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 Lindsay Graham, a real joker
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Lindsay Graham, a real joker
Sandy Levinson
Maureen Dowd concludes her column in tomorrow's Times with the following:
Comments:
Sometimes I think the mercantile survival of the fittest which produces many of our local prominent business people must be an object of ridicule from places in the world which harbor more 'primitive' or atavistic forms of governance which inertially or based on principle persist in fusion of ideology with autocracy; and in a way I have seen Republicans latch onto this latter pernicious form of regression as a way to govern without much constitution, using a wild west surrogate form of rugged individualism, of late. With respect to the former Darwinian method of selecting our regional notables from the business caste, it is small wonder they pursue lucre, influence, and the legerdemain of the elusive account books as their forte when they make a transition to local government, and upward to national government elected office. Intermixed with these elected and appointed mavens of commerce usually are folks of different background, thinkers, rhetoricians; or at least in the past politics lured such lofty idealists to the calling of electoral positions. In fact, politician salaries are nearly as diminutive as are academics, compared to the exalted pay rates to be enjoyed in the upper echelons of business; little wonder politicians seek to supplement salary with perquisites of every innovative stripe. Perhaps it takes the hunger and hope of an era like that which produced our defective constitution centuries ago to yield a salubrious blend of all kinds of people entering politics. Subsequently stereotypes tend to crystalize and bureaucratic ways of proceeding creep in like ossification of what was once young and vigorous. I suppose this image travels to some standoff or dissociated feeling by politicians, less responsiveness to constituents, more malleability admid the influences of the moguls and spokespersons of commerce, exaggerated and conscious donning of the patina of principle as a surrogate for the real vis which can drive truly great leaders. And voters may home in upon their respective burgeoning leisure time in lieu of trying to elicit real responsiveness from their representatives. Party machines craft the perfect dramatis personnae to buffer leadership from the very voters whose input makes the process live. But I sense if some of the new suggestions about voting machines are put into play, there will be vast changes in our country's elected class; imagine an incorruptible pdf of each person's vote instead of a hanging chad.
Re: Constitution Day.
I'm rather perplexed by the fact that the most recent Mayfield case in Oregon (arguments were heard this Monday, Garry Spence was again a pleasure to watch, magnificent courtroom presence) is receiving so little interest. Apparently the sentiment is the guy got his $2M in the settlement from the DoJ, so what does he want now? Well, first it does not appear they are after money at this point in time. The primary point is that Mayfield has a pretty good chance to force undoing one of the provisions of the Patriot Act. And that would be something given that so little progress been made so far. For a short explanation what they are after here and a little helpful primer on FISA and the way FISA is used to spy on people foreign and domestic see this.
Ambassador Crocker has been explaining to Congress that Iraq is engaged in a fundamental federalism debate which they have not resolved in the past six months to meet Congress' political benchmarks. Crocker has further observed to Congress that it took us decades after our founding to resolve this federalism debate. (Actually, it is still going on in the US.)
Given that the Dems and a few GOP have been calling the Iraqi democracy "dysfunctional," for failing to resolve all of their fundamental political questions in six months, it is apparent that Graham could not resist zinging his colleagues in Congress with the same charge. Indeed, Graham could make that observation about nearly every form of deliberative democratic government. Unless presented with a crisis, democracies rarely move quickly. It takes time to develop consensus in a polity. It takes even longer when your polity is divided politically and the vast majority of the polity does not give a damn about politics as is the case in the US...and maybe Iraq. I do not see the plodding nature of democracies as a problem. Rather, checking the progress of government is generally a good thing.
Great ... now Lindsey Graham is deliberately pulling Prof. Levinson's chain on national TV.
Imagine the hilarity in Graham's chambers, as staffers surround the computer: "He blogged it! He blogged it!"
Why is Constitution Day a "great occasion" when it's only a celebration of something "grossly deficient"?
Ambassador Crocker has been explaining to Congress that Iraq is engaged in a fundamental federalism debate which they have not resolved in the past six months to meet Congress' political benchmarks. Crocker has further observed to Congress that it took us decades after our founding to resolve this federalism debate.
Bart has correctly identified the salient issue. Are the American people in favor of committing our military to policing the sectarian violence in Iraq for as long as it takes for the "federalism debate" to be settled, even if it takes decades? I hope these hearings are serving a useful purpose in similarly crystallizing the issue for others. Indeed, given the rampant violence in Iraq as contrasted with our own relatively peaceful experience throughout the American "federalism debate," one might reasonably infer that the rivalries in Iraq run deeper than our own, and thus the Iraqi federalism debate will take more time to resolve than ours did. I do think it's unfortunate that we didn't have more discussion, prior to the war, regarding the fact that Iraq would need to have a federalism debate before the country would agree to live in peace again, and that the debate might take decades much as our own did. The smart people like Bart, of course, took this as a given all along. It seems the rest of us simply failed to ask.
I presume that "Steve" is joking with regard to his reference to "our own relatively peaceful experience throughout the American "federalism debate.'" One might recall that 2% of the entire US population was killed because of an inability to decide what "federalism" entailed (a right of secession?), and many more lives were lost, into the 1960s, before we can legitimately speak of a "settlement" with regard to federalism and race.
And perhaps Sen. Graham thought that he was indeed joking, that it is obvious (at least to him) that our government is not "dysfunctional" (though one would want to know his metrics for deciding whether we are "functioning" properly). Stll, as Freud (and others) have long pointed out, there is no such thing as a completely innocent joke, especially when speaking in public about highly freighted matters.
Steve said...
Bart has correctly identified the salient issue. Are the American people in favor of committing our military to policing the sectarian violence in Iraq for as long as it takes for the "federalism debate" to be settled, even if it takes decades? Hell no. I am one of the few hawks here and I would not agree to this goal. Our job is to get the Iraqi Army trained, on line and in essential control of the country. The Surge has advanced this goal substantially. It is not our job to resolve Iraq's political problems. That is for the Iraqi people to decide through the democracy which we provided them. Congress' political benchmarks are at best Ugly Americanism and at worst will push the Iraqis to seek alternative sponsors like Iran. Complete peace may not come about for some time until the Sunnis accept their diminished political role and there will probably be a measure of terrorism for some years. However, the vast majority of Iraq is generally pacified now and the Surge offensive is clearing and pacifying the Baghdad area and Diyala. Once the last couple provinces can be handed over to the Iraqis, we can substantially draw down our forces to what Petreus is calling an "overwatch" or support role. However, we better get used to the fact that we will have some forces in Iraq for the foreseeable future. We are engaged in a long war against Islamic fascism just like the Cold War against communism. Containment in this war will require forces in various places across the Middle East. Indeed, given the rampant violence in Iraq as contrasted with our own relatively peaceful experience throughout the American "federalism debate," one might reasonably infer that the rivalries in Iraq run deeper than our own, and thus the Iraqi federalism debate will take more time to resolve than ours did. Huh? Our federalism debate was largely settled in a massive civil war which killed over a million citizens. In stark contrast, there is no civil war in Iraq. The Sunnis are joining the government and most of the killing is being done by foreign al Qaeda suicide bombings.
I presume that "Steve" is joking with regard to his reference to "our own relatively peaceful experience throughout the American "federalism debate.'"
Certainly he was being sarcastic, but it was my impression that Steve was targeting Crocker's implication that the federalism debates surrounding our founding took decades, rather than dismissing the potential of such debates to lead to mayhem. Certainly they did take decades (centuries) to resolve, but is that really the process to which Crocker referred? Was the gap between, say, 1790 and 1860 rampant with bloodshed and massive depopulation related to federalism debates raging in our political centers? If it wasn't, is it really inappropriate to call that period "relatively peaceful"? I think the problem is this trope that is propagated by the administration wherein the new Iraqi political leaders are like The Founders (capitalized for effect), and they just need the right time and climate to receive the same results. Unfortunately, that time and climate seems to be the post-revolutionary war period of the United States, so it's an analogy poorly fitted to current conditions in Iraq, and one worthy of as much scorn (humorous or otherwise) as can be heaped upon it.
I presume that "Steve" is joking with regard to his reference to "our own relatively peaceful experience throughout the American "federalism debate.'"
I wasn't joking, I was referring to the Articles of Confederation period. I consider our Constitution to have been a peaceful settlement, even though we now know with the benefit of 220 years worth of hindsight that much blood was shed hashing out the unresolved issues. A political settlement by the Iraqi people today would be a huge victory for one and all - not that it is going to happen - even though such a settlement would surely not foreclose the possibility that 50 or 80 or 100 years from now, there might be violence or a civil war to resolve certain issues. Indeed, I'm not sure there is any country on earth that can make such a guarantee. In any event, I see now that Bart was not making the point that we need to stay in Iraq to facilitate a political settlement, but was merely seeking to advance the usual fictions about how Iraq is virtually pacified and we're kicking ass, etc. There's surely no point in having that debate for the umpteenth time.
I appreciate Steve's clarification. One should recognize that what made Philadelphia possible (among many other things) was, in no particular order: 1) the absence of Jefferson and John Adams; 2) the absence of any representatives of slaves, free Blacks, women, or American Indians; the remarkable non-transparency of the negotiations in Philadelphia, carried out in what was, to us, unthinkably successful secrecy with no leaks. Compare the circumstances facing those charged with negotiating a constitution in Iraq (or, for that matter, anywhere else in the modern world).
Post a Comment
Perhaps the single stupidest comment of the past five years was that of Gen. Garner, the first putative "czar" of the Iraqi transition, who said, upon being questioned about the expectation that the Iraqis would be able to negotiate a new constitution in only several months, that he was basing his confidence on the experience in Philadelphia. The stunning level of ignorance captured in that analogy captures all too much of the mindset that justified going into Iraq in the first place. (It would also have been good, incidentally, if anyone had ever read a single book about the post-1865 "reconstruction" of the ostensibly "defeated" Confederacy. But that is expecting too much of this administration.)
|
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 |