Thursday, June 08, 2006
Secret DOJ Memo Explains Why the Flag Burning Amendment is Unnecessary
In anticipation of a possible unsuccessful vote on the proposed flag-burning Amendment, the Justice Department has declassified a secret Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo written shortly after the September 11th attacks:
This is the CIA. We know you have been obtaining these OLC memos from Martin Lederman, who stole them during his brief stint at Justice before he turned all crazy and lefty. These memos represent breaches of national security. Both of you have already been arrested. You just don't know it yet.
It might be LEGALLY unnecessary, but POLITICALLY it's about the last chance the Repugs have before the November election.
This OLC memo is compelling evidence of the Justice Department's adeptness if not adroitness at constructing non-fallacious slippery slope arguments. As we know, such arguments have different degrees of slipperiness. In this case we have occasion to rely on the 'vertical line' sort of slippery slope argument, referred to in covert intelligence circles as the '90 degree greased flagpole' argument. Those confused as to its impeccable logical and legal merits should consult the President's recent 'signing statements' wherein it is pellucidly clear as to the Executive branch's unimpeachable authority above and beyond Congress and outside the orbit of judicial review to resort to a hermeneutics of Sartrian bad faith in the interpretation of any and all legal arguments. Hail to the Chief.
Though your parody is mock serious, I detect a note of wistfulness, and appropriately so.Post a Comment
Nevertheless, to contribute commensurately, allow me to suggest the following broad analysis of some bill of rights matters currently at issue between Article I powers and Article II powers, namely that of DOJ TAKING THE 5TH AMENDMENT in a Senate Judiciary Hearing yesterday, or at least that is how a demagogic Senator from VT characterized it after listening to the Gonzalesian replies of DOJ attorney Friedrich in the reporter shield law inquiry, or, more precisely put, in re: subpoena of Jack Anderson reporter files dating from Nixon thru c.1998, which papers now are in the safe keeping of an author in journalism and political science at GWU.
As you probably have read, the government witnesses and experts including professors as well, declared essentially the 1st and 4th amendments are fairly well exhausted. I suspect that is the reason DOJ is beginning to accentuate the 5th amendment as one of the standing pillars of strength in the bill of rights.
One comment, and I must go, now; about the topic of your post, the flag; now, no one is burning these symbols; so, it is a safe rhetorical argument to make in its full unfurled glory, so to speak. Effigies are seen rarely in the US in demonstrations, though I believe there was an immolation of such an icon during the immigration parades last month; it is unlikely that is the group the proposed legislation is targeting, however. Rather, the law likely is a simple comfort zone regulation, one to assure many of the administrations closest supporters that the symbol of the country's political existence shall be revered and sanctions put in place to assure that special consideration is honored, nobly.