Skip to main content

View Diary: The Bush Administration's Unwitting Assault on the Twin Pillars of Our Democracy (19 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Keep 'unwitting' for argument's sake (0+ / 0-)

    I vote to keep the "unwitting" and here's why:

    Either the administration knows what it is doing or doesn't. By arguing from the point of view that what the administration does is unwitting, we are tackling a more difficult argument to sell. It isn't hard to talk about a selfish man destroying the constitution, but if you can show how wrong sidestepping the constitution is when the intent is good, then you've nailed the argument.

    I was happy with most of this article. I like the spirit of bringing people back into trusting Congress, giving Congress the power. Congress is the People's branch, where all the action should really happen. The only thing that made me wince was:

    And on top of all that, the administration wants to be the one to "rule" on the constitutionality itself of the actions -- thus in effect preventing any review, let alone by the judiciary as called for under Article III of the Constitution.

    Judicial review is not called for (directly or even implied) in Article III. Read the Constitution and take note of all the checks and balances that are mentioned. Notice how detailed they are? Now look for Judicial Review. Nothing. You'd think it would be very well spelled out if it was really intended. The judiciary simply adjudicates cases, NOT LAWS. A law is never meant to be put on trial like it is. Except in one court: no not the supreme court, the People's court. The people are the ultimate arbiters of Constitutionality. And if more people read and took, hmmm, one afternoon to understand the thing (it really isn't that hard) America might finally realize it.

    •  excellent point about unwitting (0+ / 0-)

      I liked your points. particularly this one, which was excellent:

      but if you can show how wrong sidestepping the constitution is when the intent is good, then you've nailed the argument.

      the point here, that I think democrats keep missing is that by saying something is intentional in the sense that there is a lack of earnestness and belief in what they are doing not only evinces a widespeard naivety about how the human mind works in politics (filtering its own reality and interpretations) and about how the right, and particularly the far right, "see" things very differently, it also in effect insults the many americans who would otherwise agree with democratic points, but in essence would then almost have to be inclined to either defend their positions, or simply view democrats as lacking credibility.

      by illustrating an understanding of what the bush administration does, and then illustrating why it is atrociously misguided, the opposite occurs. they would have won easily had the kerry campaign done this in 2004, instead of making democrats get all psyched and riled by calling the admin a bunch of crooks and liars (thereby by implication making anybody who voted for them feel like a fool, and apt to filter their interpretations to defend their own views) rather than simply establishing that case.)

      Your point about judicial review is well taken. However, I don't fully agree.  Perhaps I could have written the referenced portion better, but Article III was implicitly established to serve as an integral part of that system of checks and balances to which you refer. No, a law is not put on trial, but a law, or any other action by the other two branches(which in essence often constitutes a "law" de facto)is to be reviewed. Section I of Article III, consistent with both Articles I and II (which set the framework far more consistently with Article III than I believe you infer), clearly lays this out.

      Perhaps I am missing your point here, but it really is the purpose of Article III to serve as a check upon the overexertion (or unconstitional, or other) or power, etc, by the other two branches, ((one of these purposes is also to see that the "will of the people:" ( as expressed through a majority, for example) does not trample upon inherent minority rights, as laid out in the constitution, particularly in the bill of rights if not inherentely (see Amendments 9 and 10)).

      in retrospect, the "called for" language may be a bit sloppy. I guess I was trying to keep it tight, and summarized. and in essence, the meaning is accurate, which is more important.

      your premise that the people are the ultimate arbiters of constitutionaity is not exactly right.  refer to the point in parenthesis above.  it is one of the main principles upon which America was founded. (though contentious, flag burning is a good example.  many of the celebrated or reviled "privacy" cases, often invovling sexual matters, serve as others. the will of the majority DOES NOT decide what is constitutional. though, two thirds thru their elected representatives can always change what is constitutional, as again we saw with an attempt re flag burning).

      anyway, appreciated your comment.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (65)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (40)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Climate Change (33)
  • Environment (32)
  • Culture (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (29)
  • Science (27)
  • Republicans (26)
  • Media (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Education (23)
  • Law (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Congress (17)
  • Labor (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site