Why history is important

[Rokenn]

Here is a little excerpt from Robert Byrd's speech on the Senate floor last week:

The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head. Representative Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, stated: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'

That last line sounds a lot like the administration's justification for wanting to attack Iraq.

[Grojlach]

I don't agree with the resolution or the context in which it was created either... But who's gonna stop them?

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Grojlach: I don't agree with the resolution or the context in which it was created either... But who's gonna stop them?

Hopefully the Senate. If enough of the dems grow a backbone.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Grojlach: I don't agree with the resolution or the context in which it was created either... But who's gonna stop them?

Hopefully the Senate. If enough of the dems grow a backbone.[/QUOTE]Fat chance of that.

Who polices the police? What if the police have unconditional power and can use it on an unconditional basis?

When the biggest, badest kid in the classroom just might be able to beat all the others combined, you either have one very nice conscientious kid or you have a living hell for all but that one.

Like all things political, this resolution goes too far. Bush has great ideas for restructuring some agencies that need to be integrated. Chief among these is the FBI/CIA/NSA connection. I watched a long news episode on television the other night, picking apart the FBI's status as a rogue agency under the Clinton Admin - and how info it might have found (if it had followed its directives from the administration, it's boss) could have helped alert us to ongoing Bin Laden plans. The FBI simply wouldn't help President Clinton out (due to conflicts between the executive and the FBI Director) when President Clinton was so hot under the collar to get Bin Laden. These problems in the defense agency structure need fixin'

But, the structural plans the admin has put forward are undercut by the yearning for a general carte blanche on behalf of the executive branch. As a legal historian, I must say that the executive branch has grown geometrically in power in the last century - Agencies are taught as the "fourth branch" of government in law school - they were not even contemplated by the Constitution. And they are all answerable to the Executive - one man (basically).

Problems in the balance-of-power are one of the few things that can crumble the American Constitution at its base. I'm opposed to schlepping more power into the executive branch. We freak out when the Supreme Court gets to decide an election issue twice in one year - but the president being able to bend Congress to his will has become commonplace. What to do? [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]