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 Rahmansabeel.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 "In the name of God, go!"
|
Sunday, April 29, 2007
"In the name of God, go!"
Sandy Levinson
There is an interesting review in today's Times Book Review, by Jon Meacham of Troublesome Young Men, by Lynne Oseon. It is about a number of Tories, besides Winston Churchill, who dissented from Chamberlain's policy of appeasement during the '30's and 1940. As Meacham notes, most of the men discussed are scarcely known today, other than than Anthony Eden. One of them, Leo Amery, is depicted speaking before Parliament on May 7, 1940, as he stood before Chamberlain and, like Cromwell almost three centuries before, told his ostensible leader: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing! Depart, I say, and let us have done with you! In the name of God, go!" And, of course, that was to happen, as the invasion of France on May 10 brought Chamberlain's government to an end.
Comments:
"We, alas, do not live in such a system."
Which is why Richard Nixon remained in office until after the next regularly scheduled election, right?
Which is why Richard Nixon remained in office until after the next regularly scheduled election, right?
I can't vouch for the accuracy of this story, nor for it's actual impact on Nixon's decision to resign, but I read that Barry Goldwater went to Nixon near the end and told him he had to resign. I don't think any current Republican has the status to go to Bush or Cheney and make such a demand. Even if there were such a person willing to play the Amery/Goldwater role, neither Bush nor Cheney would listen. These are people who refuse to acknowledge the incompetence of others (Rumsfeld, AGAG); they certainly aren't going to admit their own. Cromwell, of course, had greater means of persuasion than his own words when he dismissed the Long Parliament.
Sandy,
You seem to admire the British parliamentary system, and yet you say you still see the need for a strong executive independent of the legislature. You (and Bush) admire Churchill as a strong effective leader of his people in a time of crisis, but you seem to ignore that he was not a strong executive in the sense that our president is. He was first the leader of the majority in parliament,and only because of that, the Prime Minister. I fail to see how we can correct the problems in our government without a transition to a parliamentary form. There would be equally strong and decisive leaders in the house of Representatives: we do not need a strong president to lead us. GYL
As to Gary Larsen's comment, he is, of course, correct that if we switched all the way to a parliamentary system, then the "executive" would come from the legislature itself and, presumably, be subject to votes of no confidence. In spite of everything, I'm not an unequivocal admirer of a parliamentary system, especially for a country this large. Although some people believe I'm hostile the very idea of a senate, that's false: I'm hostile only to the present allocation of voting power. So can one combine the virtues of a (relatively independent) executive without paying the costs of our own system with regard to being stuck with a clearly incompetent and frighteningly oveor-his-head Commander-in-Chief during a time of war? I really don't know, which is why my book calls for beginning a national conversation (that would eventuate in a new convention) rather than offering a blueprint for my idea of a "perfect" Constitution (and, of course, there's no such thing).
Professor Levinson,
Forgive me if you mention this in your book, but I was wondering if you think there is any particular country that "gets it right." Or, are cross-country comparisons too problematic.
"I don't think any current Republican has the status to go to Bush or Cheney and make such a demand."
I don't think Bush has achieved sufficiently low status outside of the closed universe of Democratic activists, to create the sort of consensus necessary to remove him under any system which would permit divided government to exist.
As to Brett's comment, there's really no way of knowing what Republican support would be if there were in fact a way of replacing Bush and Cheney with, say, George H.W. Bush as a caretaker president until the next election. To say that one has lost confidence in the President is very scary if he is indeed 'the only president we have, since we really can't get rid of him.'
And, with regard to "someone"'s question, I really don't present a good comparative discussion in the book. I do offer the suggestion for a vote-of-no-confidence procedure tailored to our own system (e.g., 2/3 of both Houses meeting together and selection of the successor by the president's own party caucus). Perhaps it would be better to adopt the German or Israeli system of allowing votes of no confidence in PM's or Chancellor's only if there's someone who can immediately garner majority approval, since I can easily concede that it could be quite disastrous to have a discredited (and functionally ousted president) during a time that the party caucus was fighting out the struggle for succession. Indeed, as I think of this, I probably would rewrite what I put in the book to require this, which, of course, would also be a further "disciplining structure" with regard to those who fear that Congress would be tempted promiscuously to dismiss presidents they didn't like.
Professor,
One thing often lacking in the liberal world is the ability to stay on message. Most of our ideological brethren could learn a thing or two from you on that score. ;) That said, let me turn to address my fellow readers. If you think Professor Levinson is passionate here at Balkinization or in the pages of his books, well, you ain't seen nothin' 'til you've seen him speak in person. Friday night's ACS event in Los Angeles was a real treat which leaves me all the more envious of his students. I continue to disagree with the notion of a new convention; that seems to me a rip-roaring case of the cure being worse than the cold, for the real issue is not flaws and foibles of our Constitution but that the Constitution, and the political process itself, is increasingly an abstraction of commercial interests. In 2000 I was faced with voting for oil or tech. Oil won, tech lost. The parties and personalities are nigh irrelevant so long as the truly dominant factors, increasingly gargantuan corporate interests, run the country by running the campaigns. I submit, to my fellow readers and to Professor Levinson, that it is simply not possible to craft a set of rules which do not in themselves rely on the existence and participation of an adequate number of good-faith players. Today we are faced with ever more bad-faith players, folks who from a position of power mouth "might makes right" glosses supporting the flouting of law if it's better for the bottom line to just pay the fines. So long as that kind of thinking predominates or even merely holds adequate sway then there really isn't any reason to squabble over what the rules are on parchment.
I don't think Bush has achieved sufficiently low status outside of the closed universe of Democratic activists, to create the sort of consensus necessary to remove him under any system which would permit divided government to exist.
Perhaps not. His approval levels are very low, but not quite Nixonian (Cheney's, though, are that low; perhaps he has to reach Agnewian levels). I'd love to believe that the number of "Democratic activists" has risen to these levels, but I think that's optimistic. In any case, my point was that, assuming such a level were to be reached, there isn't anyone who could play that role.
Don't need somebody with Goldwater's level of respect; Goldwater could only get Nixon to resign because he could make it clear to Nixon that the alternative was impeachment. At such time that Bush reaches that level of unpopularity, the messenger will matter far less than the message.
Sandy,
Thank you for your response to my comment. I would like more clarification of the reservations you have about a parliamentary system. My reading tells me taht there are really only two alternatives for a democratic government, the parliamentary system or the presidential system, with of course many variations between these two types. Most of the variations, as I understand them, are tilted toward the parliamentary system. The presidential system is an anomaly of the historical time in which it was created, whereas the parliamentary system has a much more organic evolution. The other comment I have is that in my reading of Ackerman and Magliocca, I am struck by the degree to which the constitution has been changed quite outside of the prescribed processes of amendments or conventions. The reality is that amendments or conventions are not necessary if the will of the people is sufficient to demand a change. The constitution is as much an organic document as is any other law. The problem then is to generate the will. gyl
As indicated in my earlier posting, I'm attracted by the German parliamentary system, which is, of course bicameral (and arguably has some real protection for states qua states, for people who think that's important, inasmuch as the Bundesrat is composed of state officials) and requires a "constructive vote" of no-confidence (i.e., the selection of a successor) with regard to the Chancellor. But the one thing I'm certain of is that I don't know enough to have sufficiently confident opinions about how we should redesign the presidency (or perhaps simply eliminate it). I even hold open the possibility that at the end of vigorous discussion, I could be persuaded that "the devil we know" is better than the likely devils we don't.
I also agree with Brett that if Bush really faced conviction (and not simply, as with Clinton, impeachment by a rabidly partisan House), then it might not matter who delivered the message. (Indeed, one can well imagine it's being his mother, trying to save the family from further disgrace.)
Don't need somebody with Goldwater's level of respect; Goldwater could only get Nixon to resign because he could make it clear to Nixon that the alternative was impeachment. At such time that Bush reaches that level of unpopularity, the messenger will matter far less than the message.
You may be right, but I don't believe Bush would resign even if the Senate were in the process of voting on his conviction. Even if his mother told him to.
"The reality is that amendments or conventions are not necessary if the will of the people is sufficient to demand a change."
No, the reality is that amendments or conventions are not necessary if the will of the political elite is sufficient. The whole point, after all, of bypassing Article V, is to keep the people from having much of a say.
Professor Levinson:
Apart from wanting to use the pithy quote, is there any basis for the attempted analogy between the epitome of clueless appeasement to fascism Chamberlain and his polar opposite in Bush? Indeed, Mr. Bush comes off rather well in the comparison.
"Bart" DePalma sez:
Apart from wanting to use the pithy quote, is there any basis for the attempted analogy between the epitome of clueless appeasement to fascism Chamberlain and his polar opposite in Bush? Indeed, Mr. Bush comes off rather well in the comparison. We talking North Korea here? China? Dubya's just like "Bart". He likes to pick on "straw men" that can be easily disposed of (even if knocking them off really doesn't address the problem at hand). But he's just so incompetent that he can make a complete bollix of even this overt politically motivated thuggery (witness Iraq). Cheers,
On the analogy, from David Cannadine's review of Olson's book in the April 22 Washington Post:
"He was a dominant leader of his government, utterly convinced of the righteousness and the rectitude of his policies, especially insofar as they concerned international affairs. He gathered around him a coterie of tight-lipped conservative advisers who were as like-minded and narrow-minded as he was. He scorned his critics in the legislature, branding them foolish, ignorant and unpatriotic. He had no time for members of any party but his own, and he treated the opposition with contempt. He cowed and coerced the media, and he authorized telephone tapping on an unprecedented scale. By such arrogant and intimidating means, he was determined to leave a more significant mark on public affairs than either his father or his brother had. But the result was a succession of foreign policy disasters that did his country untold damage in the eyes of the world. "George W. Bush? No, Neville Chamberlain."
@LMA,
To the extent trolls prompt such posts then maybe they really do serve some purpose in the Plan. Excellent work, and thanks for it. But too subtle by far if your goal was to extract some kind of admission from a certain cowardly, lying cheat. ;-) Peace.
It is amusing to see those who advocate surrender to fascists struggle so mightily and vainly to analogize the archetype of appeasement of fascists with the President they condemn for prosecuting wars against fascists.
If the British in 1938 applied the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war to Germany, the Allies would have invaded Germany for violating the Versailles Treaty with the intent to remove the Nazi fascist regime before Germany further armed and attacked the Allies. This is the diametric opposite to the Chamberlain Doctrine of negotiating with the Nazi fascists and giving into their demands in exchange for a delay of war which the Nazis simply used to further arm.
Well, to continue with Cannadine's Washington Post review of Olson's book:
"Yet in the end, the rebels [against Chamberlain] were proved right, and they eventually prevailed. . . . [T]wo of them, Eden and Macmillan, later became prime minister. . . . [Eden's] prime ministership turned out to be a disaster. Convinced that Egypt's nationalist president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, was another Hitler, Eden launched a military expedition in 1956 to get back the Suez Canal, which Nasser had nationalized. World opinion was outraged, and the Americans refused to help; Eden's health collapsed, and he was obliged to resign, whereupon Macmillan succeeded him. 'Not for the first time, and certainly not for the last,' Olson rightly notes, 'the lessons of Munich and appeasement were wrongly applied to a later international crisis.' President Bush and his fellow neocons should take note."
Bart: It is amusing to see those who advocate surrender to fascists struggle so mightily and vainly to analogize the archetype of appeasement of fascists with the President they condemn for prosecuting wars against fascists.
Bart, you lying, cowardly cheat, you should give lessons. In sophistry. Maybe your school taught it as a surrogate for actual reasoning. Maybe you are just a natural. Either way, you are a disgrace to the profession, regardless whether you believe nonsense such as what you've written above or if you merely use such tactics as part of a cynical partisan strategy. You have a true gift for self-serving re-phrasings and outrageous misstatements. You wouldn't be half the troll you are without this gift. But what a pity you seem to mistake it for reasoning or intellect. No one condemns this President for prosecuting wars against fascists, probably because that doesn't begin to be an accurate description of the Cheney/Bush junta's adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither has anyone called for the President to surrender to any fascists. Heck, by your standards it would be impossible to surrender, since we had "mission accomplished" four years ago; to whom would we be surrendering? But, true to troll form, it's necessary to put things a certain way, to maximize confusion and distraction. Otherwise someone might back you into a corner and you'd have to admit to yourself what everyone else already knows about you and your positions.
Remember, we're madly in love, so it's all right to kiss me anytime you feel like it.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya
Yuk berobat
Post a Comment
Cara Menghilangkan Jerawat Cara Menghilangkan Jerawat Secara Alami Cara Menghilangkan Bekas Jerawat Jerawat Batu Suntik Jerawat Batu Jerawat Pasir
|
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 |