What is a tyrant? For me it is a government without oversight, a check without a balance, all the best players on the same team because the bully says so. Tyrant is the word that popped into my mind as soon as I read about John Ashcroft's first speech since quitting as US Attorney General:
In his first remarks since his resignation was announced Tuesday, Ashcroft forcefully denounced what he called "a profoundly disturbing trend" among some judges to interfere in the president's constitutional authority to make decisions during war. The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war," Ashcroft said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers group.The whole point of a constitution is to allocate responsibilties and limits when things are calm so what when you have a crisis no one goes around scooping them up. As a result, the job of determining if someone like the President has over-reached constitutional authority resides solely with the Courts. When a lawyer writes an opinion about the constitutional acceptability of a proposed action, the general test is whether the action would pass the application of the specific test by the Court. Who else? If, as Ashcroft proposes, the person seeking to do the thing which is constitutionally questionable is also the person who decides whether it is or not, then you have the tyrant. The upside of it is that everyone starts praying, praying that the tyrant does the right thing, praying because that is the only recourse left.
Comments
SayNay? - November 13, 2004 4:18 PM
What happened to (in Ashcroft's view) the "checks and balances" of the American constitutional system? This type of criticism of the judiciary is unworthy of, and unwise coming from, a former Attorney General - one can see "disagreement" with some judges' decisions, but these type of broad statements which hint at an attempt to rally support in the "cowing" of the judiciary are themselves "dangerous".
Alan - November 13, 2004 4:28 PM
It speaks of a person who cannot conceive that maybe the government is wrong once in a while. Whatever the substance of your political leanings, it is a cornerstone of a democracy that we all acknowledge that the government might be wrong - even the one that we personally voted in support of - and needs to be overseen.
alfons - November 13, 2004 6:58 PM
Makes me think of Italy in the 90s, no?
Alan - November 13, 2004 8:47 PM
Ummm - no. But only because I have no idea what was happening in Italy in the 1990s.
Ben - November 13, 2004 10:22 PM
Glad i'm not the only one that had no clue what alfons was talking about.
Alan - November 13, 2004 10:24 PM
Just wait until he wakes up and it will all be made clear. He is six time zones to the east.
alfons - November 14, 2004 6:10 AM
In Italy, the work of judges were quite obstructed by politicians. Short refresher here.
Since then, Italy turned into a "entertainmentcracy": politics and policies on a whim. I think the Italians take it light-hearted, and watch politics with a certain... entertainment. (You'd have to if you realize that they used to have controversial MPs.)
It would be interesting if the US were going that way.
Hans - November 15, 2004 9:20 AM
I've sometimes referred to America as a "celebrit-ocracy". Sounds similar.
Aside: Holy Cow! Al & Saynay agree on something!
Lisa Howard - November 15, 2004 12:33 PM
Hey. I agree too.
Lisa Howard - November 15, 2004 12:34 PM
Oh, wait a minute. I actually agree with Hans and Alfons.
SayNay? - November 15, 2004 6:15 PM
Hans, Al is actually right on the odd occasion!
[Actually, I think it speaks well of all of us that no matter what end of the spectrum one might be labelled as being on, we can see eye to eye on this type of issue]