Much to think about, Mike. I’ve long puzzled over the motivations for these twisted and dishonorable decisions by the SCOTUS, and I can’t stop thinking that it was Bill Barr who gave away the game years ago in a speech at Notre Dame. It was when he said that the greatest threat was not just “the left,” but the “SECULAR left.”
It’s religion, the one thing that can make we humans justify virtually anything.
Originalism, the unitary executive theory… these are post-hoc rationalizations or intellectual justifications to gain power by those who crave it but who have not had the violent or legal means to gain it. We spend too much time and thought trying to fly-speck these “theories” for rational bases or historical underpinnings when it’s really as simple as that. And this post is already too long on the subject…
I should clarify. Tongue-in-cheek, I wrote “this post is already too long…,” which was intended to refer to my post/response, not to Mike’s thoughtful commentary on the unitary executive theory. There’s a reason I’m a paid subscriber to Notes From the Circus, and that’s to enjoy and learn from a very thoughtful and intelligent writer. My apologies, Mike, as no insult was intended…
It is infuriating that the current conservative Supreme Court justices who have proclaimed themselves “textualists” and “originalists” seem never to have considered the full text of the Declaration of Independence which surely reflects the thought and spirit of the Founders. After the inspiring opening about our inalienable rights, it is largely a point by point indictment of King George arguing he was illegitimate BECAUSE he was a unitary executive - to quote : “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary or the public good.” For all their vaunted Ivy League credentials, I think some conservative justices need remedial third grade reading comprehension!
I first encountered the idea that the Declaration and the Constitution represent 2 very different conceptions of the US government in Garry Wills' "Lincoln at Gettysburg", with the Declaration being more idealistic and uncompromisingly liberal, while the Constitution was filled retrograde compromises such as the ⅗ clause.
While I completely agree with you and marvel at the idea that todays GOP/FedSoc/SCOTUS-6 fetishizes a distorted concept of originalism for exactly the reasons you enumerate, it's unfortunately true that the ideals of the Declaration take second place in judicial interpretation than does the perhaps not so vernerable Constitution, badly in need of amendments which don't seem possible.
Your point is well taken. The Declaration is not the legally binding founding document. But the conservative conceit that they alone can discern the intent of the founders in interpreting the Constitution is, frankly, appalling. It should not take a Constitutional amendment to establish that the official acts of the President are still subject to the Rule of Law in the Republic. How can so-called originalist jurists claim they have special insight into the intent of the Founders without reference to the Declaration and the Federalist Papers. And any reading of those documents would suggest, it seems to me, that an unaccountable executive is the absolute last thing they had in mind.
The unitary executive theory is basically a way for the bullies of our time to get their way. It is utter garbage, because it requires ignoring the entire tenor and history of the Constitution in order to elevate a few vague points to the highest (f)law of the land. Dismantling the system of checks and balances does not improve law. Congress makes the law; the Executive merely enacts it, but is never a law onto itself.
"As I did to (Norman Spaulding) in persona, I will say now—I disagree!"
The point is not that Brock disagrees. Who cares if Brock disagrees? The point is that logical argument proves Spaulding's argument to be wrong, so state the argument without personalizing it. Reducing this to a he-said/she-said type of argument weakens the point. Anyone can call a disagreement an error of opinion, bypassing honest consideration of the underlying issue. It would be stronger to hold to the logical, analytical argument that proves a point to be wrong.
At this point, the President could go on a massive bender, brag on the record about everything he did on Epstein Island, and proceed to drive a M1 Abrams down Fifth Avenue with guns blazing and not be convicted in the Senate.
EDIT: If you want to know why I think parliamentary confidence systems are superior, that's one reason. (EDIT #2: This assumes that the system is functioning properly, with party leaders chosen and dismissed solely by members of Parliament, not ordinary party members, who must have absolutely no say in the matter.)
When the fascists are defeated, which unfortunately may be a while from now, one step for reform short of a Constitutional Convention would be to reestablish the Office of Inspectors General as an independent agency reporting to the Speaker of the House. Since oversight is an enumerated power of Congress, there’s good reason for Inspectors General not to report to the Executive. This could be done with other independent agencies as a way to move toward a more parliamentary democracy, but the case for IGs is particularly strong. And if the Supreme Court objects, Congress needs to consider whether Marbury v. Madison is really settled law.
The funniest part is how these guys swear they’re “restoring the Founders’ intent” while inventing a presidency the Founders would have called a monarchy with a branding problem. Hamilton wanted a vigorous executive, not a crime lord with lifetime immunity and merch. The Unitary Executive crowd keeps treating Article II like it’s a magic wand that dissolves accountability, and somehow we’re all supposed to pretend this is constitutional originalism instead of fan fiction for authoritarianism.
Our government is quite literally a transnational crime syndicate in reality. The idiots and grifters like Hegseth are there to be distractions and fall guys while the billionaires loot the nation for all it is worth.
There are so many “what ifs” that lead us up to the present moment.
What if Al Gore had actually won the POTUS over GWBush in 2000 (some argue that he did win it.) No Iraq War. No Patriot’s Act. No torture, renditions, mushroom clouds.
What if Merrick Garland had actually gotten onto the SCOTUS and had not been stopped by Mitch McConnell?
What if instead of MG as Biden’s AG at the DOJ, he had appointed Jack Smith as AG?
What if Ruth B Ginsberg had retired before Obama left office so he could have picked a Dem for the SCOTUS?
I agree with everything you wrote about the UET. Well done.
Liberals are reticent to openly say that there are those among us in human form who are without human souls. This, they'll say, is how fascists have always described "the other." Yet, those with human souls *are* other than fascists; the fascists have accurately witnessed the otherness; the fascists are those without souls. And they would destroy the souls of the rest of us.
The six traitors to humanity on the Supreme Court are not homo sapiens. They lack sound judgment, they literally are not sapient, just hominid. Soulless.
It’s ironic that the muzzling of the pentagon press corps has led to even harder scrutiny of these illegal boat strikes and by extension the whole idea of an Iraq style invasion of Venezuela . From the time Hegseth leaked the chat about the bombing of the Houthis he’s seems to have less respect from the professional military than his predecessor. Not that he’s going to abandon trying to have regime change in Caracas , Maduro is a flawed leader and I feel that his replacement might possibly be a positive thing.
Much to think about, Mike. I’ve long puzzled over the motivations for these twisted and dishonorable decisions by the SCOTUS, and I can’t stop thinking that it was Bill Barr who gave away the game years ago in a speech at Notre Dame. It was when he said that the greatest threat was not just “the left,” but the “SECULAR left.”
It’s religion, the one thing that can make we humans justify virtually anything.
Originalism, the unitary executive theory… these are post-hoc rationalizations or intellectual justifications to gain power by those who crave it but who have not had the violent or legal means to gain it. We spend too much time and thought trying to fly-speck these “theories” for rational bases or historical underpinnings when it’s really as simple as that. And this post is already too long on the subject…
I should clarify. Tongue-in-cheek, I wrote “this post is already too long…,” which was intended to refer to my post/response, not to Mike’s thoughtful commentary on the unitary executive theory. There’s a reason I’m a paid subscriber to Notes From the Circus, and that’s to enjoy and learn from a very thoughtful and intelligent writer. My apologies, Mike, as no insult was intended…
It is infuriating that the current conservative Supreme Court justices who have proclaimed themselves “textualists” and “originalists” seem never to have considered the full text of the Declaration of Independence which surely reflects the thought and spirit of the Founders. After the inspiring opening about our inalienable rights, it is largely a point by point indictment of King George arguing he was illegitimate BECAUSE he was a unitary executive - to quote : “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary or the public good.” For all their vaunted Ivy League credentials, I think some conservative justices need remedial third grade reading comprehension!
I first encountered the idea that the Declaration and the Constitution represent 2 very different conceptions of the US government in Garry Wills' "Lincoln at Gettysburg", with the Declaration being more idealistic and uncompromisingly liberal, while the Constitution was filled retrograde compromises such as the ⅗ clause.
While I completely agree with you and marvel at the idea that todays GOP/FedSoc/SCOTUS-6 fetishizes a distorted concept of originalism for exactly the reasons you enumerate, it's unfortunately true that the ideals of the Declaration take second place in judicial interpretation than does the perhaps not so vernerable Constitution, badly in need of amendments which don't seem possible.
Your point is well taken. The Declaration is not the legally binding founding document. But the conservative conceit that they alone can discern the intent of the founders in interpreting the Constitution is, frankly, appalling. It should not take a Constitutional amendment to establish that the official acts of the President are still subject to the Rule of Law in the Republic. How can so-called originalist jurists claim they have special insight into the intent of the Founders without reference to the Declaration and the Federalist Papers. And any reading of those documents would suggest, it seems to me, that an unaccountable executive is the absolute last thing they had in mind.
The unitary executive theory is basically a way for the bullies of our time to get their way. It is utter garbage, because it requires ignoring the entire tenor and history of the Constitution in order to elevate a few vague points to the highest (f)law of the land. Dismantling the system of checks and balances does not improve law. Congress makes the law; the Executive merely enacts it, but is never a law onto itself.
"As I did to (Norman Spaulding) in persona, I will say now—I disagree!"
The point is not that Brock disagrees. Who cares if Brock disagrees? The point is that logical argument proves Spaulding's argument to be wrong, so state the argument without personalizing it. Reducing this to a he-said/she-said type of argument weakens the point. Anyone can call a disagreement an error of opinion, bypassing honest consideration of the underlying issue. It would be stronger to hold to the logical, analytical argument that proves a point to be wrong.
At this point, the President could go on a massive bender, brag on the record about everything he did on Epstein Island, and proceed to drive a M1 Abrams down Fifth Avenue with guns blazing and not be convicted in the Senate.
EDIT: If you want to know why I think parliamentary confidence systems are superior, that's one reason. (EDIT #2: This assumes that the system is functioning properly, with party leaders chosen and dismissed solely by members of Parliament, not ordinary party members, who must have absolutely no say in the matter.)
When the fascists are defeated, which unfortunately may be a while from now, one step for reform short of a Constitutional Convention would be to reestablish the Office of Inspectors General as an independent agency reporting to the Speaker of the House. Since oversight is an enumerated power of Congress, there’s good reason for Inspectors General not to report to the Executive. This could be done with other independent agencies as a way to move toward a more parliamentary democracy, but the case for IGs is particularly strong. And if the Supreme Court objects, Congress needs to consider whether Marbury v. Madison is really settled law.
The funniest part is how these guys swear they’re “restoring the Founders’ intent” while inventing a presidency the Founders would have called a monarchy with a branding problem. Hamilton wanted a vigorous executive, not a crime lord with lifetime immunity and merch. The Unitary Executive crowd keeps treating Article II like it’s a magic wand that dissolves accountability, and somehow we’re all supposed to pretend this is constitutional originalism instead of fan fiction for authoritarianism.
Death by Lightning = A++!!
Our government is quite literally a transnational crime syndicate in reality. The idiots and grifters like Hegseth are there to be distractions and fall guys while the billionaires loot the nation for all it is worth.
There are so many “what ifs” that lead us up to the present moment.
What if Al Gore had actually won the POTUS over GWBush in 2000 (some argue that he did win it.) No Iraq War. No Patriot’s Act. No torture, renditions, mushroom clouds.
What if Merrick Garland had actually gotten onto the SCOTUS and had not been stopped by Mitch McConnell?
What if instead of MG as Biden’s AG at the DOJ, he had appointed Jack Smith as AG?
What if Ruth B Ginsberg had retired before Obama left office so he could have picked a Dem for the SCOTUS?
I agree with everything you wrote about the UET. Well done.
Liberals are reticent to openly say that there are those among us in human form who are without human souls. This, they'll say, is how fascists have always described "the other." Yet, those with human souls *are* other than fascists; the fascists have accurately witnessed the otherness; the fascists are those without souls. And they would destroy the souls of the rest of us.
The six traitors to humanity on the Supreme Court are not homo sapiens. They lack sound judgment, they literally are not sapient, just hominid. Soulless.
It’s ironic that the muzzling of the pentagon press corps has led to even harder scrutiny of these illegal boat strikes and by extension the whole idea of an Iraq style invasion of Venezuela . From the time Hegseth leaked the chat about the bombing of the Houthis he’s seems to have less respect from the professional military than his predecessor. Not that he’s going to abandon trying to have regime change in Caracas , Maduro is a flawed leader and I feel that his replacement might possibly be a positive thing.
"History is not the past. It is the story we are writing right now."
Here's to originalistic literalism: Trump doesn't implement the law, as the Founders intended. He's executed it.