, I have to pay more attention to the sig lines next time.....Sorry for ruining your day General...Sir,...er....you worship? your grace?
Jesus General posted a piece today which closely mirrors my thoughts about the Republican Imperial Presidency and the reasons for it ....I've thought it for a long time and it's gratifying that somebody else is thinking along the same lines.
Here's today's post
In Gauntanamo, The War on Human Rights, by David Rose, Rose writes:
Past American presidents have tried to assume...exceptional powers in wartime, and all have eventually been overruled by the Supreme Court... In a 1967 case about rights to protest during the Vietnam War, Chief Justice Warren observed, “The concept of ‘national defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise...of power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideals which set this nation apart.”
In 1952, American Justice Jackson ruled similarily, and because he had been a judge at the Nurenburg Tribunals, was particularly sensitive to assumption of "additional powers" by the executive branch. He wrote:
Such an usurpation must never be permitted in America, Justice Jackson said, even in time of war. “The claim of inherent and unrestricted presidential powers has long been a persuasive dialectical weapon in political controversy.” But “the essence of our free Government is ‘leave to live by no man’s leave, under the law’ — to be governed by those impersonal forces which we call law. Our Government is fashioned to fulfill this concept so far as humanly possible. With all its defects, delays, and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations
Jesus General then reaches the same point I did in .this post...and even more so here
"Could this be because they recognize that too few people would agree with them if their plans were all laid bare? Are they consciously attempting to move America away from the principle of the rule of law in planned, gradual steps? America broke away from Britain in part because it no longer felt confident in the rule of a king and Americans refused to install a new king in George’s place; today, though, there is a indeed a new George in charge and we should not accept his arbitrary exercise of immoral, unlawful, and inappropriate power."
Earlier in his post, the General related that in times of crisis, natural or man-made, American Citizens tend to look for a strong leader to bring them safely through the crisis. Unfortuantely, we have an administration which is all too willing to take the people up on the offer and permanently assume more powers to themselves. This isn't exactly what we had in mind ...in fact...
I think America really wants a SUPERMAN model of leader. Here's how we, the people really envision from our leaders.
We envision that the leader is always there but completely out of sight. The leader is perfectly willing to sit quietly and let us run our own lives without any interferrence whatsoever. (Analogy: Superman dwelling in his "ice castle" or being Clark Kent, not interferring in any way)
But if a crisis strikes, the leader springs into action. Habeus Corpus be damned! Due Process Be Damned! The evil-ones must be vanquished!
Once the evil-one is vanquished, we give accolades to the leader, praise him and reward him with continuing power, which he modestly declines and humbly retreats to the ice castle until the next crisis.
But the trouble with this administration is that they don't want to retreat to the ice castle....and worse yet...well
they haven't vanquished the "evil-ones"
they can't see that we will EVER vanquish the "evil-ones"
and
we're slowing learning that they LIED to us about exactly who the "evil-ones" really were....
One can't help but think it's deliberate.... what the hell happened to Superman?
Thanks for the thoughts Jesus (General)
note: edited for clarity at 2:25PM
Here's today's post
In Gauntanamo, The War on Human Rights, by David Rose, Rose writes:
Past American presidents have tried to assume...exceptional powers in wartime, and all have eventually been overruled by the Supreme Court... In a 1967 case about rights to protest during the Vietnam War, Chief Justice Warren observed, “The concept of ‘national defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise...of power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideals which set this nation apart.”
In 1952, American Justice Jackson ruled similarily, and because he had been a judge at the Nurenburg Tribunals, was particularly sensitive to assumption of "additional powers" by the executive branch. He wrote:
Such an usurpation must never be permitted in America, Justice Jackson said, even in time of war. “The claim of inherent and unrestricted presidential powers has long been a persuasive dialectical weapon in political controversy.” But “the essence of our free Government is ‘leave to live by no man’s leave, under the law’ — to be governed by those impersonal forces which we call law. Our Government is fashioned to fulfill this concept so far as humanly possible. With all its defects, delays, and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations
Jesus General then reaches the same point I did in .this post...and even more so here
"Could this be because they recognize that too few people would agree with them if their plans were all laid bare? Are they consciously attempting to move America away from the principle of the rule of law in planned, gradual steps? America broke away from Britain in part because it no longer felt confident in the rule of a king and Americans refused to install a new king in George’s place; today, though, there is a indeed a new George in charge and we should not accept his arbitrary exercise of immoral, unlawful, and inappropriate power."
Earlier in his post, the General related that in times of crisis, natural or man-made, American Citizens tend to look for a strong leader to bring them safely through the crisis. Unfortuantely, we have an administration which is all too willing to take the people up on the offer and permanently assume more powers to themselves. This isn't exactly what we had in mind ...in fact...
I think America really wants a SUPERMAN model of leader. Here's how we, the people really envision from our leaders.
We envision that the leader is always there but completely out of sight. The leader is perfectly willing to sit quietly and let us run our own lives without any interferrence whatsoever. (Analogy: Superman dwelling in his "ice castle" or being Clark Kent, not interferring in any way)
But if a crisis strikes, the leader springs into action. Habeus Corpus be damned! Due Process Be Damned! The evil-ones must be vanquished!
Once the evil-one is vanquished, we give accolades to the leader, praise him and reward him with continuing power, which he modestly declines and humbly retreats to the ice castle until the next crisis.
But the trouble with this administration is that they don't want to retreat to the ice castle....and worse yet...well
they haven't vanquished the "evil-ones"
they can't see that we will EVER vanquish the "evil-ones"
and
we're slowing learning that they LIED to us about exactly who the "evil-ones" really were....
One can't help but think it's deliberate.... what the hell happened to Superman?
Thanks for the thoughts Jesus (General)
note: edited for clarity at 2:25PM
