Comments on: What is a Wartime President?

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:16:31 +0000

"The full support of the public"? Sounds like a galloping over-generalization to me...

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:42:54 +0000

Look Jack, get with it. The constitution is just a piece of paper. Ben Frankilin was just some old timer in funny glasses.

The new rulers of America are creating a new reality.

In this reality, you have less freedom then you used to. Deal with it dude.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:51:39 +0000

Because "the ship has sailed" does not necessarily make it the right way to run the government, especially in this situation.

Yes, the system of checks and balances of powers in the Constitution has been modified in practice, but does this mean we should accept the modifications, especially if they were put in place by statute and not by Constitutional amendments?

From what I have gathered, the Bush administration is essentially claiming that the single declaration passed by Congress for the necessary means to be used to protect against terrorist organizations like the one that perpetrated the September 11, 2001 attacks gives the office of President carte blanche to circumvent any and all protections of civil rights and liberties, whether listed as protected in the Bill of Rights or subsequently declared protected by Congress or judicial rulings.

This is over-reaching, and not consistent with the philisophical underpinnings of our Constitution.

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:39:31 +0000

The nice things about "sworn enemies" is that they declare themselves. None of this messing around with investigations. ;-)

By: Jack Ehrlich

Jack Ehrlich — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:28:06 +0000

When Benedict Arnold was reporting to the British, what precautions were in place to protect his rights. I know this was before the Constitution, but the spirit was there. Do sworn enemies of the state have any right to expect protection from that state, by that state?

By: PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts

PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:40:07 +0000

What is a Wartime President?

James Joyner picks up that question, as posed by Kevin Drum, and as I mentioned here earlier today.
Aside from the obvious, that a “wartime President” is a President during a war, the issue at hand, it seems to me, is how far we are willi...

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:19:38 +0000

Pfft. Siezed not sized.

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:19:14 +0000

Of course we can go back. The pendulum has swung many times before. Most notably from the FDR period to it's aftermath. IIRC a number of adjustments were made, not just the Presidential term limit, but also to the national security infrastructure. As far as technology and time ... I think people get caught up in increased information flow, but we haven't really seen death-by-information. They didn't "hack" their way in for 9/11. They did it the old fashioned way. They physically entered the country, were interviewed by a customs officer ... and later "sized a vessel." (As you might guess, I think electronic warfare countermeasures are a fruitful path for development.)

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:17:48 +0000

"It's true that Bush doesn't have the degree of autonomy as FDR and Lincoln. But that's mostly a function of public perception of the nature of a war--what he can get away with, to put it more crassly--than any limitation of constitutional power. Much of what FDR and others have done is extraconstitutional. But bold wartime leaders have been flouting the Constitution since at least Lincoln, with the full support of the public. " This reminds me of the famous phrase, "a republic, Ma'am, if you can keep it". Given the above paragraph, how can you talk about any limits on governmental powers, or branch separation of powers?

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:01:12 +0000

Odo: I don't disagree, although I recognize that changes in technology have made the need for fast action more necessary, which redounds in the executive's favor.

I merely recognize, though, that we are where we are and aren't going back. Like the modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause, which I like as a matter of public policy but disagree with on Constitutional grouds, this is so ingrained in our system at this point that we're just arguing around the edges.

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:58:24 +0000

So where are the "originalists"?

The Founder's writings on this make sense to me ... am I in such a minority today?

By: RA

RA — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:41:59 +0000

Only those with an ACLU world view believes the constitution is being flouted.

Censoring free speech in front of abortion clinics is flouting the constitution. Censoring conservative speech on college campuses is flouting the constitution. McCain Feingold is flouting the constitution.

The current read on seperation of church and state is flouting the constitution.

Roe v Wade is flouting the constitution. The ruling on emminent domain is flouting the constitution.

Yet the people who have consistantly flouted the constitution now make that claim against Bush. Massive, gross hypocracy. May they all contract a deadly desease for Christmas.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:27:30 +0000

Kevin and Anderson:

Agreed, especially on the point about conflation of the two wars.

The irony is that the public does not perceive the GWOT in the same way as we did WWII while, arguably, the former is a much greater domestic threat.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:23:57 +0000

Mal: Thanks for the links. Please put URLs into HTML code using the "link" button (I've edited your comment to do just that). I was writing a post on the Posner piece while you were tying your comment!

By: mal

mal — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:20:26 +0000

Two article worth looking at 1 2