And it is not the first,
nor the last time. An Executive (who is intentionally vested with great
scope of authority and autonomy), took the Country in a certain direction.
As is the privilege of his position (with which the position is vested
specifically for situations that require fast action). However, he had to
consult with Congress (which he did). Now, the question has arisen, did he
consult in good faith? Only Congress can decide that.
The Courts are now deciding whether the Executive has overstepped it's power
regarding Civil Liberties (in order to better appreciate the issues and the
coming ruling, I strongly suggest Rhenquist's book on Civil Liberties and
War). In part, it will hinge on whether we are truly at war. By not
seeking (consulting) a Congressional Declaration of War, the Executive
avoided some limitations on his autonomy. However, by not seeking such a
Declaration, his authority to do other things (such as suspend Habeas
Corpus) is not clearly defined by precedent.
Ultimately, we, the People, will decide two things. Did our locally elected
representatives duly exercise their responsibility to oversee the Executive?
Do we agree with the Executive's use of his privilege for autonomous action?
The only requirement is that we not be apathetic; we have to put the work
into the marriage. WE have to care.
None of this is complicated, and none of it is a threat to our way of life.
This is a normal healthy flexing of Constitutional muscle. This contest of
wills among the branches that will ultimately be decided by the People.
This Country has been there many times before (Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt,
Carter, to name a few of the more obvious and to avoid those who may choose
to obfuscate the discussion).
But, just like the 2000 election showed, the system is working just fine.
Democracy requires having the courage to accept political outcomes we do not
like. The beauty is, if you really can't stand it, you can leave (unlike
East Berlin, China or Cuba).
(BTW, I deplore those who insist the 2000 election was stolen by the Supreme
Court. Where were the tanks on the street? Where was the rioting and
looting? Maybe some did not like the outcome (including me); but Goddamit,
the system worked precisely as designed. By the same token, Bush only looks
foolish when he condemns "activist" judges. Is he really so lacking in
courage that he cannot accept outcomes with which he disagrees? How does
attacking one branch of government enhance public faith in the US Government
in general? Foolish and immature behavior.)
--
Regards,
Dewey Clark http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Click to see the full signature.