Flailing times
I've just ventured to read the NYT latest editorial on the Bush "imperial presidency". Aside from the issues raised, what strikes me is the juvenile manner of their discussion. It's like what might be expected from a mass email between college freshmen. It discloses an incoherent grasp of constitutional principles and a lack of competence in laying bare the important issues attending this debate. Whom do the pubescent Times' editors believe their audience is? Midway through the piece I thought they would announce a keg party at KDR house. What a disgrace.
What seems lost on these prepubescent exhibitionalists is that the Constitution of the United States is fundamental law, and any law enacted through its procedures cannot add to or take from its principal. This concept of an ultimate sovereignty residing in the Constitution is the principle underlying the authority to determine inferior laws unconstitutional. It is the only rational that explains the authority to displace democratic majorities based on the natural equality of all men.
What the president is stating is that he derives his Art. II powers from the Constitution and no court can take that away from him. This is a very important question, and requires serious discussion by serious individuals. You'll not find any at the Times.
posted by spelunker @ 12:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home