So I guess its the last day of the worst year of my life. By worst I mean at a mentally and emotion low. The Year started with Tony's coffee and reading Nietzsche..........Hmmmm
I found a quarter on the ground the other day and it was the best thing that had happened to
me in weeks.................................................................................................I used it for bus fare.
It pisses me off that the older I get the harder it is to hold on to the ideals of my youth
As I walked to work a kitten with a disabled leg came by, meowing and licking itself.
I keep trying to tell myself that light will come from darkness, but its hard to believe that stuff after you've admitted to yourself what a selfish jerk you are
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
War Powers - pre-WWII Cold War
Started a job at Pizzeria Fondi in U-district, that's why I haven't been blogging much lately. I have to ride 3 buses and it takes at least an hour and a half each way. Seattle got hit with the worst snow storm, cold weather and wind we've had in decades, right when I was starting my new job of course. It's fun though, we use a brick dome oven that gets 700 F and cooks a pizza in 5 minutes. Last night was winter solstice, so the days will start to get longer again. Me and Mandy (black lab/chow) go romping in the snow, she loves it.
The common perception is that the so-called Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union began after WWII, but the US was actively opposing the Bolsheviks after their revolution in 1917. Small wars fought in many countries and continents fall under the Cold War category not because the US was in combat with Russians, but because we used the perceived threat of Bolshevism to use military force to uphold the in equal arrangements of US capitalism. The actual threat of communist infiltration was minimal in most cases, the real danger was the effect socialist economic planning would have on the profits of US Corporations.
Take the case of Nicaragua for instance. The US intervened repeatedly in the years from 1909 to 1933 to support a conservative party of oligarchs who favored US business (United Fruit) against a liberal party that had popular support and wanted to change their role as a stockroom for the global economy. (Irons, 121) During Calvin Coolidge's administration, Adolfo Diaz, the illegitimate president of the country, faced a popular insurgency that he claimed was formed by Mexican Bolsheviks. When Coolidge sent troops and naval vessels to "supervise" an election, Congress responded with a bill that prevented him from sending any more. They didn't quite reassert their Constitutionally delegated war powers, but at least they didn't give a blank check.
A supreme court case from this time had major repercussions for the extend of executive privilege. In 1933, Congress allowed the package of legislation known as the New deal to go through due to the need to deal with the depression. The National Industrial Recovery Act (HIRA) and Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) gave the president the power to set prices and quotas for hundreds of products, and tax food manufacturers to pay farmers not to farm (reducing supply to up demand). (Irons, 122) The Supreme Court challenged this delegation of legislative powers onto the executive, and FDR used the Justice department to attempt to undermine the Courts authority.
In another instance, the Court backed FDR's intrusion into the foreign policy making power of Congress. The Paraguay River is the border between Bolivia and Paraguay, and major route for products going to the Atlantic. When the Bolivians tried to seize it, a war erupted and FDR made a congressionally backed proclamation outlawing the shipping of arms to either side. After the conflict, it was claimed by federal prosecutors that the Curtiss-Wright company had sent 15 machine guns to Bolivia. They company resisted indictment with the claim that congress had "improperly delegated legislative power to the executive branch". (Irons, 124)
The Supreme Courts ruling made a distinction between domestic affairs and foreign, and gave the president wide ranging power in the latter, and limited the delegation doctrine of Congresses role in shaping foreign policy. According to the Curtiss-Wright ruling, the nation's survival depended on the presidents control of international relations. Sutherland's opinion brought up a stance taken by former Justice Marshall, that the executive was the "sole organ of the nation in its external affairs, and its sole representative with foreign nations." (Irons, 125) The ruling set the shaky precedent of an inherent presidential power with no constitutional backing.
The Spanish civil war was a conflict that many US citizens felt demanded the intervention of the US, constituents of the left wanting support of the Republican government and Catholics supporting Franco as the Republicans were secular leftists, and to some degree persecuted Catholics in Spain. It was also important for its international significance and role as a prelude to WWII. The Republican group, made up of "communists, socialists, and anarchists" was supported by the Soviets and other left-leaning European governments. (Irons, 127) The Fascist rebel group was supported by the Nazis and Mussolini's Italy, who were using belligerent language about Socialist/Communists.
FDR refused to choose sides in the conflict, Irons suggests a motive in the role both leftists and Catholics have in the Democratic party. FDR enacted an arms embargo on either Spanish group, a move which did more to hurt the Republican left than the Fascist Right, and helped the Fascist movements in Germany and Italy. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, FDR claimed neutrality, but started shipping arms and ammo to the British and the French, in a repeat of the lead up to US involvement in WWI. (Irons, 128) FDR made a deal with Churchill to give naval destroyers in return for US use of Islands in various parts of the British empire. Rather than consulting Congress, he used the argument of AG Jackson that he could do what was necessary to acquire and maintain naval and military bases as C in C. The deal was essentially a treaty, but cleverly crafted and unconstitutional legal doctrine allowed the bloated executive powers to be further enlarged.
The common perception is that the so-called Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union began after WWII, but the US was actively opposing the Bolsheviks after their revolution in 1917. Small wars fought in many countries and continents fall under the Cold War category not because the US was in combat with Russians, but because we used the perceived threat of Bolshevism to use military force to uphold the in equal arrangements of US capitalism. The actual threat of communist infiltration was minimal in most cases, the real danger was the effect socialist economic planning would have on the profits of US Corporations.
Take the case of Nicaragua for instance. The US intervened repeatedly in the years from 1909 to 1933 to support a conservative party of oligarchs who favored US business (United Fruit) against a liberal party that had popular support and wanted to change their role as a stockroom for the global economy. (Irons, 121) During Calvin Coolidge's administration, Adolfo Diaz, the illegitimate president of the country, faced a popular insurgency that he claimed was formed by Mexican Bolsheviks. When Coolidge sent troops and naval vessels to "supervise" an election, Congress responded with a bill that prevented him from sending any more. They didn't quite reassert their Constitutionally delegated war powers, but at least they didn't give a blank check.
A supreme court case from this time had major repercussions for the extend of executive privilege. In 1933, Congress allowed the package of legislation known as the New deal to go through due to the need to deal with the depression. The National Industrial Recovery Act (HIRA) and Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) gave the president the power to set prices and quotas for hundreds of products, and tax food manufacturers to pay farmers not to farm (reducing supply to up demand). (Irons, 122) The Supreme Court challenged this delegation of legislative powers onto the executive, and FDR used the Justice department to attempt to undermine the Courts authority.
In another instance, the Court backed FDR's intrusion into the foreign policy making power of Congress. The Paraguay River is the border between Bolivia and Paraguay, and major route for products going to the Atlantic. When the Bolivians tried to seize it, a war erupted and FDR made a congressionally backed proclamation outlawing the shipping of arms to either side. After the conflict, it was claimed by federal prosecutors that the Curtiss-Wright company had sent 15 machine guns to Bolivia. They company resisted indictment with the claim that congress had "improperly delegated legislative power to the executive branch". (Irons, 124)
The Supreme Courts ruling made a distinction between domestic affairs and foreign, and gave the president wide ranging power in the latter, and limited the delegation doctrine of Congresses role in shaping foreign policy. According to the Curtiss-Wright ruling, the nation's survival depended on the presidents control of international relations. Sutherland's opinion brought up a stance taken by former Justice Marshall, that the executive was the "sole organ of the nation in its external affairs, and its sole representative with foreign nations." (Irons, 125) The ruling set the shaky precedent of an inherent presidential power with no constitutional backing.
The Spanish civil war was a conflict that many US citizens felt demanded the intervention of the US, constituents of the left wanting support of the Republican government and Catholics supporting Franco as the Republicans were secular leftists, and to some degree persecuted Catholics in Spain. It was also important for its international significance and role as a prelude to WWII. The Republican group, made up of "communists, socialists, and anarchists" was supported by the Soviets and other left-leaning European governments. (Irons, 127) The Fascist rebel group was supported by the Nazis and Mussolini's Italy, who were using belligerent language about Socialist/Communists.
FDR refused to choose sides in the conflict, Irons suggests a motive in the role both leftists and Catholics have in the Democratic party. FDR enacted an arms embargo on either Spanish group, a move which did more to hurt the Republican left than the Fascist Right, and helped the Fascist movements in Germany and Italy. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, FDR claimed neutrality, but started shipping arms and ammo to the British and the French, in a repeat of the lead up to US involvement in WWI. (Irons, 128) FDR made a deal with Churchill to give naval destroyers in return for US use of Islands in various parts of the British empire. Rather than consulting Congress, he used the argument of AG Jackson that he could do what was necessary to acquire and maintain naval and military bases as C in C. The deal was essentially a treaty, but cleverly crafted and unconstitutional legal doctrine allowed the bloated executive powers to be further enlarged.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
War Powers - WWI
Woodrow Wilson, who was elected on the promise to remain neutral in the conflict in Europe, demanded congress declare war in response to German U-boat attacks on US supply ships. Interestingly, the US, not Germany, had broken International law by sending supplies to England while professing neutrality. The Lusitania, an ocean liner sank by Germans, was carrying ammunition and the Germans had the right under international norms to sink it. The economy had been in a recession, and the US was making money off its neutrality by selling supplies. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state." (Irons, 102,103) The declaration came after Wilson was inaugurated in his second term, again as a neutral candidate.
Wilson used propaganda and a compliant press to make the shaky case for war. He did so by invoking the evocative language of humanitarian intervention. This masked the true reasons America would enter the war; to make sure the global economy didn't collapse and keep the natural resources flowing from British and German colonies. Politicians and business leaders used the phrase "making the world safe for democracy" to cloak the economic imperatives. (Irons, 106)
The issue of the balance of war powers between executive and legislative branches was raised again when Wilson sought US involvement in the League of Nations. This international body would use parliamentary procedures among member nations to resolve international disputes. Dissent to the formation of this body was expressed by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on the grounds that it gave further war-making powers to the executive. Wilson didn't approve of the power congress had been delegated by the constitution over executive foreign policy decision making. The formation of the League was a part of the Treaty of Versailles to end the war, but this treaty was rejected time and time again by Congress. The dissenters didn't disagree with the aims of the League, the wanted only to uphold the Constitutions explicit statement that war-making powers cannot be delegated to the executive, even through Congressional consent. (Irons, 111)
Opposition to the war was high, with Socialists aiding draft resisters and publicly calling the war "a crime against the people of the US." The Wilson administration took a hard line that betrays the importance of public sentiment to the war effort. The Espionage act was passed in 1917 with harsh sentences for anyone aiding in the resistance of the draft and enlistment efforts. The Socialists used the indirect methods of speeches and pamphlets, acts that were Constitutionally protected.
The Supreme court case dealing with limits on free-speech and dissent during war was the Schenck case. Schenck prepared a pamphlet that was sent to men who had been drafted or were going to be. The pamphlet contained information about constitutionally protected free speech and encouraged people to help repeal the draft by coming to meetings and petitioning the government. It asked people to assert their rights, not to take any other actions than voicing objection. Schenck and four others were arrested and charged under the Espionage act with obstructing "the recruitment and enlistment services of the US." (Irons, 114)
The case was decided by the Supreme court after the war was over with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes writing the unanimous decision. Holmes made the blasphemous ruling that free speech depended on circumstances, and that the circumstances of the Schenck case made questionable what would have otherwise been protected free speech. His vague and obfuscating metaphor about the limits of free speech is very well-known,"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." He also felt that the government didn't need to prove his pamphlet had induced draft resistance, the intent was enough.
The distinction between peacetime and wartime free speech was in direct conflict with the earlier ruling in Milligan. "The Constitution of the US is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." None of its provisions "can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government" (Irons, 117) The Holmes standard of "clear and present danger" was later overturned during the Vietnam war with the ruling that only speech "directed to inciting of producing imminent lawless action" could be considered criminal.
Wilson used propaganda and a compliant press to make the shaky case for war. He did so by invoking the evocative language of humanitarian intervention. This masked the true reasons America would enter the war; to make sure the global economy didn't collapse and keep the natural resources flowing from British and German colonies. Politicians and business leaders used the phrase "making the world safe for democracy" to cloak the economic imperatives. (Irons, 106)
The issue of the balance of war powers between executive and legislative branches was raised again when Wilson sought US involvement in the League of Nations. This international body would use parliamentary procedures among member nations to resolve international disputes. Dissent to the formation of this body was expressed by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on the grounds that it gave further war-making powers to the executive. Wilson didn't approve of the power congress had been delegated by the constitution over executive foreign policy decision making. The formation of the League was a part of the Treaty of Versailles to end the war, but this treaty was rejected time and time again by Congress. The dissenters didn't disagree with the aims of the League, the wanted only to uphold the Constitutions explicit statement that war-making powers cannot be delegated to the executive, even through Congressional consent. (Irons, 111)
Opposition to the war was high, with Socialists aiding draft resisters and publicly calling the war "a crime against the people of the US." The Wilson administration took a hard line that betrays the importance of public sentiment to the war effort. The Espionage act was passed in 1917 with harsh sentences for anyone aiding in the resistance of the draft and enlistment efforts. The Socialists used the indirect methods of speeches and pamphlets, acts that were Constitutionally protected.
The Supreme court case dealing with limits on free-speech and dissent during war was the Schenck case. Schenck prepared a pamphlet that was sent to men who had been drafted or were going to be. The pamphlet contained information about constitutionally protected free speech and encouraged people to help repeal the draft by coming to meetings and petitioning the government. It asked people to assert their rights, not to take any other actions than voicing objection. Schenck and four others were arrested and charged under the Espionage act with obstructing "the recruitment and enlistment services of the US." (Irons, 114)
The case was decided by the Supreme court after the war was over with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes writing the unanimous decision. Holmes made the blasphemous ruling that free speech depended on circumstances, and that the circumstances of the Schenck case made questionable what would have otherwise been protected free speech. His vague and obfuscating metaphor about the limits of free speech is very well-known,"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." He also felt that the government didn't need to prove his pamphlet had induced draft resistance, the intent was enough.
The distinction between peacetime and wartime free speech was in direct conflict with the earlier ruling in Milligan. "The Constitution of the US is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." None of its provisions "can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government" (Irons, 117) The Holmes standard of "clear and present danger" was later overturned during the Vietnam war with the ruling that only speech "directed to inciting of producing imminent lawless action" could be considered criminal.
Monday, December 15, 2008
War Powers - Spanish-American War
As the US economy grew to an international level after the Civil War, the drive of US foreign policy shifted to expansionism. (Irons, 88) Close to our shores and home to much American investment and trade was Cuba, which was rebelling against Spain. Pressure from the business community was felt by Congress, which wanted President Cleveland to declare war on Spain and intervene in Cuba. The executive, for once, was against the war and he said he would refuse to mobilize if Congress declared. (Irons, 90) McKinley came to office in 1897 and was against the war as well until the February 15, 1898 sinking of the Maine in Havana. A report falsely concluded Spain was at fault (false flag??) and the public was firmly on the war wagon.
In a scenario reminiscent of the lead up to our current war, Congress passed the Teller amendment with a large margin, riding the wave of indignation that swamped any rational diplomatic thinking. The idea that this would be an easy victory dominated and kept any objectors silent. The amendment contained the vague hyperbole of American support for democracy and liberation of oppressed people. It stated that the US would leave Cuba after it could govern itself. (Irons, 91)
The true intentions of those who had pushed for the war became apparent with the provisions demanded of the Cuban constitution by the Platt Amendment. It stated the US could "...intervene for the preservation of Cuban Independence" and that Cuba must allow land naval bases. The US did intervene repeatedly, and the phrase "Cuban Independence" was shown to mean the continued profit from US trade and investment in Cuba. (Irons, 93)
The biggest gains to the US empire in this war were in the Pacific. The US navy went to the Philippines, a Spanish colony, and destroyed the Spanish fleet. Spain gave up the Philippines along with Guam and Puerto Rico for 20 million. The Philippines, while having some resources themselves, were more valuable for the access they give to the markets of Asia. The constant expansion of markets for the consumption of American products is the common theme to American foreign policy in the 2oth century and beyond. The intentions of the US business community were served well, and those who had been calling for expansion before the war used the sinking of the Maine as the excuse to set in motion their imperial ambitions. The similarities between this use of a convienent pretext to carry out policies that would otherwise be opposed, and our current War on Terror should be apparent.
In a scenario reminiscent of the lead up to our current war, Congress passed the Teller amendment with a large margin, riding the wave of indignation that swamped any rational diplomatic thinking. The idea that this would be an easy victory dominated and kept any objectors silent. The amendment contained the vague hyperbole of American support for democracy and liberation of oppressed people. It stated that the US would leave Cuba after it could govern itself. (Irons, 91)
The true intentions of those who had pushed for the war became apparent with the provisions demanded of the Cuban constitution by the Platt Amendment. It stated the US could "...intervene for the preservation of Cuban Independence" and that Cuba must allow land naval bases. The US did intervene repeatedly, and the phrase "Cuban Independence" was shown to mean the continued profit from US trade and investment in Cuba. (Irons, 93)
The biggest gains to the US empire in this war were in the Pacific. The US navy went to the Philippines, a Spanish colony, and destroyed the Spanish fleet. Spain gave up the Philippines along with Guam and Puerto Rico for 20 million. The Philippines, while having some resources themselves, were more valuable for the access they give to the markets of Asia. The constant expansion of markets for the consumption of American products is the common theme to American foreign policy in the 2oth century and beyond. The intentions of the US business community were served well, and those who had been calling for expansion before the war used the sinking of the Maine as the excuse to set in motion their imperial ambitions. The similarities between this use of a convienent pretext to carry out policies that would otherwise be opposed, and our current War on Terror should be apparent.
Friday, December 12, 2008
War Powers - continued starting with Civil war
The Civil War has obvious parallels to our current "War on Terror"(Newspeak anyone??) especially when we look at Supreme court rulings based on Lincoln's blockade of the Confederacy and suspension of Habeas Corpus. Lincoln issued these proclamations while congress was in recess and when they returned he said this about his actions. "Whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity, trusting then, as now, that Congress would readily ratify them." (Irons, 70) Congress then performed that common dereliction of duty in giving Lincolns proclamations retroactive sanction.
Lincolns blockade stated that any ships from neutral countries trading with the Confederacy could be seized. The issue brought before the court in the Prize cases was whether or not the president had the right to issue the blockade under international law. A larger issue was how did a civil war, began as an domestic insurrection, fit into the constitutional delegation of war powers? (Irons, 72) The issue of the blockade centered on this question: were the Union and Confederacy independent nations and belligerents in an actual war?? Justice Grier wrote in the majority opinion that this was the case and that Lincoln had the right to enforce the blockade, even though a blockade is an act of war that only congress can enact.
In making this ruling, Grier forfeited the duty of the court to apply the constitution to the other two branches of government and any disputes or transgressions that might occur. Grier's statement that the issue of the blockade was "...a question to be decided by him ,(Lincoln) and this Court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of Government" exempted this type of executive action from judicial scrutiny. (Irons, 74) The dissenters argued that the court hadn't done its duty to "say what the law is" and that "no subsequent ratification could make them (unconstitutional executive proclamations) valid". (Irons, 75)
The suspension of habeas came about because union soldiers heard that there were plots to blow up trains carry war supplies through Maryland (a slave state still in the Union). The order ""..allowed Union officers to arrest and detain without trial anyone suspect of threatening "public safety."" (Irons, 75) The Constitution put the ability to suspend habeas to protect public safety in the event of rebellion or invasion in the hands of Congress. A confederate supporter named Merryman was arrested and his lawyer petitioned the Supreme Court Justice Taney to apply habeas to the case. He allowed Merryman to remain in military custody but asserted that Lincolns suspension of habeas was unconstitutional, and that arbitrary arrests meant we lived under a military government.
Lincoln replied with the same justification that Jefferson used: following the law too strictly could lead to our destruction. When he said that "...some single law (habeas), made in such extreme tenderness of the citizens liberty that practically it relieves more of the guilty that of the innocent..." he expressed his disdain for habeas and the concept of protection from executive abuse it embodies. (Irons, 80) Sound familiar?? Maybe the Patriot act, enemy combatants, and Guantanamo Bay ring a bell.
The Milligan case centered on the trial before a military commission of suspects in a plot to set Confederate POW's free. Milligan and three others were sentenced to death, and this sentence was signed by Lincolns successor, Andrew Johnson. The Case was appealed to the Supreme court with the argument that military tribunals had no jurisdiction in Indiana because it was not in danger of invasion, martial law had not been imposed, and federal courts were still functioning. The Court, now headed by Salmon Chase, questioned the legal authority of military tribunals. The unanimous decision to release Milligan from military custody was written by Davis and stated that Milligan had not received his basic constitutional protections.
In case it is not obvious, I will spell out the similarities between these Civil War incidents and contemporary ones.
1. Granting of emergency powers to the executive by congress without debate.
2. Executive taking unconstitutional action.
3. Subversion of civil liberties and suspicion of civilians as traitors.
4. The use of military tribunals.
Lincolns blockade stated that any ships from neutral countries trading with the Confederacy could be seized. The issue brought before the court in the Prize cases was whether or not the president had the right to issue the blockade under international law. A larger issue was how did a civil war, began as an domestic insurrection, fit into the constitutional delegation of war powers? (Irons, 72) The issue of the blockade centered on this question: were the Union and Confederacy independent nations and belligerents in an actual war?? Justice Grier wrote in the majority opinion that this was the case and that Lincoln had the right to enforce the blockade, even though a blockade is an act of war that only congress can enact.
In making this ruling, Grier forfeited the duty of the court to apply the constitution to the other two branches of government and any disputes or transgressions that might occur. Grier's statement that the issue of the blockade was "...a question to be decided by him ,(Lincoln) and this Court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of Government" exempted this type of executive action from judicial scrutiny. (Irons, 74) The dissenters argued that the court hadn't done its duty to "say what the law is" and that "no subsequent ratification could make them (unconstitutional executive proclamations) valid". (Irons, 75)
The suspension of habeas came about because union soldiers heard that there were plots to blow up trains carry war supplies through Maryland (a slave state still in the Union). The order ""..allowed Union officers to arrest and detain without trial anyone suspect of threatening "public safety."" (Irons, 75) The Constitution put the ability to suspend habeas to protect public safety in the event of rebellion or invasion in the hands of Congress. A confederate supporter named Merryman was arrested and his lawyer petitioned the Supreme Court Justice Taney to apply habeas to the case. He allowed Merryman to remain in military custody but asserted that Lincolns suspension of habeas was unconstitutional, and that arbitrary arrests meant we lived under a military government.
Lincoln replied with the same justification that Jefferson used: following the law too strictly could lead to our destruction. When he said that "...some single law (habeas), made in such extreme tenderness of the citizens liberty that practically it relieves more of the guilty that of the innocent..." he expressed his disdain for habeas and the concept of protection from executive abuse it embodies. (Irons, 80) Sound familiar?? Maybe the Patriot act, enemy combatants, and Guantanamo Bay ring a bell.
The Milligan case centered on the trial before a military commission of suspects in a plot to set Confederate POW's free. Milligan and three others were sentenced to death, and this sentence was signed by Lincolns successor, Andrew Johnson. The Case was appealed to the Supreme court with the argument that military tribunals had no jurisdiction in Indiana because it was not in danger of invasion, martial law had not been imposed, and federal courts were still functioning. The Court, now headed by Salmon Chase, questioned the legal authority of military tribunals. The unanimous decision to release Milligan from military custody was written by Davis and stated that Milligan had not received his basic constitutional protections.
In case it is not obvious, I will spell out the similarities between these Civil War incidents and contemporary ones.
1. Granting of emergency powers to the executive by congress without debate.
2. Executive taking unconstitutional action.
3. Subversion of civil liberties and suspicion of civilians as traitors.
4. The use of military tribunals.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
War Powers - History of expanding executive privelege
One of the most important issues regarding Obama's presidency will be his stance on the fact that the executive branch of our government has been expanded far beyond the intentions spelled out in the constitution. How does he view the notion of inherent and implied powers and the balance of war powers between legislative and executive branches? I guess we can't really expect the president to voluntarily give up the executive privileges he has inherited, so the real question is will the legislative and judicial branches attempt to restore the balance of power, which it has been reluctant to do. I've been reading the book War Powers which examines the steady enlargement of the executive branches authority to make decisions regarding use of force without congressional approval. It does so by looking at various administrations, the relevant military conflicts and supreme court rulings. I'll discuss this work below.
The concept of federal government hashed out by the constitutional convention rested upon the balance of between legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The legislative was to the law-making branch, whose laws were enforced by the executive with the judicial there to resolve conflict between the other two. (Irons, 16) The constitution that they approved stated "the legislature of the US shall have the power to declare war" showing that the delegates wanted to exclude the executive from this function. (Irons, 20) The document gave the executive "...the power to repel sudden attacks" and this statement, along with the vague commander-in-chief provision, has been used to justify an amazing amount of clearly offensive war-making directed by the executive with a complacent congress. It was clearly the intentions of the framers that "...only Congress could authorize the deployment of forces outside the nation's territory in combat against foreign troops." (Irons, 21)
From the beginning, presidents acted unconstitutionally by taking exclusive control of foreign-policy decisions. Take Washington's Proclamation of neutrality in the conflict between British and French, which countered the congressionally ratified Franco-American treaty. The essential dispute that will continue to our own day was laid down here, and it was rooted in the vagaries of the constitution in defining terms such as war, commander-in-chief, and declaration of war. Was there such a thing as congress acknowledging a state of war without formally declaring it?? A supreme court case settled in 1804, Little V. Barreme stated that the "president must follow congressional directives" in directing foreign policy and authorizing troop deployments. (Irons, 39)
The issue was touched on again during Jefferson's presidency when he ordered military purchases without congressional approval in response to the British firing on the American ship Chesapeake. He stated the dangerous "law of necessity doctrine", that in times of emergency the president could take extralegal action. "To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." (Irons quoting Jefferson, 43)
An important case following the war of 1812 involved soldiers refusing duty and the executive power to mobilize state militias. In Martin V. Mott, Mott was court-marshaled for refusing to report for duty in the state militia. He argued that New york state "...faced no imminent danger of British invasion." (Irons, 49) The court convicted him and set the precedent that troops or citizens couldn't ask for proof of the legitimacy of executive military actions. The did so on the grounds that "the disclosure of the evidence might reveal important secrets of state, which the public interest, and even safety, might imperiously demand to be kept in concealment." (Irons, 50)
Our first clear instance of a president deliberately provoking military attack and masking imperial ambitions behind the visage of defense was the annexation of Texas and the subsequent Mexican War under Polk. Texas joined the union in 1845 and Polk set an envoy to Mexico auspiciously to clear boundary disputes and offer a price for California that he knew would be rejected. US troops moved to the Rio Grande and began making the preparations for invasion in sight of a Mexican fort, which send troops over the border in response to this deliberate provocation. Despite dissent, congress approved a declaration of war, authorizing retroactively Polks unconstitutional deployment of troops. A quote from Lincoln summarizes the concerns raised by this instance. "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion,and you allow him to make war at pleasure." (Lincoln quoted by Irons, 59)
The concept of federal government hashed out by the constitutional convention rested upon the balance of between legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The legislative was to the law-making branch, whose laws were enforced by the executive with the judicial there to resolve conflict between the other two. (Irons, 16) The constitution that they approved stated "the legislature of the US shall have the power to declare war" showing that the delegates wanted to exclude the executive from this function. (Irons, 20) The document gave the executive "...the power to repel sudden attacks" and this statement, along with the vague commander-in-chief provision, has been used to justify an amazing amount of clearly offensive war-making directed by the executive with a complacent congress. It was clearly the intentions of the framers that "...only Congress could authorize the deployment of forces outside the nation's territory in combat against foreign troops." (Irons, 21)
From the beginning, presidents acted unconstitutionally by taking exclusive control of foreign-policy decisions. Take Washington's Proclamation of neutrality in the conflict between British and French, which countered the congressionally ratified Franco-American treaty. The essential dispute that will continue to our own day was laid down here, and it was rooted in the vagaries of the constitution in defining terms such as war, commander-in-chief, and declaration of war. Was there such a thing as congress acknowledging a state of war without formally declaring it?? A supreme court case settled in 1804, Little V. Barreme stated that the "president must follow congressional directives" in directing foreign policy and authorizing troop deployments. (Irons, 39)
The issue was touched on again during Jefferson's presidency when he ordered military purchases without congressional approval in response to the British firing on the American ship Chesapeake. He stated the dangerous "law of necessity doctrine", that in times of emergency the president could take extralegal action. "To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." (Irons quoting Jefferson, 43)
An important case following the war of 1812 involved soldiers refusing duty and the executive power to mobilize state militias. In Martin V. Mott, Mott was court-marshaled for refusing to report for duty in the state militia. He argued that New york state "...faced no imminent danger of British invasion." (Irons, 49) The court convicted him and set the precedent that troops or citizens couldn't ask for proof of the legitimacy of executive military actions. The did so on the grounds that "the disclosure of the evidence might reveal important secrets of state, which the public interest, and even safety, might imperiously demand to be kept in concealment." (Irons, 50)
Our first clear instance of a president deliberately provoking military attack and masking imperial ambitions behind the visage of defense was the annexation of Texas and the subsequent Mexican War under Polk. Texas joined the union in 1845 and Polk set an envoy to Mexico auspiciously to clear boundary disputes and offer a price for California that he knew would be rejected. US troops moved to the Rio Grande and began making the preparations for invasion in sight of a Mexican fort, which send troops over the border in response to this deliberate provocation. Despite dissent, congress approved a declaration of war, authorizing retroactively Polks unconstitutional deployment of troops. A quote from Lincoln summarizes the concerns raised by this instance. "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion,and you allow him to make war at pleasure." (Lincoln quoted by Irons, 59)
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Been discussing architecture with my sister when I went to visit and again over Tgiving. She's taking a class on modern arch at UCSC and I've studied it a little, my interest centering on how architecture reflects historical socio/cultural patterns as well and power dynamics. The use of architecture by the state (the original propaganda??) goes back to what Mumford calls the megamachine and its monumental products; the pyramids, ziggurats, Stonehenge, Tikal, Angkor Wat. Architecture was the symbol used to express the sacred ordination of the secular, the king/priest alliance. Flash forward to the use of romantic architecture by totalitarian/fascist/democratic movements in the 20th century.
The history of modern arch seems to begin (perhaps some overemphasis from Gideon) in Germany after WWI with the Bauhaus movement. This movement was suppressed and many of its adherents came to America where modern arch was centered after the war. An exception, Mies, submitted a design for the Reichsbank that the Nazi's approved of. Nazi's said Bauhaus was decadent, Bolshevik and cosmopolitan.
Watching doc now, Gropius builds the Bauhaus at Dessau with Ford style assemble line, very modern. Glass facade detached from load bearing pillars, transparent, no isolation, designed to encourage interaction and banish privacy. Its very industrial (radiators as ornaments), function is beauty. Influence of Cubism, interpenetration of space, all superfluous elements removed.
The history of modern arch seems to begin (perhaps some overemphasis from Gideon) in Germany after WWI with the Bauhaus movement. This movement was suppressed and many of its adherents came to America where modern arch was centered after the war. An exception, Mies, submitted a design for the Reichsbank that the Nazi's approved of. Nazi's said Bauhaus was decadent, Bolshevik and cosmopolitan.
Watching doc now, Gropius builds the Bauhaus at Dessau with Ford style assemble line, very modern. Glass facade detached from load bearing pillars, transparent, no isolation, designed to encourage interaction and banish privacy. Its very industrial (radiators as ornaments), function is beauty. Influence of Cubism, interpenetration of space, all superfluous elements removed.
Karl Popper - The Open Society and its Enemies
I'll take a break from Mumford to discuss Popper. Some comments on the megamachine first though. Me and some friends were in Port Orchard looking across at the shipyard and wondering why the Armed Forces, who have outsourced so much, still produce Navy ships. We saw that the Air Force buys planes from other companies, weapons as well. The Naval shipyard is a modern example of the megamachine. It requires the mobilizations of much labor and the accountability of the chain of command.
Karl Poppers book critics the methods of the social sciences, what he calls historicism. His critic is situated in the context of the totalitarian and fascists states in the 1930's. He see the argument that the phenomenon of fascism was inevitable as an social impotence born from the dominance of historicism in the social sciences. (Popper, 2) Historicism means the belief that we can look at the past and draw scientific laws of history that allow us to give historical prophecies. (Popper, 3) The belief in this "metaphysics of history" prevents us from effectively applying science to the reform of social problems.
Popper gives psychological explanations for the desire of some, usually leaders or elite cirlces, to give prophecy, and the willingness of others to follow it. Those prophesying apocalypse give expression to a feeling of dissatisfaction and alienation with current conditions. By using the method of prophecy, humans can write off any calamity as inevitable, and rid themselves of the responsibility of attempting to change repressive situations. (Popper, 4) Popper wants to save the social sciences from its fall into historicism, but fears that many have already given up on reason and social science because they cannot conceptualize it without the prophetic undertones. Historicism appeals to us because we are not satisfied with "...a world which does not, and cannot, live up to our moral ideals and to our dreams of perfection." (Popper, 5)
Historicism is a reaction against the ideal of individual responsibility held so highly in our society.
Popper discusses Plato at length, as a founding father of historicism, following Heraclitus. Plato holds that tenet of historicism, that it is the ruling elite which must be concentrated upon as the vehicle of social change, and not the blind masses who simply follow the whims of the chosen few. He also attempted to explain laws regulating the evolution of political society.
Karl Poppers book critics the methods of the social sciences, what he calls historicism. His critic is situated in the context of the totalitarian and fascists states in the 1930's. He see the argument that the phenomenon of fascism was inevitable as an social impotence born from the dominance of historicism in the social sciences. (Popper, 2) Historicism means the belief that we can look at the past and draw scientific laws of history that allow us to give historical prophecies. (Popper, 3) The belief in this "metaphysics of history" prevents us from effectively applying science to the reform of social problems.
Popper gives psychological explanations for the desire of some, usually leaders or elite cirlces, to give prophecy, and the willingness of others to follow it. Those prophesying apocalypse give expression to a feeling of dissatisfaction and alienation with current conditions. By using the method of prophecy, humans can write off any calamity as inevitable, and rid themselves of the responsibility of attempting to change repressive situations. (Popper, 4) Popper wants to save the social sciences from its fall into historicism, but fears that many have already given up on reason and social science because they cannot conceptualize it without the prophetic undertones. Historicism appeals to us because we are not satisfied with "...a world which does not, and cannot, live up to our moral ideals and to our dreams of perfection." (Popper, 5)
Historicism is a reaction against the ideal of individual responsibility held so highly in our society.
Popper discusses Plato at length, as a founding father of historicism, following Heraclitus. Plato holds that tenet of historicism, that it is the ruling elite which must be concentrated upon as the vehicle of social change, and not the blind masses who simply follow the whims of the chosen few. He also attempted to explain laws regulating the evolution of political society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)