Doug wrote: >What is it that I've filtered out, Dan? You wrote a huge post that would >take me an hour or more to research and reply to, but you haven't >mentioned _one thing_ that would lead anyone to believe that it is >uncharacteristic of the president to utter the words "its just a goddanmed >piece of paper".
First of all, you already stated what you are filtering straightforwardly: data that are inconsistent with what you know to be true. I was pointing out the difficulty with that. Second, I thought the pattern of my comments indicated at least some of the reasons why I dont agree with your conclusions. I considered the context of the actions of past presidents. The reason for this seemed so obvious, that I didnt feel the need to state it explicitly: Bushs response to 9-11 should be compared to the response of other presidents to other threats when one wishes to determine if they indicate that Bush has absolutely no respect for the Constitution. If you look at the responses of the various presidents Ive listed, I think that Bushs response to the internal threat would be seen as moderate in comparison to the other examples. 9-11 was the most significant internal attack since the Civil War. It was the first serious attack on one of the states (Hawaii was a territory at the time) since the War of 1812. It was also, AFAIK, the single most serious attack by irregular forces posing as civilians. Id place Bushs limitations on internal liberties as definitely less than the response of FDR to the Japanese attack. Depending on what we dont know yet, Id place it as either as less of an attack on civil liberties than the internal actions of the FBI and the CIA during the Cold War/Nam to being a comparable attack. It also would be a smaller attack on these liberties than the actions of Wilson and the Congress during WWI. The second way to look at it would be in context of the reaction of the other branches of government. In particular, the Supreme Court showed its willingness to act quickly to rebuke the executive branch when it is the understanding of the court that the President is way out of line in asserting his authority. The example of the 9-0 decision against Mr. Secret Tapes is the clearest one I can think of that illustrates this. The present Supreme Court is walking very gingerly around the actions of the Bush Administration. From what Ive read, this is due to the Supreme Court wishing to be very careful about weighing in on a conflict of Constitutional principals. The Congress has been very deferential to the Commander-in-Chief during the last few years. That deference is fading now, and we see Congress reasserting its traditional responsibility. I see this whole process as well within the historical norms of the United States. Now, this doesnt mean I agree with Bushs views or actions. Im not arguing that he is right. Im merely arguing that his actions are not only within historical norms, but that the justices of the Supreme Court are acting as if they do not consider them totally out of line. Indeed, even if/when they rule against Bush on some of his interpretations of executive authority under the Constitution, the whole process is inherently constitutional. Checks and balances doesnt mean that one branch acts with constraint but that the other branches of government will check their actions when they overstep their bounds. So, a President that oversteps his bounds is not an anomaly, which should be grounds for impeachment. Rather, it is normal for presidents to have a very expansive view of executive power that is reigned in by congress and the courts. Bush portrays himself as the Commander-In-Chief in wartime. Everything that Ive seen is consistent with that actually being his view. That is a constitutional responsibility of Bush. He repeatedly alludes to this while defending his actions. I realize that you dont think that his actions are consistent with the Constitution, but Ive seen no evidence that the Bush administration doesnt believe that its actions are consistent with the constitution. That is what I think is needed to establish a comment that the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper as representing Bushs views of the constitution. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
