Balkinization: A Guess about the Obama Presidency

Comments:

A deep knowledge of Constitutional law as reflected in his vote on FISA/warrantless wiretapping and his promise to expand the Faith-based Initiatives program?

# posted by

Mitch Guthman : 2:46 AM

I am amazed that any amount of money or political savvy or even simple opportunism could put a black man with a funny name and an open history of drug experimentation in the White House. There may be hope yet for this once proud nation. But he remains an imperialist. There is little reason to expect his administration to undue the arrogation of powers witnessed under BushII. If we comfort ourselves that an Obama administration might be more responsive and even sympathetic to liberal values, we nonetheless have to work as hard or harder to hold his feet to the fire.

Still, an amazing day for the nation.

# posted by

Robert Link : 4:39 AM

FREE AT LAST!

One
Black
American
Made
America

FREE AT LAST!

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 5:46 AM

A deep knowledge of constitutional law as reflected in his belief that rights explicitly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have some kind of home rule exception?

Constitutional law professors, I'm sorry to say, are to some extent professional solphists. All it tells me about him is that he'll be really, really good at rationalizing that anything he wants is 'constitutional', and anything he despises is 'unconstitutional'.

# posted by

Brett : 7:47 AM

What Brett (and probably LSR Bart also) will be reluctant to comprehend is that in the final analysis it is the function of the Courts (ultimately SCOTUS) and not of either of them to determine what is and is not constitutional.

Having taught constitutional law at a university of high repute, this president is likely to have a far nicer appreciation of what will be presumptively constitutional until SCOTUS says otherwise than did Bush/Cheney or any of the neocon lawyers who peopled the Bush Administration.

# posted by

Mourad : 8:00 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Charles Gittings : 2:38 PM

I really don't think "imperialist" is accurate Robert. He inherits a position that developed as result of specific policies reflecting specific motives, and the motives of a Dick Cheney and George Bush are simply not identical to those of Barack Obama.

Stephen's comments in this post are exactly right I think: we've elected an intelligent man with an open mind, and that's exactly what we need. The United Nations was intended to be an empire, it was born as an alliance in a desparate war. We do not have to behave like Nazis, and we do not have corrupt the law.

And I'm getting real tired of all this cynicism boefre the administration even begins. I heard Joe Scarborough say one of the more stupid things I've heard in awhile this morning, namely that appointing Rahm Emanuel chief-of-staff was like appointing Tom Delay. As if Rahm Emanuel is a corrupt idieologue like Delay, or the Democrats are in any sense as craven and vile as Republicans.

We have a nation to rebuild, and anyone who thinks this sorry mess will be easy or quick to solve is a fool. The only to solve any problem is to first understand it and then take positive steps to deal with it.

Things are going to change, and YES, WE CAN change them -- so quit thinking we can't or Obama won't.

# posted by

Charles Gittings : 2:40 PM

YES, WE CAN

Overcome
Because
All
Men
Are

CREATED EQUAL!

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:05 PM

@Charles Gittings,

With the likes of Brzezinski advising on foreign affairs it's hard not to be cynical right out of the box. Yes, I believe this Caesar is less evil than the other. But he's still a Caesar, and we are still an imperialist nation.

As for your, "...the motives of a Dick Cheney and George Bush are simply not identical to those of Barack Obama.", who ever said they were? But while not identical, they overlap in many more places than not. We will remain an empire.

# posted by

Robert Link : 5:53 PM

Mourad: "this president is likely to have a far nicer appreciation of what will be presumptively constitutional..."

The difference probably is less a matter of ability to predict, more a matter of meta-legal-theory. The PNAC crowd clearly sees the "rule of law" as a system to be gamed. A professorial type might be a little more idealistic about such matters, a little less inclined to view law as a means to an end (nodding in the general direction of Prof. Tamanaha's book of that title).

I am not entirely disabused of the hope that Mr. Obama's decisions will be founded less on venal personal interest, as was the case with the Cheney junta, and more on a wider interest in individual citizens. One can hope.

# posted by

Robert Link : 5:59 PM

What can I tell you....

Lead me, follow me, or get out of the way. Brzezinski is Brzezinski. What's important is to understand that the process is about to change, and the most significant change of all will be simple fact that there is a process once again. The United States government will actually be thinking about problems again instead of reactively pushing buttons.

And the choice of Rahm Emanuel as Chief-of-Staff is a very clear indication that the Obama administration will be focused on getting things done. He's just right for the job.

# posted by

Charles Gittings : 7:19 PM

I think this President is going to have a keen appreciation for exactly how far, and in what directions, he can stretch the Constitution out of all recognition, without the courts slapping him down. That's almost entirely different from a keen appreciation of what's actually Constitutional.

For instance, I'm certainly expecting some really nasty 2nd amendment related executive orders, and for the BATF to be told to go on the warpath. And this after the Supreme court has finally gotten around to admitting that "a right of the people" refers to a right, of the people.

If it were any right legal academics tended to approve of, you'd go nuts over that.

# posted by

Brett : 7:07 AM

Well Brett, I think your paranoia is showing.

Really nasty you say. Do you mean nasty like murdering people in Iraq just because you really, really had a hard-on to murder some people to show how rough and tough you are?

Or nasty like denigrating basic scientific research on fruit flies?

Or are you just drooling incoherently or what?

# posted by

Charles Gittings : 10:03 AM

How nasty? Lest we forget, during the last Democratic administration it got as nasty as torturing children with tear gas in an effort to get at their parents, and then burning people alive. So, yes, I'm perfectly willing to believe a Democratic administration will tolerate, even tacitly encourage, actions against American gun owners every bit as bad as what Democrats will denounce as war crimes if done to enemies of this country during a war.

It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you, and you've got the evidence that they are.

# posted by

Brett : 12:40 PM

Nungut Brett:

How nasty? Lest we forget, during the last Democratic administration it got as nasty as torturing children with tear gas in an effort to get at their parents, and then burning people alive....

... or shooting women on their front porch for gun law violations... Oh, wait, that was Bush I (despite the common RW nungut attribution of this to Clinton)....

But newsflash for ya, Brett: The Davidians torched themselves. A Republican-led investigation found that. Not to mention the Waco stuff started under Bush I as well. There's a handy-dandy rule, Brett: You don't want the tear gas, don't fire on and kill government agents.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:34 PM

In Brett's defense, while it is true that the compound was set afire by the Branch Davidians, the government's conduct in the raid was atrocious and Waco is a legitimate example of gross Clinton Administration overreach.

Still, though, Obama would have to do a lot to top the constitutional violations and illegal conduct of the current administration.

# posted by

Dilan : 5:21 PM

The compound was indeed set on fire by the Branch Davidians. It was the feds that deliberately pumped the place full of tear gas, knowing there was no protection available for the children, and it was the feds which had deliberately subjected everyone inside to weeks of sleep deprivation by means of loud noises and flashing lights.

You do know that prolonged sleep deprivation reliably drives people mad, don't you? Bet the feds did, too. Perhaps I'm unreasonable, but I figure that, if you deliberately set out to render somebody mentally incompetent, you become responsible for anything they do in that state.

# posted by

Brett : 7:44 PM

Brett, nothing you have said about Clinton/Waco justifies your over the top projections (in every sense of the word) about President-elect Obama's future actions. For instance:

"exactly how far, and in what directions, he can stretch the Constitution out of all recognition."

You do realize, Brett, that here you have exactly described the actions of eight years of a criminally lawless administration bent on near totalitarian (e.g., 'unitary executive') rule? You do see this, right? Never mind that, as mentioned above, it's the Supreme Court that decides constitutionality, not President-elect Obama?
I'll go out on a limb and agree w/ you that Waco was grotesque on all fronts, and I sincerely hope I never see my government act in such a fashion ever again, here or abroad. But you have a chance in a new millennium to stop self-reinforcing such juvenile rhetorical tactics as projecting on the opposition your own party's most egregious behaviors. You have no reason or evidence - NONE - that Obama will act in the manner you've chosen to tar him with, and in fact every shred of observable evidence I'm aware of points to exactly the opposite conclusion, that he will repair as best he can our hemorrhaging Constitution. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, do yourself and everyone else a favor and try, just try to jettison those puerile, cringe-inducing cheap shots you and your folks been throwing around like monkeys with scat.

# posted by

Conrads Ghost : 12:19 AM

I think I'm engaging in a quite rational extrapolation, given,

1. What has actually taken place under Presidents considerably less anti-gun than this former board member of the Joyce Foundation.

2. Make that former board member of the Joyce foundation who is comfortable associating with a former member of the Weather Underground.

3. His reaction to the Heller decision, which was to assert the privilege of local governments to violate provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Am I supposed to actually be impressed by the fact that he was a constitutional law professor? As I've remarked, that just makes him a professional sophist, one of the courtiers to a naked Emperor, who's just gotten promoted to Emperor. I do not expect him to go out and fill the closets with real fabric. I expect him to revel in the opportunity to play nudist while people pretend he's fully dressed.

A few months from now we'll know.

# posted by

Brett : 6:59 AM

A one-note wonder. I give up.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 7:06 AM

You do know that prolonged sleep deprivation reliably drives people mad, don't you?

Would you mind letting the Bush Administration know this?

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:46 AM

You don't really think they're unaware of that, do you?

I occasionally object to over the top attacks on Bush, but I'm not really fond of his administration, on many fronts. "I voted for the lesser of two evils, and he was not nearly so lesser as I'd been led to believe.", is my summation.

The chief difference is that I've got no reason to expect to be on the recieving end of Bush's constitutional violations. Obama's stand a good chance of having me right in the bull's eye.

# posted by

Brett : 12:55 PM

The chief difference is that I've got no reason to expect to be on the recieving end of Bush's constitutional violations. Obama's stand a good chance of having me right in the bull's eye.

"First they came for..."

# posted by

Dilan : 1:11 PM

The chief difference is that I've got no reason to expect to be on the recieving end of Bush's constitutional violations. Obama's stand a good chance of having me right in the bull's eye.

# posted by Brett : 12:55 PM

You could probably use the time in Gitmo to rethink your support for the Bush disaster.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:51 PM

Loud rock music and bright lights outside is not quite the same as blaring that at an immobilised prisoner, and shaking or kicking them if they nod off. It's annoying, but really....

If you're inside, you can use shades, earplugs, pillows, etc.

FWIW, the Branch Davidians were seriously bent long before the BATF showed up....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 7:10 PM

Yeah, but they weren't murder-suicide bent. They were minor religion bent, which is to say they were bent to the same degree as a lot of people we don't blink at, but got more attention about it because their numbers were too small to make mocking them dangerous.

The bottom line for me is that the Davidians never went looking for trouble. The BATF did. I know WHICH bunch of seriously bent people I've got to worry about.

It's not irrational for me to fear that what happened before might happen again, when the new President is a lot more enthusiastic about the cause that inspired those atrocities than the Presidents they originally happened under.

It's not that I think Obama goes to sleep dreaming of burning gun owners to death in their own homes. It's that he's fond of a cause which is unenforceable without some degree of terror, because the subjects of the enforcement don't regard the cause as legitimate, and know that the odds of being caught are poor.

You always get police abuses when you try to enforce a law under those circumstances.

# posted by

Brett : 11:43 AM