It's an evil precedent, but it's also a sham. He (it sounds so ridiculous in some ways to say he as if he were directing this; the will might be there but the technical chops aren't) would never try this against a congress where even one branch wasn't in cahoots with teh executive. The only solution, obvious and boring, is to change that. At least we're disabused of the notion that there is any other way to social change, or at least political results, in this country.
Thanks for blogging it -- I am living under a rock these days and had not seen this yet.
LB - this double posted. I deleted the dupe.
Also: Here is a better link to the article.
LB, did you read Roth's Plot Against America? It has its moments, and Roth's especially good at evoking that Theresa Nielsen Hayden I hate that I'm nutbar or whatever feeling. The "heebie jeebies."
I haven't read it, but I should. And yes, TNH's line "I deeply resent the way this administration makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist," is exactly what I mean by heebie-jeebies.
To 1: What's particularly weird here, though, is that Congress isn't defending its own power at all. In the past, you could have counted on Congress to resist a power-grab like this even from a president of its own party. Not any longer. The political norm has shifted way, way over toward an incredibly powerful executive.
(And Becks, thanks for cleaning up. I posted and ran off to a meeting without looking at what I'd done.)
Did you see that Cato (!!!) released a report about this? It said, amongst other things, "President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers. "
Check it out:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330
Why would it be surprising that Cato would find the trend alarming? I'd give an AEI report three exclamation marks, but the libertarian crowd has been vocal about their displeasure with the President.
I don't know Cato as well as I should, but I do tend to assume that there are a lot more schmibertarians than libertarians around these days -- it's surprising and refreshing to see a 'libertarian' organization stand up for a libertarian ideal I agree with.
Does anyone support this move, appart from Bush's own staff? I'd like to see some defenses of this power grab.
The defenses I've seen have leaned toward: "It's empty verbiage, and other presidents have done it too, and there's no reason to think he's actually doing anything to break the law just because he says he's going to, you hysteric." Not so much a defense of the power grab, but a claim that nothing of interest is happening.
Isn't this sort of thing constitutional crisis territory?
Or rather, wouldn't it be if we actually had a congress?
It should be a constitutional crisis, but you need opposition enough to move a chamber for that.
Yes and yes.
Maybe if we take the fall elections. You know what I'd like? For every one of these signing statements, a press conference from the Democrats in Congress putting forth in layman's terms the powers Bush is claiming, and why the Constitution disagrees. Of course, for all I know, those conferences have been happening; it's not as if the press would have covered them.
Even if the Democrats take back one chamber and stand up to the "president," I frankly don't hold out a lot of hope. At the end of the day, Bush controls all the guns.
(Isn't it interesting that the dominant ethos is no longer to scapegoat the "spineless Democrats" now that we're starting to see just how badly we need them? I don't know that anything factual has changed.)
15 would be awesome. Are Democrats still too afraid of being called "weak on terror" to do such a thing?
I'm reading The Plot Against America right now and it's really creepy/depressing. I'm not sure yet whether I like it...
Ah! And here I am scapegoating the spineless Democrats. Sorry, Adam!
My wife and I loved The Plot Against America; it's packed with great stuff. She picked out the frightening visit to Washington, I loved the self-sufficient farming Idyll in Kentucky (which comes in again at the end). Take that, Almanzo! and Wendell Berry too!
Can I just say that I'm going to be totally fucking pissed off if this turns out to be the last days of the American Republic?
I'm not saying that I think the situation is that dire (if only because I don't know what a signing statement entails), but if I have to go and start a fucking revolution and convince the army they're on my side I'm going to be seriously pissed if historians are going 'they should have seen it in 2005, but...'
That is all.
Well, have we gotten near the point where soldiers wouldn't obey orders to fire on fellow citizens? Because that's what it takes.
You do also have to get the fellow citizens into the streets.
There was this, though that was two different groups of people with guns, neither of them soldiers.
21: Maybe I'm naive, but I would expect that American soldiers would not fire on Americans in American streets, yes.
My earlier probably sounded hyperbolic; I was making a sort of general statement about when riots become effective revolutions.
What about rubber bullets, tear gas, and truncheons?
And see them as fellow citizens, not as something else.
Against a peaceful march directed against the government, neither looting nor threatening the soldiers with thrown rocks, etc., I would agree. If those aggravating elements, particularly the rocks, were present, as they usually have been when American soldiers have confronted Americans in the street, then I'm not so sure.
I mean in a situation where there was clearly a revolution going on. In an isolated demonstration, I can see the rubber bullet / teargas thing happening, yes.
I think it makes a difference what race most of the rebels are.
28: I do, and I assume that most of the folks in the military do, too, and aren't eager to repeat it.
Is the next meet-up the one where we all take up arms in the streets of some major metropolis? 'Cause I'm gonna need some arms...
I knew there was a reason Becks scheduled the SF meetup for May Day...
CALAGUN!
Sorry.
B, I know most military types do, and it was a huge mess, but it also happened when panicked kids were told to guard a bunch of angry kids, who had burned the ROTC building the night before. I don't think anyone will want to fire on Americans, but I do think panicking is possible, and I do think civilians torching buildings is possible.
Is it okay to buy food from immigrant-owned businesses on May Day? I'm confused about the boycott.
No, no, immigrants are boycotting the rest of the country, not vice versa.
34: I agree with you, but I really want to believe that the officers wouldn't order people to shoot on civilians. I want to believe the best about military guys most of the time, because most of the ones I've known have been genuinely devoted to the principles they're supposed to uphold.
Buy the food and while you're doing it tell them that you support the boycott or whatever and are buying from them for that reason.
That's good, cause the falafel I had at lunch was nummy. Hurrah for Lebanese immigrants! Hurrah for the Hispanic immigrants who own the minimart and ask where I was when I don't come in for a few weeks!
I thought we weren't supposed to buy anything immigrant-produced to prove something about how immigrants are important. But then I smelled the falafel.
37: No, no! It's that immigrants are boycotting to show the economic impact of their presence. I've kind of supported them by indulging my natural sloth and not buying anything myself today, but boycotting the *immigrants* is definitely the wrong way to go. Enjoy your falafel with a clear conscience.
What about rubber bullets, tear gas, and truncheons?
I'm not sure about any of that, but we have good reason to believe that they're willing to put you in a naval brig off the coast and only allow you limited access to any human being, including counsel, for the duration of forever war.
"but I really want to believe"
If you want to believe, you can. Honest.
"genuinely devoted to the principles they're supposed to uphold."
First military principle:win at all costs.
Second military principle: everyone has to die, eventually.
well, once we have the robot army going, it will all depend on the guys back at headquarters, who will probably be under the impression that they are doing a training simulation. hacking skilz will be valuable.