Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahman sabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts The President as Commander in Chief: More reflections on our defective Constitution
|
Friday, February 16, 2007
The President as Commander in Chief: More reflections on our defective Constitution
Sandy Levinson
We have all learned, over the past several years, that one of the most important hats worn by the President of the So the question is this: If we rely on the Commander-in-Chief to have the requisite judgment to know when to replace generals, admirals, etc., because they are not adequately serving all-important national interests, then why can’t We the People fire a Commander-in-Chief (save on quadrennial election days) who has demonstrated similar deficiencies in judgment, strategic vision, etc. To allow Congress, by super-majority vote, to declare no confidence in the Commander-in-Chief is not in the least to question the principle of civilian control. Rather, it states that this particular civilian is in fact—or, at least, in the judgment of many, many informed political leaders—not up to the task. No one criticizes Posted 11:50 AM by Sandy Levinson [link]
Comments:
At the risk of being unoriginal, if Congress could fire an incompetent C in C, it would probably have fired Truman when he fired McArthur and forced the US to invade China. Presidents and generals, there is no doubt, make serious blunders. So can Congress or the general public.
I am not obsessed with George Bush's "wickedness," but, rather, with his awesome ignorance and incompetence. Frankly, I am stunned by the general degree of apathy about his unfitness. My explanation, of course, is that our defective Constitution generates a psychology whereby, given its imperviousness to serious modification, we delude ourselves into believing its consequences are far better than they in fact are. but if I haven't persuaded you by now, I don't expect this to change anything. (And, yes, my posting was somewhat rambling.)
And yes, Truman's firing of MacArthur may serve as an illuminating example of inspired civilian control over a megalomaniacal general. But stopped clocks are right twice a day, and any serious effort in public policy has to be based on summing up the risks of both Type 1 and Type 2 errors. If, as is argued to be the case, we are now in an era of permanent war (against terror), then the risks of a defective Commander-in-Chief are considerably highter than they were in eras where war was less pervasive. I agree, incidentally, that we need to think long and hard about how best to allocate the civilian "commander-in-chief" power. My own preference, obviously, is get rid of our commitment to a fixed-term presidency (except for criminals of a certain grandeur). My "proopsal," such as it is, is meant only as an initial thought experiment with regard to what may be the single most important (and ominous) presidential power. We might follow the Swiss route of having a plural president (they have seven of them!), with the one filling the Commander-in-Chief portfolio being subject to a vote of dismissal by a vote of four of the six other "presidents." I am far from believing that I have knockdown solutions. My confidence is only that I'm asking some necessary questions. If you're one of the roughly 1/4 of the American public who's satisfied with our current state of affairs, then everything I write has to seem simply a rant. Fair enough. I'm writing to the other 75%
Enlightened Layperson: if Congress could fire an incompetent C in C, it would probably have fired Truman when he fired McArthur....
There is probably a long list of examples that could be presented here. If a GOP had the chance, they would have removed Clinton for his actions in Somalia, possibly Bosnia, or as a supreme irony, his bombings of Al Quaeda camps in Afghanistan.
I'm not sure what the complaint is about Bush. Mind you, I'm likely to agree with just about any complaint, but I'm just not sure exactly what it is.
I think we have to separate two functions, the policy function of the President and the CinC function. Bush's errors seem to me to be a consequence of bad policy rather than bad generalship. Now, you may argue that he appointed bad generals or fired good ones. I don't think that explains the problems in Iraq. Best I can tell, the military has done the best it can do within the policy restrictions Bush has given them. It was a policy decision, for example, to invade with too few troops. It is a policy decision to insert our troops into the middle of a civil war. It is a policy decision to keep them there to fulfill a political goal ("free and democratic Iraq") rather than a military one. Even if we removed the President as CinC, I assume he would still have a substantial say in policy (the Republican Congress enabled Bush, so shares some responsibility, as do some cowardly or mistaken Democrats). Thus, I can't see Iraq as a situation in which the CinC title plays much of a role. Moreover, I'm not sure how we could simultaneously replace the President as CinC and maintain civilian control over the military. It might help to clarify the limitations of the CinC position (which I believe are substantial), but I can't see the benefit of inserting someone else in that role. Just a note about Madison and his generals. It is true that the original generals in the War of 1812 were incompetent. The same could be said for many of Lincoln's original generals. By the end of the war, both succeeded in putting competent leaders in command (in Madison's case, generals like Scott, Brown and Jackson).
I've followed some of the excellent commentaries here on the flaws in the U.S. Constitution. Certainly many of the points made are insightful and accurate. The constitution is not a perfect document. It did not anticipate many of the problems that we face today in America. It ignored others while making correcting them difficult. But I feel that these arguments ignore the perhaps unique nature of the times we live in.
Sure it seems absurd to suggest we live in unique times but I still feel that way. They are certainly unique to my lifetime. Any time I look at the problems I see America facing I can't help but think the basis is an uninformed public. What I think of as the public dialog is not even vaguely related to the public interest. And the extension of that problem is that the idea of a representative democracy doesn't exist in America. The people's representatives don't represent the people, not because the people are lacking in perception skills but because they are misinformed and deceived regularly and systematically. The public dialog has become a propaganda machine and the alternatives for accurate sources are only just beginning to appear. This blog is one of those alternatives. So all this denigrating of the constitution seems almost meaningless when in the last few decades we've seen the people's representatives act against the best interests of the people. What constitution could anticipate and counter that? A representative democracy was supposedly one avenue to counter an incompletely informed public. But what happens when the representatives aren't "representative?" Even a pure democracy is based on a truthfully informed electorate and America does not have that today and hasn't had it for decades. In the last few years we've had a strong Republican majority in all branches of the legislature. That in itself is not unique, having a single party controlling multiple branches of the political structure. But the unique aspect is the block voting nature in a completely top down manner. Rather than voting in the interests of a representative's constituents, we've seen a rigid pattern of block voting in the interests of a Republican "majority of the majority." The courts are strongly political and by political I don't mean ideological. Political. The 2000 presidential decision was not an ideological decision. It was a political decision. When I read Lawrence Lessig's commentary on the "Supreme" Court's decision on copyright term extension I couldn't believe his naivete. He thought he could persuade some of the jurists by using their own prior decisions, as if those decisions were based on some sort of judicial ideology. Dare I suggest, judicial honesty. But he was wrong because those decisions were based on political motivations rather than judicial ones. We see this regularly both in the political and judicial realms. States rights? The political decisions are rarely in the interests of the people or the nation but again - in the interests of the political "majority of the majority." And the block voting representatives never challenge that structure and the people are never fully and accurately informed. It's been Republicans before Americans. The deciding "majority of the majority" is really a very select few. Look at the revelations in the current Libby case. Much of the press was fully aware of the lies put forth by the highest reaches of America's government in matters of war and yet the people were never informed. Misinformed and mislead instead. The public dialog was a deadly farce. And the Libby case is being tried as a fibbing matter rather than one with connotations of treason. Much of the investigation's findings are being kept from the public and the public dialog. We're told, even by the "liberal" bloggers, that the prosecutor is a model of perfection. But is this perfection in the best interests of America? Americans are passengers on a plane flying in a fog under instrument flight conditions. But the instruments are being manipulated to serve the choices of a select few. The plane goes where those few choose. It lands where they choose and crashes if they choose. If this analogy seems a stretch consider the repeated objections to verifiable votes. You can blame the instruments but it's the fog that's the problem. America has a vicious petty small minded person as president and an even more dangerous schemer as vice president. But they were described to the public as someone you'd like to have a beer with, a "regular guy" who related to "you" and a brilliant CEO. "Help" was on the way. These two "won" the election in 2004. Not much has changed since 2004 other than the lies becoming harder to keep hidden from the public dialog.
I think there's much to consider in what "madisonian" writes in the past post. I have no doubt that he's right that my burning contempt for Bush leads me to be critical of the Constitution in ways that I might not otherwise be, since the costs, say, of a fixed-term presidency seem especially obvious. But, more to the methodological point, I think that "madisonian" is describing a form of "reflective equilibrium" analysis in which we constantly go back and forth between fairly abstract propositions--e.g., adherence to precedents generally promotes stability--and concrete cases--e.g., this particular precedent is really terrible and adherence to it might even promote instablity, and so on. So I think I can plead guilty (maybe only to a misdemeanor) without condemning myself to pleading guilty to irrational analysis. "'Til death do we part" might seem perfectly acceptable, for many years, so long as one's spouse is acceptable. When (s)he turns out to have unexpected and ominous sides, one may re-evaluate the principle. Committed Catholics would say it's irrelevant. Most of the rest of us believe that divorce can be justified in at least some circumstances, even if we reject "no-fault divorce."
It may be, at the end of the day, that George Bush's presidency can be accepted as a very costly instance of presidential power, but that the costs are offset by lots of other examples of beneficent use of the Commander-in-chief powers under pressure. George Bush is, to be sure, only one data point, and there are many others that have to be considered in the mix. My point is simply that we should be having a conversation about whether we're in fact being well served by our present system (one which, recall, is markedly different from most of our fellow democratic political orders around the world). At the point, the conversation is more important to me than the final outcome, even if I do adopt a rhetorical style of slugging with a baseball bat (or perhaps the better metaphor is throwing a cold bowl of ice water on someone who is unwisely, from my perspective, continuing to sleep) in order to get the reader's attention.
Prof. Levinson,
The stopped-clock aphorism needs some tweaking. In this case, the mechanism tends to reinforce both good and bad decisions. Can you clearly articulate a standard that dances the line between Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and Bush's? More importantly, a standard that would be comprehensible to the public you're looking to to provide the motive force for impeachment? I'm not certain that I'd want to take a devil's bargain like that one, nor have to make it politically workable. I'm having trouble seeing where the "thought experiment" ends and the substantive critique begins.
Can you clearly articulate a standard that dances the line between Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and Bush's? More importantly, a standard that would be comprehensible to the public you're looking to to provide the motive force for impeachment?
I know I'm jumping in here, but I wanted to correct one part of your question if that's ok. Bush hasn't suspended habeas. As for the standard, the Constitutional one -- invasion or rebellion; public safety endangered -- seems pretty clear IMO.
To spin off from A's post: if we all were to agree that this was precisely the sort of action that needed to be taken, what then? By what process should we begin to change the current situation?
Repeatedly in recent posts (and obviously, this is related at least somewhat to the appearance of the countdown) there has been mention of how we can't do anything about the current example, but in Xxx days we'll have another person with the potential to screw up in like (or worse) fashion. The underlying message/motivation is: "act now before its too late." Assuming some of us agree, in part if not in whole, with your assessment of the current conditions, what do you suggest we do to move the project forward? Or should we be simply providing input towards a better theoretical model that will be implemented at a later to-be-determined date?
Back in the day, left-liberal academics wrote scholarly tomes designed to prove that generals made terrible presidents. Nonetheless, Adlai couldn't get elected. There's no reason to take Prof. Levinson any more seriously than Arthur Schlesinger. (Or my old history professor, Ramsey McMullen, who wrote a book to show that Iran/Contra was just the sort of thing that caused the fall of the Roman Empire.) All of them like to make up long weighty constitutional/historical analyses to explain why the results of the last election are wrong. In a few years, when a Republican congress is trying to stop a Democratic president from intervening in Rwanda or something, it will all be "never mind."
My argument in the book is that we could ultimately use a new constitutional convention. But that's not going to happen for some years, obviously. A preparatory condition is to awaken public concern about the defects of the Constitution, just as other people try to tell their friends about global warming, the threat to social security solvency, or whatever future possibility they are very worried about and think needs more discussion.
A completely different point: I just read an analysis of the German constitution that suggests that it is absolutely averse to "direct democracy," including the kinds of referenda that work quite successfully in Switzerland, because of the use that Hitler made of direct democracy. Maybe that makes sense in Germany, but if one were advising a country today, INCLUDING THE US, about whether to include a mechanism for direct democracy, which, of course, is available in many of our Western states, would the single example of Hitler be enough to say, no, never, or would you simply have to take it account in putting together a more nuanced view about whether to include or exclude such mechanisms? I obviously believe that the latter is correct.
With regards to Mark's point: I apologize for the rhetorical flourish, but it was Professor Levinson who made the Lincoln comparison in his post. I was merely asking him to follow up on it.
Professor Levinson: Are you referring to Kim's paper on Bush/Gore? (She is, after all, a contributor here.) I don't think that your reading of the German constitution is particularly nuanced -- if you're referring to the rule-of-law provisions, there's a lot more to it than that. To respond specifically, many of the former Warsaw Pact countries have used similar provisions to good effect; I think that you could make a strong argument for including such a provision in a "new" U.S. Constitution. Would you consider that acceptable? In addition to hearing how you would balance direct democracy against republican government, I'm still curious to hear your thoughts on Lincoln versus Bush.
The example of direct democracy in, say, California, is more than sufficient to give me misgivings about the initiative.
The example of direct democracy in, say, California, is more than sufficient to give me misgivings about the initiative.
I don't know whether you're referring to their referendum process or their recall process, but I was saving both of those as ammunition. Oh, well.
The example of direct democracy in, say, California, is more than sufficient to give me misgivings about the initiative.
As a CA resident and voter, I say "amen" to that. I'd still consider an initiative, but there need to be modifications from the CA model.
"(This tendency toward legalism, of course, is one of my objections to the Impeachment Clause.)"
I consider this a more than slightly ironic note, since it is only that very legalism which you decry that stands in the way of your realizing , in practice, Congress can fill the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" with any meaning the requisit number of members of each House are in a mood to support. Your "vote of confidence" already exists. Further, I must agree with Jao that Congress in fact has all the tools at it's disposal necessary to rein in any President. What it lacks is the will, and you do not propose a way to give them that.
Apropos Brett's last posting, I believe, especially after the Clinton impeachment, that a majority of the country would refuse to accept as legitimate the view that one could be impeached for "whatever" the House decided. The analogy that comes to mind is the refusal to accept FDR's Court-packing plan because it just didn't seem kosher, not least because FDR lied through his teeth about his motivation for the plan.
If this be legalism, make the most of it. Incidentally, I've written quite extensively on Lincoln, including an article in the Illinois Law Review suggesting that the Emancipation Proclamation raises all sorts of difficulties for someone who is not enamored of full-throated presidential war powers.
In 2007 we may not criticize Lincoln for firing McClellan, but in 1862 some Northern Democrats did. Lincoln's wartime leadership was always controversial, and if there had been opinion polling during the Civil War, I'm sure his approval rating would have been abyssmal at several points. Whether a congressional supermajority would ever have removed him we cannot know, but if the Constitution had allowed it, an attempt might well have been made, which hardly could have helped the Union cause.
In any case, a wartime American president does far more than simply "hire and fire" commanders; he (or she) decides the most basic questions of strategy. FDR decided to defeat Germany first, to develop nuclear weapons, to invade North Africa in 1942, to make a double advance across the Pacific, to demand unconditional surrender, to invade France in 1944. Truman famously had to decide how to bring about Japan's surrender. And so on. Countries that have changed their wartime leadership "in midstream" have fared for both the better (Churchill replacing Chamberlain in 1940) and the worse (Erich Ludendorff taking control of Germany in 1916). Professor Levinson, clearly you favor a Constitution that would permit GW Bush getting the immediate hook for his conduct of the Iraq war. If the Constitution had been amended along the lines you suggest in 1975, do you think President Carter should have been ousted from office in 1980 following the failed attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran?
So the question is this: If we rely on the Commander-in-Chief to have the requisite judgment to know when to replace generals, admirals, etc., because they are not adequately serving all-important national interests, then why can’t We the People fire a Commander-in-Chief (save on quadrennial election days) who has demonstrated similar deficiencies in judgment, strategic vision, etc. To allow Congress, by super-majority vote, to declare no confidence in the Commander-in-Chief is not in the least to question the principle of civilian control. Rather, it states that this particular civilian is in fact—or, at least, in the judgment of many, many informed political leaders—not up to the task.
Under this reasoning, you could equally argue that the People through the President should be able to fire Representatives or Senators for incompetence in enacting a budget which is not in the national interest. After all, it is unimportant which civilian controls the budgetary process and the President is the only federal office elected by all the people and is more likely to be acting in the national rather than the parochial interest. Professor Levinson, it is interesting how you keep calling an elected Congress the voice of the People, while calling an equally elected President some sort of dictator. Did you make this distinction when the President was a Dem and the Congress was GOP? I think not. This is why the Framers made the Constitution difficult to amend.
I happen to favor a constitutional convention, too. Not because I think the Constitution is hugely defective; As the joke goes, "The Constitution, for all it's flaws, is better than what we have now."
But a con-con could contribute to restoring the rule of law, by resetting the current vast divergence between the judiciary's "Constitution" and the actual document. Thus allowing our government to function without such a staggering level of sophistry being required to pretend that the day to day operations of the Leviathan are consistant with a constitution mandating limited government. It's a pretty funny legalism that won't let the President be impeached for continuing to wage a war Congress undeclares, but sees nothing wrong with reading the commerce clause as it is currently read. At any rate, a Congress with the necessary supermajority could satisfy your legalism by passing a veto proof law the President was sure to violate, and then impeaching him for the violation.
a Congress with the necessary supermajority could satisfy your legalism by passing a veto proof law the President was sure to violate, and then impeaching him for the violation.
They tried that with Andrew Johnson. Didn't work.
The question about Carter in 1980 is extremely interesting. As many will recall, Cyrus Vance resigned in protest after the fiasco of the attempted rescue. So let's play out the suggestion that a supermajority of Congress would have been sufficiently turned off by Carter's ineptitude to bounce him. Under one scenario, Walter Mondale would have become President, which is just fine. Under another, the Democratic caucus in Congress would pick the successor, who would have been in office until Jan. 1981. Would the world (or the American republic) have come to an end? I doubt it.
Just about every democratic constitution describes the head of state as commander-in-chief. There's not even much variance in the language. Why has it become a central aspect of the US presidency? Why does the man on horseback symbolism dominate presidential conduct of foreign relations?
You might be interested in a fundamentally different different idea about being a commander-in-chief by a former governor-general and high court justice of Australia.
"They tried that with Andrew Johnson. Didn't work."
The fact that every trial doesn't end in a conviction doesn't mean that trials "don't work". Don't get into Sandy's trap, where any mechanism which has a chance of leaving Bush or Cheney in office is thereby "defective". Johnson would have been convicted if one more Senator had actually wanted to get rid of him. Bush and Cheney aren't in office because of a "defective" Constitution. They are in office because they were elected, and there is no consensus to remove them. Any mechanism which would remove them under the present circumstances would render removal so easy that divided government would become an impossiblity. Maybe Sandy thinks divided government is bad, but that doesn't make a system permitting it "defective".q
The accumulation of powers rested within the American Presidency is certainly quite unique: Head of State, Head of Government, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the Power of Pardon, and on top of it it is almost impossible to remove him prematurely from office once elected. It seems he has to exhibit openly criminal behaviour or be seen as clinically insane to get him possibly removed. This happened only once (or better was on the verge of happening) in the case of Nixon. No wonder that the assassins bullet was a far more common form of removal from office.
For the case at hand, it seems to strip the President of the CinC job is actually one of the easier tasks. Just make it like in Germany and give the job to the Secretary of Defense during peacetime and transfer it to the President when Congress declares formal war. This way the President has to get a proper DoW from Congress when he wants a shot at military glory and at the same time the senators cannot pretend they didn't know what they were actually voting on (Senator Clinton being a good example for this). This has the added advantage that in case of a fuckup the SecDef can be easily fired, made the scapegoat for the whole disaster, and the course smoothly be changed while the President pretends he had nothing to do with it without having to insist on a current course of action just because he has invested already so much face in it.
I apologize for going off topic for a moment, but after the screaming headlines parroting the claims by Padilla's attorneys that their client was tortured to the point of being mentally incompetent, I noticed a tiny article buried in page A28 of my paper reporting that the Bureau of Prisons psychs examined Padilla against the strenuous objections of his attorneys and found him completely competent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2007/02/13/ AR2007021301064.html Big surprise. Anyone want to wager that Padilla's claim that he was fed LSD is also a lie?
The fact that every trial doesn't end in a conviction doesn't mean that trials "don't work".
I read your earlier post as implying conviction rather than as a procedural device to get around the "legal" hurdle. Bush and Cheney aren't in office because of a "defective" Constitution. They are in office because they were elected, and there is no consensus to remove them. Well, I don't think either one could win an election today, so I'm not sure what constitutes a "consensus". I think Prof. Levinson's point is that the door should open both ways equally, so I'm not sure your argument actually undercuts his. Personally, I think removal should be harder than election, so I share your view that Cheney and Bush remain in office due to lack of the (implicitly necessary) "consensus".
"They were selected by the SCOTUS."
I will readily grant that Bush's margin of victory in Florida, as measured by both the election day count, and several recounts, was small. And recounting IS a noisy procedure, especially when human bias is given free rein by the refusal to mandate a uniform counting standard. And, thus, if you simply kept recounting, over and over, eventually Gore would have won a recount, the Democratic party would have declared the election over, and we could have all gone home. I scarcely think the Supreme court's refusal to let a state Supreme court carry out that trivial demonstration of basic statistics amounted to the Supreme court "selecting" Bush.
I will readily grant that Bush's margin of victory in Florida, as measured by both the election day count, and several recounts, was small. And recounting IS a noisy procedure, especially when human bias is given free rein by the refusal to mandate a uniform counting standard. And, thus, if you simply kept recounting, over and over, eventually Gore would have won a recount, the Democratic party would have declared the election over, and we could have all gone home.
This is apparently a common view, but it's not accurate. Gore won both the popular vote and FL. Now, in fairness, he didn't win FL according to any recount he requested, but he DID win if all the votes had been fairly counted. The key to understanding this is recognizing the distinction between overvotes and undervotes. Gore sought a recount of "undervotes". These were the hanging chads, etc. He would have lost and recount based on the undervotes, making it all the more ironic that Bush opposed such a recount. Gore did not ask for a recount of the "overvotes". "Overvotes" typically occur when someone fills in the bubble next to the candidates name and then also puts other marks on the ballot. For example, someone might check off Bush's name and then write in "Bush" below.* As it turned out, the "overvotes" would have given Gore the victory. Link (pdf). *There are other categories of "overvotes" also. These were situations in which the voter checked two names as a result of confusion about the ballot design. If you're willing to make the assumption that, for example, Palm Beach voters who voted Dem for Senate meant to vote for Gore and not Buchanan (both names being checked), then Gore's margin of victory would have been in the 10s of thousands.
"but he DID win if all the votes had been fairly counted."
IF you define "fairly counted" as "counted in the manner most likely to result in Gore winning even if it requires guessing how voters really intended to vote, instead of counting the votes they actually cast". I don't. We don't count intentions, we count ballots. And it certainly points out the absurdity of blaming the SCOTUS for "selecting" Bush by cutting short a procedure which would have... selected Bush. Unless you're positing that that, absent Bush v Gore, the recount would have been followed by yet another recount conducted by yet another set of rules, which was a recipe for a real Constitutional crisis. All of this is beside the point, though, aside from underscoring the absolute necessity of conducting elections and counting according to the rules established before the vote, when judgements about what procedures are "fair" are not poisoned by the knowlege of what procedures would result in a particular candidate winning.
JT, I don't want elections officials licensed to read minds. (Or for that matter, licensed to switch between full and hanging chads on the fly depending on hos the count is adding up, as we saw in Palm Beach.) If a ballot records votes for two candidates for the same office, barring physical evidence on the ballot, such as an "X" drawn next to one of the votes, with an arrow to the other being underlined, there's no trustworthy basis for assigning the vote to one or the other candidate. "Surely nobody in THAT neighborhood could have meant to vote for Buchanan!" is not the sort of thing elections officials ought to be taking account of.
So, yes, the intention of the electorate is important. And the ballots actually cast are the most reliable, and certainly the only legitimate, way of determining that intent. And if you want your vote to count, take some care in filling out your ballot.
IF you define "fairly counted" as "counted in the manner most likely to result in Gore winning even if it requires guessing how voters really intended to vote, instead of counting the votes they actually cast".
That's not at all what the study showed. What it showed was that in most FL counties, overvotes were counted a certain way. In a few, they were not counted that way. If they had been counted the same way in all counties, Gore won. I know it's an article of faith among some on the right that Bush "won" FL. So he did, in the real world sense that he has occupied the White House for the last 6 years. Nobody's going to undo that. There are, however, lessons to learn about our electoral practices from the mistakes in FL. To learn those lessons, everybody needs to acknowledge the basic facts.
"Jeb, Katharine Harris and the rest of those thugs down there pulled out all the stops to get it as close as they did. "
Sigh. Yes, Katherine Harris snuck into each of those polling places, and threw a switch on the voting machines... Considering that, for better or for worse, the mechanics of voting are administered by local officials, I suppose the lesson would be, if you want your vote to count in Florida, don't vote where Democrats are administering the elections.
Flying combat missions is not exactly "observing" a war. Observation is something you do form the top of the Empire State Building. Flying over hostile territory, amking diving and strafing runs, close air support and other missions with top rate NVA AA coming at you from all directions is not "observation".
Prof Levinson's lack of knowledge about the military is amazing. I guess the thousands of Americans who were shot down over Europe and the Pacific and Korea and Vietnam weren't relaly fighting, they were just observing. Same with all the sailors who are often at sea miles away from the action. Would you say that everyone on a carrier is just "observing"? In many cases, being a combat pilot is actually more dangerous than being on the ground. In any event, if electing a CINC with military experience is so important for you, I take it you voted for Bob Dole in 1996 and George HW Bush in 1992 over Bill Clinton. You didn't? Why am I not surprosed.
"Fixed your typo."
I'll have to translate that to latin, and scribble it in next to "Ad Hominem" and "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" in my old logic textbook. ;)
"Bart" DePalma [to Prof. Levinson]:
Professor Levinson, it is interesting how you keep calling an elected Congress the voice of the People, while calling an equally elected President some sort of dictator. Did you make this distinction when the President was a Dem and the Congress was GOP? I think not. Show of hands: Who cares what "Bart" thinks? <*crickets*> Thought so. ;-) If "Bart" has a legitimate example of Prof. Levinson's supposed hypocrisy or partisanship here, the honourable thing for "Bart" to do would be to trot it out. "Bart", however, is not an honourable person. Rather, he'll tell you that he, "Bart" thinks that Prof. Levinson is inconsistent aned intellectually dishonest, and absent any evidence for such, present that bare insinuation as some kind of 'argumnent' or 'discussion'. Typical "Bart" MO. Cheers,
"Bart" DePalma says:
Anyone want to wager that Padilla's claim that he was fed LSD is also a lie? Anyone want to wager that "Bart" thinks that feeding him LSD would have been perfectly acceptable? We can go back to the Google record for the answer once the bets are in. Cheers,
Mark Field:
Gore did not ask for a recount of the "overvotes". "Overvotes" typically occur when someone fills in the bubble next to the candidates name and then also puts other marks on the ballot. For example, someone might check off Bush's name and then write in "Bush" below.* One small note: Gore didn't have to ask for a recount of the overvotes. The Florida courts, by law, were granted fairly wide latitude in fashioning a remedy should they have upheld the contest. Cheers,
brett:
IF you define "fairly counted" as "counted in the manner most likely to result in Gore winning even if it requires guessing how voters really intended to vote, instead of counting the votes they actually cast". I don't. We don't count intentions, we count ballots. Ummm, in Florida (as in many states, including Dubya's Texas under laws he signed), the relevant standard is the "intent" of the voter as best can be determined. Technical adherence to every detail of voting procedure is not required; one prior case had requierd ballots that were marked in ink to be counted (IIRC) despite warnings that they should only be marked by "#2 pencil". IIRC, they had to go back and recount all the ballots not marked so as to be machine-readable. Cheers,
Mark Field:
That's not at all what the study showed. What it showed was that in most FL counties, overvotes were counted a certain way. In a few, they were not counted that way. If they had been counted the same way in all counties, Gore won. In some counties, "stealth" manual recounts (includng overvotes) had been done, resulting (IIRC) in close to 200 votes added for Dubya. What was most ridiculous was the U.S. Supreme Court sayng that statewide recounts would (in advance of any factual basis for even making such a "determination"), result in an impermissible EPV, but their "remedy" (which froze in place the horrible mishmash of some counties having done manual reconts and others not) unarguably produced the very situation that they claimed to find so unacceptable: that different votes would be counted under different standards (i.e. some manually recounted, such as Broward, and some just what the machines read). FWIW, Judge Lewis has stated that he was considering whether to order that all ballots be recounted, includng the overvotes. Cheers,cmlfmsnq
brett:
"Jeb, Katharine Harris and the rest of those thugs down there pulled out all the stops to get it as close as they did. " Sigh. Yes, Katherine Harris snuck into each of those polling places, and threw a switch on the voting machines... No. She illegally purged many thousands of people from the voter rolls ... and then resisted all attempts to actually count all the ballots. See here and here. More links on the election here. Cheers,
Arne, you seem a bit confused about who does what in Florida elections. Here's a simple question:
Did Katherine Harris have the power to purge voters? No, she had the power to send out an admittedly over-inclusive list of potentially ineligable voters. Here's how People for the American Way, no friend of Republicans, described the list: "a list of more than 47,000 registered Florida voters who the Division thinks may be ineligible to vote because of felony convictions." The word, "may" in your vocabulary? The list was not sent out as a list of names to purge, it was sent out as a list of names to check. Now, some elections officials just purged them without checking. Some, a great many of them Democrats, just ignored the list, deliberately leaving people who really WERE ineligible registered. It's an interestng question which factor predominated in 2000: People wrongly purged who might have voted for Gore, or people wrongly NOT purged, who DID vote for Gore. Democrats seem to have little interest in the latter group...
brett:
Arne, you seem a bit confused about who does what in Florida elections. Here's a simple question: Did Katherine Harris have the power to purge voters? Yes and no. I'm not confused. I know what went on. No, she had the power to send out an admittedly over-inclusive list of potentially ineligable voters. Which she indicated should be used to pure the rolls. Trying to pretend she was just sending out fluff that could be ignored is simply dishonest. ... Here's how People for the American Way, no friend of Republicans, described the list: "a list of more than 47,000 registered Florida voters who the Division thinks may be ineligible to vote because of felony convictions." WTF does that quote have to do with the price of tea in Sri Lanka? As Palast has discovered and reported, the list was woefully inaccurate, it was known to be inaccurate (and it was known who was likely to get inaccurately "purged"), and it was based on a false reading of Florida law (for one, people whose voting rights had been restored or hadn't been revoked in other states were eligible under Florida law, but the list included them anyway. ... The word, "may" in your vocabulary? The list was not sent out as a list of names to purge, it was sent out as a list of names to check. Oh, bulltwaddly. Now, some elections officials just purged them without checking.... How are they going to check it if the list says that someone should be purged (due to supposed loss of voting rights in other states, even though the purge list doesn't say why they're supposedly ineligible)? .. Some, a great many of them Democrats, just ignored the list, deliberately leaving people who really WERE ineligible registered. Your proof of this? As for people ignoring the list, if what you say is true, that it was just a "recommendation", and Harris had no power, then what's your beef here? The people that igored the list saw that it was trash. At the very least, officials that ignored the trash were not committing a crime of commission, and causing problems themselves by using known faulty information to deny legitimate voters their rights. If that meant that perhaps some ineligible voters did get a chance to vote, so be it, but if someone who's ineligible to vote vites, that's their problem, and if they misrepresent themselves, it is they that should, and can, be held to account. It's an interestng question which factor predominated in 2000: People wrongly purged who might have voted for Gore, or people wrongly NOT purged, who DID vote for Gore. For moonbat Republican apologists, for whom evidence is optional and in fact best ignored when inconvenitent to the party line, perhaps. You have evidence for the latter, out with it. Democrats seem to have little interest in the latter group... And in flying pigs and LGMs on the moon. Cheers,
obat gonore ibu hamil
obat gonore untuk ibu hamil obat gonore untuk wanita hamil harga obat gonore obat injeksi gonore obat kutil kelamin yang ada di apotik obat kutil kelamin yg dijual di apotik obat kutil di kemaluan wanita pengobatan kutil kelamin pada pria pengobatan penyakit kutil kelamin pada pria obat penyakit kutil pada kelamin pria Pengobatan kutil kelamin aman dan tanpa operasi obat kutil pada alat kelamin pria pengobatan kutil kelamin pengobatan kutil kelamin pada pria dan wanita pengobatan kutil kelamin pria pengobatan kutil kelamin wanita pengobatan kutil kelamin dengan cuka apel pengobatan kutil kelamin di anus Cara mengobati kutil di kelamin wanita hamil pengobatan kutil kelamin di bandung obat kutil kelamin obat kutil kelamin di apotik obat kutil kelamin tradisional obat kutil kelamin wanita
obat kutil kelamin pada pria
obat kutil kelamin apotik obat kutil kelamin murah obat kutil kelamin de nature obat kutil kelamin untuk ibu hamil obat kutil kelamin dokter Cara mengobati jengger ayam dan kutil kelamin Obat untuk kutil kelamin pada wanita Pengobatan kutil pada kelamin pria Ciri ciri kutil kelamin dan obatnya Cara mengobati wasir dengan cepat Cara mengobati wasir dengan propolis Cara mengobati wasir tanpa obat Cara mengobati wasir yang sudah parah Cara mengobati wasir berdarah secara alami Cara mengobati wasir luar secara alami Cara mengobati wasir dengan lidah buaya Cara mengobati wasir setelah melahirkan Cara mengobati wasir luar tanpa operasi Cara mengobati wasir alami Cara mengobati wasir akut Cara mengobati wasir atau ambeyen Cara mengobati wasir/ambeyen Cara mengobati wasir atau ambien Cara mengobati wasir/ambien Cara mengobati wasir yang alami Cara mengobati penyakit wasir ambeyen
Obat menyembuhkan kutil kelamin
Obat tradisional menyembuhkan kutil kelamin Obat minum untuk kutil kelamin Obat medis untuk kutil kelamin Obat kutil kelamin DE NATURE Merek obat kutil kelamin Obat kutil kelamin de nature Nama obat kutil kelamin Nama salep obat kutil kelamin Obat kutil kelamin tanpa operasi Obat oles untuk kutil kelamin Obat kutil di alat kelamin pria Obat untuk kutil pada kelamin Obat tradisional kutil pada kelamin Obat penyakit kutil kelamin Obat penghilang kutil kelamin Obat perontok kutil kelamin Obat tradisional kutil kelamin pada pria Obat untuk penyakit kutil kelamin Propolis untuk obat kutil kelamin Obat alami untuk penyakit kutil kelamin Obat kutil pd kelamin Resep obat kutil kelamin Obat anti sifilis Obat sipilis dijual di apotik Obat sipilis murah di apotik Obat alami sipilis pada pria Obat sifilis ampuh
Obat sifilis apotik
Obat sipilis beli di apotik Obat sipilis buat wanita Obat sipilis buatan sendiri Obat sipilis bagi wanita Obat buat sipilis Obat biotik sifilis Obat antibiotik buat sipilis Obat tradisional buat sipilis Obat herbal buat sipilis Obat dokter buat sipilis Obat generik buat sipilis Obat sipilis dengan bayam duri Obat sipilis yang bagus Obat buat sifilis Obat sipilis.com Obat sipilis ciprofloxacin Obat china sipilis obat kutil kelamin dan leher obat alami menghilangkan kutil kelamin obat tradisional untuk menghilangkan kutil kelamin kumpulan obat kutil kelamin obat tradisional kutil kelamin obat penyakit kutil kelamin obat tradisional untuk kutil kelamin
151216meiqing
Post a Comment
ugg clearance ray ban wayfarer instyler curling iron hollister kids gucci handbags canada goose outlet christian louboutin the north face cheap oakley sunglasses coach outlet online uggs on sale oakley sunglasses michael kors outlet ugg boots canada goose jackets oakley sunglasses north face uk swarovski jewelry adidas originals coach outlet nike roshe run timberland boots michael kors outlet online toms shoes christian louboutin outlet ugg outlet ugg boots sale prada uk canada goose outlet toms hollister co fitflops abercrombie & fitch ugg outlet nike free run christian louboutin outlet jordans for sale ugg boots on sale abercrombie fitflops sale clearance
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |