Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
505alien
Is this you? Claim Profile »
9 months ago
in More Antonin Scalias anyone? on The New Mexico Independent
Fair enough, it is my opinion regarding the amount of executive influence on the constitution during the current administration, but when in history has the executive ignored Supreme Court rulings, ignored judicial and congressional subpoena, and run a domestic surveillance from the Vice-President's Office? The administration also attempted to overturn 200 years of precedent by claiming the Vice-President's Office is not part of the executive OR the legislative branch. Did I forget about that fourth branch? Or is the VP's Office outside of the government? Wait, maybe it is just that it is above government. What about the use of private email accounts to prevent "paper trails" and block government oversight?
Scalia seems to have strayed from that "originalist theory" in Boumediene v. Bush when he voted to deny the writ of habeas corpus. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” I think you would agree.
And back to Price's article, what is wrong with a recount in democracy? Is it not important to get the most important process in our government right?
Scalia seems to have strayed from that "originalist theory" in Boumediene v. Bush when he voted to deny the writ of habeas corpus. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” I think you would agree.
And back to Price's article, what is wrong with a recount in democracy? Is it not important to get the most important process in our government right?
9 months ago
in More Antonin Scalias anyone? on The New Mexico Independent
thomasjames cites Article II introductory clause of "executive power" (not powers) as constitutional grounds for the president and his administration to withholding information. thomasjames continues about the clause writing, "That means that the president was granted under the Constitution those authorities that were traditionally wielded by executives." This is simply wrong. The US Constitution was extremely innovative for 1786, and its provisions were in fact to limit "those authorities that were traditionally wielded by executives."
The term executive privilege is no where to be found in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has upheld the power stating the executive branch can resist encroachment from the judicial and legislative branches. The Court derived executive privilege from the the separation of powers doctrine (which again is not just Article II) thomasjames writes that the executive privilege "was then and is now" similar, but this is again wrong. Thomas Jefferson cited executive privilege when the court demanded his correspondence with Aaron Burr who was on trial for Treason. Chief Justice John Marshall issued an order demanding the letter stating the president was not exempt from turning over evidence and a criminal trial. When Jefferson said disclosing the letter was a matter of endanger public safety and national security, Chief Justice Marshall responded saying that was for the courts to decide. Jefferson turned over the correspondence to the courts.
While I understand the intricacies of today's case differ from that of yesteryear, the precedent set by the framer has no doubt been violated in recent times. While I disagree with thomasjames historical perspective, I believe we agree that the spirit of executive privilege has been violated by the current administration.
Many administrations have claimed executive privilege to withhold information from the courts, Congress, and the public. Bush and Chaney, however, have extended executive privilege far beyond the founders intent into a realm that is unconstitutional. The Bush administration has straight-up ignored Supreme Court decisions. (Look into the Boumediene v. Bush and Massachusetts v. EPA if you interested) The Bush administration has violated the precedent of judicial supremacy laid in the 1806 case of Marbury v. Madison which held that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
thomasjames quotes Scalia calling the concept of the Constitution as a living document as "idiotic." During the last seven and half years, the Constitution under gone more changed in the post-Civil War period than any other time. This change has obviously not come from an amendment, and the vast majority has not come from bench. It has come from the executive branch which feels like it is above precedent and current Supreme Court decisions. If conservatives consider the concept of a "living document" as "idiotic," why are the "conservatives" of the Bush administration altering the Constitution through non-traditional, illegal processes?
I think Thomas Paine may have the most concise opinion of executive privilege when he wrote in Common Sense: "In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
proudrepublican's comment regarding the timeliness of Price's piece shows a lack of understanding for the long-term trajectory of the country. The Constitution is the blueprint for US government, but it is also the source of American identity. With the Supreme Court being the guardians of the Constitution, the question of will be the next Supreme Court Justice is timeless (or at least as long the Constitution is functioning). Using one of the few explicit powers granted in Article II, the next president will most likely appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices who will decide crucial cases determining the direction our country goes.
proudrepublican's brainstorm of more pertinent issues Price should consider contains errors. The money the government is spending to bailout private firms is not "OUR tax dollars." The Bush administration spent all of our tax dollars long ago. The money the government is spending is coming from HUGE loans from Japan and China that we will pay off far into the future. If you are so concerned with the government bailouts of AIG and Lehman Brothers, I would highly recommend that you write Senator John McCain and ask him about them. Why? McCain was the Chairperson of the Senate Commerce Committee, and he oversaw the deregulation of Federal Laws regarding these corporations. What happened one the companies we deregulated? The companies drove themselves into the ground, and we are all left to pay for it.
proundrepublican's final comment that says the Obama crowd "could care less about the country" is outrageous. Price's article clearly demonstrates concern for the country, and while you may disagree with his opinion, do not believe for one moment that you love this country any more than other Americans. We may have different opinions of what we think our government should do, how it should operate, and where the country should go, but these difference do not divide us into categories of those who love the country and those who "could care less" about it. When partisan labels are tossed around, the true issues are not discussed, and the stakes are forgotten in talking points. The country suffers the most.
The term executive privilege is no where to be found in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has upheld the power stating the executive branch can resist encroachment from the judicial and legislative branches. The Court derived executive privilege from the the separation of powers doctrine (which again is not just Article II) thomasjames writes that the executive privilege "was then and is now" similar, but this is again wrong. Thomas Jefferson cited executive privilege when the court demanded his correspondence with Aaron Burr who was on trial for Treason. Chief Justice John Marshall issued an order demanding the letter stating the president was not exempt from turning over evidence and a criminal trial. When Jefferson said disclosing the letter was a matter of endanger public safety and national security, Chief Justice Marshall responded saying that was for the courts to decide. Jefferson turned over the correspondence to the courts.
While I understand the intricacies of today's case differ from that of yesteryear, the precedent set by the framer has no doubt been violated in recent times. While I disagree with thomasjames historical perspective, I believe we agree that the spirit of executive privilege has been violated by the current administration.
Many administrations have claimed executive privilege to withhold information from the courts, Congress, and the public. Bush and Chaney, however, have extended executive privilege far beyond the founders intent into a realm that is unconstitutional. The Bush administration has straight-up ignored Supreme Court decisions. (Look into the Boumediene v. Bush and Massachusetts v. EPA if you interested) The Bush administration has violated the precedent of judicial supremacy laid in the 1806 case of Marbury v. Madison which held that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
thomasjames quotes Scalia calling the concept of the Constitution as a living document as "idiotic." During the last seven and half years, the Constitution under gone more changed in the post-Civil War period than any other time. This change has obviously not come from an amendment, and the vast majority has not come from bench. It has come from the executive branch which feels like it is above precedent and current Supreme Court decisions. If conservatives consider the concept of a "living document" as "idiotic," why are the "conservatives" of the Bush administration altering the Constitution through non-traditional, illegal processes?
I think Thomas Paine may have the most concise opinion of executive privilege when he wrote in Common Sense: "In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
proudrepublican's comment regarding the timeliness of Price's piece shows a lack of understanding for the long-term trajectory of the country. The Constitution is the blueprint for US government, but it is also the source of American identity. With the Supreme Court being the guardians of the Constitution, the question of will be the next Supreme Court Justice is timeless (or at least as long the Constitution is functioning). Using one of the few explicit powers granted in Article II, the next president will most likely appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices who will decide crucial cases determining the direction our country goes.
proudrepublican's brainstorm of more pertinent issues Price should consider contains errors. The money the government is spending to bailout private firms is not "OUR tax dollars." The Bush administration spent all of our tax dollars long ago. The money the government is spending is coming from HUGE loans from Japan and China that we will pay off far into the future. If you are so concerned with the government bailouts of AIG and Lehman Brothers, I would highly recommend that you write Senator John McCain and ask him about them. Why? McCain was the Chairperson of the Senate Commerce Committee, and he oversaw the deregulation of Federal Laws regarding these corporations. What happened one the companies we deregulated? The companies drove themselves into the ground, and we are all left to pay for it.
proundrepublican's final comment that says the Obama crowd "could care less about the country" is outrageous. Price's article clearly demonstrates concern for the country, and while you may disagree with his opinion, do not believe for one moment that you love this country any more than other Americans. We may have different opinions of what we think our government should do, how it should operate, and where the country should go, but these difference do not divide us into categories of those who love the country and those who "could care less" about it. When partisan labels are tossed around, the true issues are not discussed, and the stakes are forgotten in talking points. The country suffers the most.
