>> I have to wonder if you would've been so hostile to
>> FDR's similar trashing of the constitution and power
>> grab.
No one cares about breaking the law when it is their own pet idea, or
an idea they think will benefit them at the expense of someone else.
> I agree that FDR did a bunch of things that I think are
> unconstitutional. However, I do tend to give him a *little*
> bit of slack due to the fact that we were actually in an
> readily definable war.
1. FDR did a *lot* that was unconstitutional. For example, SS is
wholly unconstitutional.
2. Most of the complaints about FDR's lack of respect for his oath to
preserve and protect the constitution were *before* the war, most of
them in the '30's. He has at least one alleged
unconstitutional/illegal act related to the war (see
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671769855/).
> Doesn't it seem to you that Bush has taken a very wide
> open definition of war?
Well okay. But generally, politicians take "wide open definitions" all
the time so they can do whatever they want on whatever issue they
happen to be considering. Bush is hardly unique in this way.
> But he can use or manipulate that decision any way he
> chooses to give himself the opportunity to tweak laws
> and the constitutional process in *his* favor.
Sure -- as above. They all do, as it is human nature to do so. When
you have a political system that reinforces, rather than compensates
for the "defects" of human nature, you have a system with a structural
defect. There is systematic error and drift -- it is built in. To
simply complain about unfavorable contemporary events (and the
politicians associated) is to simply avoid the root difficulties. You
limit yourself to being a "leaf in the wind" this way.
"Natural Law" is about finding the nature of humans and structuring law
and order around reality, not deciding how humans "ought to be,"
ignoring their nature, and simply assuming-in that human nature can
simply be trained away with "good lessons." (And who gets to decide
what a "good lesson" is? The side you are on, of course.)
> He's seriously broken the definition of how laws are
> done and how power is distributed in the American government
> by taking hte power of creating law away from Congress and
> the power of determining how those laws are interpreted by
> the Judiciary. This is, to say the least, completely antithetical
> to the intentions of the US constitution.
Again, this is an old story that hardly began with Bush. It has been
happening all along, for example:
The constitution began to erode almost immediately with
Hamilton/Washington and Hamilton's so-called implied powers. (This is
why I have finally rejected "limited government." It would be great if
it could be achieved, but it can't.) Hamilton was ignored when he made
his proposal and the Consitutional Convention -- no one took him
seriously. But he managed to back-door his ideology as Secretary of
the Treasury. He absolutely butchered the Necessary and Proper clause,
Washington said "great," and John Marshall reinforced the butchery in
Supreme Court decisions. To see how far our so-called "limited
government" has drifted, take a look at the recent Gonzales v. Raich
decision
(
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/...supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1454.pdf).
Justice Thomas dissents:
"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use mari-
juana that has never been bought or sold, that has never
crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable
effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress
can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can
regulate virtually anything -- and the Federal Government
is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
One wonders why more needs to be said. The majority decision was
anti-constitutional in the most obvious way. No amount of clever
wordsmithing, and cowarding out with precedence (stare decisis), can
cover up the doublespeak. This is an example of a "wide open
definition" of commerce. It doesn't get any wider. Relying on the
Supreme Court to enforce constitutionality is naive, to say the least.
(Clarence Thomas is easily the best justice on the court today, but he
is only one man, and no man is perfect.)
The constitution is a dead letter that is simply kept around for
superficial law arguments, and soma for the masses. It was a stunning
achievement -- one of the greatest political achievements in history --
but ultimately it is ineffective in checking power. Give it up. Base
your politics on reality, not some parallel universe.
Yes, George Bush is horrible. But that is not the root of the problem.
George Bush is merely a symptom. All you people are on the wrong
track. Complaining about constitutionality is a fruitless endeavor.
Complaining about contemporary events is transient medicine, at best,
and may have bad long term effects. Get to the root. The problem is
structural.
