On the other hand
The preceding post (http://dethronekinggeorge.blogspot.com/2006/05/crocodile-tears.html) concludes the sudden attack of Constitution-loving currently afflicting the Royalist leadership in Congress is nothing but a sham. Not everyones sees it that way. The consensus in the more rationale precincts of Blogland is they are braying about "separation of powers" for one of two reasons:
1) They are trying to keep the FBI from poking into any of the rampant corruption that has been the singular hallmark of the Royalist reign in the Legislative Branch for more than a decade. Kos argues the Royalists even have enablers among their reputed opponents:
"Congress (with [Minority Leader] Pelosi's acquiesence) has proven completely unwilling and unable to police its own. It has taken several justice department investigations to begin rooting out the deep corruption in the place. It's a cesspool.
And there is NOTHING in the Constitution that places Congress above the laws faced by the rest of American citizens. If there is lawbreaking happening on Capito[l] Hill, the Justice Department is duty bound to investigate and enforce the law." http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/24/20302/4409
2) The Royalists don't want the object of this most recent outrage, William Jefferson (D-Freezer) frogmarched out of the Capitol Building too quickly. Michael Tomasky at Tapped pointedly asks:
"[D]oes anyone else suspect that maybe half the reason Hastert et al. are so in heat over the Jefferson raid has nothing to do separation of powers and something to do with the fact that if they defend Jefferson and help him stay in the House, the corruption issue doesn’t cut so cleanly for Democrats?" http://www.prospect.org/cgi-bin/mtype/mt-tb.cgi/664
There is a third possibility. Frist, Hastert and the entire Royalist kaffee klatch may actually believe in the principle of separation of powers and they are standing on that principle. As Matt Yglesias notes at Tapped:
"Dennis Hastert and the other congressional leaders are right on the merits here. There's a reason why security for Congress (and the Supreme Court) is provided neither by the Secret Service, nor by the FBI, nor by the DC Police Department, but rather by a special Capitol Police Department (or Supreme Court PD for the SCOTUS). This is also why the Constitution stipulates that members "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." http://www.prospect.org/cgi-bin/mtype/mt-tb.cgi/663
He's right, of course. The Constitution erects a wall between the authority vested in the Executive Branch and that entrusted to the Legislative Branch (and another wall protecting the Judiciary from the other two). It is an edifice of words, of ideas, yes, of principles. Each branch is expected in our Constitutional system to respect the authority of the other two.
I might buy the "matter of principle" argument if there was a scintilla of evidence that Frist, Hastert and the happy Royalist band had ever...even once...actually conducted their public duties as if they believed in the separation of powers. They have not. At each incursion by King George into the legislative arena (see "signing statements"), the Royalist parliamentarians have risen in unison to cheer, "Hear! Hear!" At every instance when King George has ordered his minions to violate the express will of Congress (see "NSA illegal wiretapping"), then brazenly bragged in pubic about his exercise of untrammelled imperial authority, the Royalists on the Hill have positively swooned at his manly assertiveness. Each time His Majesty has thumbed his nose at the Judicial Branch (see "Jose Padilla"), Bill and Denny and the gang have linked arms to sing "God Save the King".
In other words, I'll believe Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert and their fellow travelers are acting "as a matter of principle" if they ever demonstrate they have any principles.
I'm not holding my breath.
1) They are trying to keep the FBI from poking into any of the rampant corruption that has been the singular hallmark of the Royalist reign in the Legislative Branch for more than a decade. Kos argues the Royalists even have enablers among their reputed opponents:
"Congress (with [Minority Leader] Pelosi's acquiesence) has proven completely unwilling and unable to police its own. It has taken several justice department investigations to begin rooting out the deep corruption in the place. It's a cesspool.
And there is NOTHING in the Constitution that places Congress above the laws faced by the rest of American citizens. If there is lawbreaking happening on Capito[l] Hill, the Justice Department is duty bound to investigate and enforce the law." http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/24/20302/4409
2) The Royalists don't want the object of this most recent outrage, William Jefferson (D-Freezer) frogmarched out of the Capitol Building too quickly. Michael Tomasky at Tapped pointedly asks:
"[D]oes anyone else suspect that maybe half the reason Hastert et al. are so in heat over the Jefferson raid has nothing to do separation of powers and something to do with the fact that if they defend Jefferson and help him stay in the House, the corruption issue doesn’t cut so cleanly for Democrats?" http://www.prospect.org/cgi-bin/mtype/mt-tb.cgi/664
There is a third possibility. Frist, Hastert and the entire Royalist kaffee klatch may actually believe in the principle of separation of powers and they are standing on that principle. As Matt Yglesias notes at Tapped:
"Dennis Hastert and the other congressional leaders are right on the merits here. There's a reason why security for Congress (and the Supreme Court) is provided neither by the Secret Service, nor by the FBI, nor by the DC Police Department, but rather by a special Capitol Police Department (or Supreme Court PD for the SCOTUS). This is also why the Constitution stipulates that members "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." http://www.prospect.org/cgi-bin/mtype/mt-tb.cgi/663
He's right, of course. The Constitution erects a wall between the authority vested in the Executive Branch and that entrusted to the Legislative Branch (and another wall protecting the Judiciary from the other two). It is an edifice of words, of ideas, yes, of principles. Each branch is expected in our Constitutional system to respect the authority of the other two.
I might buy the "matter of principle" argument if there was a scintilla of evidence that Frist, Hastert and the happy Royalist band had ever...even once...actually conducted their public duties as if they believed in the separation of powers. They have not. At each incursion by King George into the legislative arena (see "signing statements"), the Royalist parliamentarians have risen in unison to cheer, "Hear! Hear!" At every instance when King George has ordered his minions to violate the express will of Congress (see "NSA illegal wiretapping"), then brazenly bragged in pubic about his exercise of untrammelled imperial authority, the Royalists on the Hill have positively swooned at his manly assertiveness. Each time His Majesty has thumbed his nose at the Judicial Branch (see "Jose Padilla"), Bill and Denny and the gang have linked arms to sing "God Save the King".
In other words, I'll believe Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert and their fellow travelers are acting "as a matter of principle" if they ever demonstrate they have any principles.
I'm not holding my breath.
posted by wally at 7:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home