Skip to main content

View Diary: A Little Bit of Monarchy (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I diagree with you (none)
    It is my view that Kerr knew exactly what he was doing and buried the lede deliberately and with disingenuous language - to wit, "illegal but Constitutional."

    Psst, unless you buy Yoo's thesis, it ain't Constitutional, so that is just wrong.

    The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

    by Armando on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 11:03:57 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (none)
      It isn't Constitutional.  But I think that when he said it was Constitutional, he was referring to whether it violated the Fourth Amendment.  I think that for most people--Yoo and Gonzalez excepted--the whole idea that it can be constitutional to violate the laws is so ridiculous that someone could write "illegal but constitutional" and mean "doesn't violate the constitition in ways other than by the fact that it's illegal".

      OK.  I think we can agree that Kerr was very sloppy, at least with the conclusions he drew.  "Illegal but Constitutional" is a stupid slogan-type summary that he should have never put in there, at least now with the Yoos and Gonzalezes running around.  You may be right.  It may have been chosen to to muddy the waters.  But the arguments show he doesn't entertain any John Yoo fantasies, and if John Yoo says he agrees with Kerr, then John Yoo probably didn't read what Kerr wrote.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site