Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial … the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. – Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928
Ted Kennedy's questions at the Alito hearing were revealing at the least. "Are you going to back the little guy?" he asked. Like John Roberts, Alito did not see a difference between the little guy or the big guy. We are all equal under the law. The law does not require that we be equal in economics, status, education, or anything else. The government does not exist as an engine for social tinkering. It's only job is to provide for the common defense, and in its most limited sense promote common good.
I don't know Sam Alito, but his rulings and his press indicate a passing deference to the constitution which is all any of us can ask. So, how can 8 committee members, and presumably 45 Democrats vote against him? The reason must be that the Constitution and the rule of law means little to these people.
Brandeis gives the benefit of the doubt to those who would encroach our rights. I no longer hold that illusion for Kennedy and his cronies who are arguably men of zeal, but not necessarily well meaning.
As for Sam, count me as a member of his club (for now).
6 comments:
Despite the war powers granted Congress under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, the Bush Administration has repeatedly asserted the right to initiate further attacks beyond Iraq without Congressional approval. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently testified that the President could attack Syria or Iran without any authorization from Congress. According to James Madison, "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
Judge Alito, do you agree with Madison's assessment? Do you believe that executive powers allow the launching of another war without authorization from either the United Nations or Congress? Which branch of government do you believe has the right to send the country to war?
Yes, according to the constitution, only congress has the authority to declare war. It's a good question to have asked and answered.
What will be interesting to watch is if congress again assents to action (Iran, Syria, North Korea), will the usual suspects later pretend they did not?
Have you heard that ol'Teddy Kennedy is writing a childrens book? I guess we can refer to him as "Dr. Souse" from now on. Does anyone else find it just terribly ironic that Ted "the swimmer" Kennedy named his dog Splash?
On the issue of war, the concept of a "declared war" seems to be such a mid-20th century and earlier issue. The current and future geopolitical environment makes it unlikely that we will ever formally declare war again. We haven't been in a declared war since WWII, but have fought at least 7 armed conflicts, of varying sized, since then all without a formal declaration of war. In many instances, such as the current "war on terror," it's difficult to conceive of how we could declare war against an enemy that has neither country or government.
Perhaps the concept is outdated, if so, how do we maintain the constitutional sepearation of powers that says Congress declares war, not the president, to keep presidents from embroiling us in conficts that are unwise, without hamstringing presidential authority to act to defend the country against attack. Welcome to the new millenia, where there are no easy answers.
Another thought on the "congress declares war" issue. Think back to the Cold War and Mutual Assured Destruction. The stated policy of the US was to massively counterattack with everything we had if we suffered a nuclear attack from the Soviets. How does that square with congress must declar war? If launching 2000+ warheads at the Soviet Union isn't a declaration of war, nothing is. THe nature of the treat would not allow time for congress to act, we had at most half a hour from first launch detection.
Interesting things to ponder...
In the event of a Soviet strike, the issue of who does the declaring has already been answered. Similarly, the attack on 9/11 triggered a necessary aggressive response.
Then to go to Iraq, it was necessary to get a resolution of support from Congress; which Bush was able to get. Now we are standing at the door to Iran, and I'm thinking it's going to take another formal declaration of war from our cowards, er um congressmen to satisfy the constitution (i.e., make it legal). I'm guessing it won't happen. We're either going to wait until they launch one before cleaning house, or we will "be proactive" and launch an attack illegally. I don't think we have the patience to wait it out. If the Dems don't like how it went down in Iraq, they're absolutely going to hate what happens next.
Footnote on Sam:
I see where his first vote came out and he was immediately characterized as breaking with conservatives.
I wonder if coming down on the side of life is really "breaking with conservatives".
I realize there are legal questions to be answered here, and that certainly should drive the dialog rather than having ideology drive it, but think about it. Maybe Scalia and Thomas are the breakers here.
Post a Comment