From Salon:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/02/mansfield/index.html

The editorial in question:

http://opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010014

Ok folks, this is it. The national divide lies here in this one editorial. Looking back at all that has been discussed on all sides, it's all contributory to views that fall on either side of the simple idea found in the headline of this thread.

Equality, civil liberties, guns!, ideologies, power of the people, over the people, etc...

All of it comes down to the test we face. Our principles or our need for available resources. Oil people, crude, black gold, whatever you want to call it. Safety in dangerous times is secondary to this, in that times are dangerous because ready resources are growing scarce.

Discuss?

Missing, I think some clarification is in order before this discussion goes further - and it *is* an extremely worthy discussion.

The thread title is from the headline of the WSJ article by Mansfield, which you link to. But I believe you are misinterpreting the word "energy".

The "energy" referred to is the energetic action that neoconservatives would like to see a unitary executive be able to take if and whenever it is deemed necessary. Laws by nature are a constraint on action (there are no laws that allow action, only laws that prohibit action). So, the Rule of Law that is a guiding principle of American Democracy is a constraint to all, including (to the frustration of neocons) the President.

The Rule of Law is therefore limits the President's ability to act with Energy. He cannot declare war on his own, cannot pass his own laws, cannot take actions beyond those powers delegated in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

This use of the word "energy" dates back to Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was a staunch Federalist, and to his death (by Aaron Burr's dueling pistol [too bad they didn't have gun control back then]) he argued for an Energetic Executive branch, one that could respond as needed to crises and circumstances. One could argue that Hamilton was the original neocon.

For further clarification of "energy" here are Hamilton's words from Federalist No. 70:

"Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy. Every man the least conversant in Roman history knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome...Taking it for granted, therefore, that all men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic executive; it will only remain to inquire, what are the ingredients which constitute this energy?"

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=16

I strongly suggest reading the rest at the above link. In fact, it seems clear that the WSJ article is largely an update of Federalist No. 70.

SO, the point is whether a nation in time of crisis can afford the "rule of law" that slows and hobbles energetic decision making and action, or would we be best served by a unitary executive that is above law in those circumstances?

Yep. I co-mingled the two uses, new and old.

Dwindling energy really is still a test we must face as a race. If not this test, then another. This is the test of our time, IMHO.

How our government, in particular, the executive, acts --with unbridled energy, or constrained by law, being the root of our national schizm --our division, stated above.

Sorry!

Discuss?

(and that's an excellent link. I'll be spending some time there)

On how we are best served, my first attempt to even tread here surrounds the idea that law is mallable and can therefore adapt.

On a deeper level, law represents reasoned approval, entitlement, refined energy, if I may be that permissive in the use of the word.

So, having struggled with this question and having been so tested, why can't a nation craft law such that energy is tuned, focused and active with intent, without the raw potential for harm this energy would otherwise present?

FISA is an excellent example of this kind of law.

The executive needs to act quickly, and does. The only requirement is of an accounting where said acts can be weighed when time permits.

This is an interesting check in that the executive can act freely, but will face an accounting eventually. Why surrender completely to a power when this option is available to the people, so threatened?

By contrast, setting the executive above the law allows for a travesty of the law. We then have the unbridled energy, but we also are forced to trust a power not under our control will:

-act for our greater good, with no direct incentive to do so (if it's not ever illegal, no accountability really can occur!)

-be willing to again submit to the will of the people, having performed as necessary.

Who is to judge this travesty? Manufactured enemies, shortages, etc... all can trigger unchecked power. Who would not then abuse this to see their will embodied in the nation for their own ends?

I would! That's ugly, but wouldn't any of you?

And that's why it's wrong, particularly when we can craft law to serve our needs and retain our power as people, needing government to serve, not be subject to.

Edit: Scratch all of that (if you read it...)

***I put this on it's own thread as it is really the discussion I think is worth having. Took some time to get there --sorry all for the heavy posts in the interim!****

How about right now?

I know in my personal life, I would ignore law in some cases of survival. (frankly, I've come very close to this) Perhaps a President might ignore law in like kind. I think I could get to a place where I understand that. We might need that.

Is this, or is this not, one of those times where we need to suspend law to get the business of the people done? I think that's the greater question, not posed by the clash of ideologies posted above.

Oil is a biggie, but it's not yet that big of a deal, and we've got options, and we've got time it seems.

Terror is a biggie too, but look around: Does it feel that scary to you? Scary enough to suspend law? I sure don't wake up every morning that afraid of being blown up. I do worry about getting picked up, or beaten, etc...

(and I was beaten by the police a while back too, so that's actually got me thinking a whole lot more than potential terrorists attacks do.)

Actually, when I was beaten, the law was more intact than it is now. Then, I used the courts as they should be used, resolved the whole mess and it's essentially done. Call it a civics lesson and move on. That's where I'm at on that score.

Today, I might find that to be a different exercise however, given the diminished state of law we live under now.

Meanwhile, other aspects of my life have not changed significantly, so where is the justification for the degrading, suspension, whatever of core laws? I'm just not feeling the raw fear necessary for this to occur. Are you guys? Is it the right now, I'm gonna die and can see it kind of fear that makes one just act --with energy?

In short, there are two discussions:

-the potential need for the unconstrained executive and their ability to act with energy

,and

-this, right now, being one of those times where said executive power is warranted.

So, let's assume the former could happen and focus on the latter.

This administration is telling us this is one of those times. A significant percentage of us agrees to this being one of those times. This percentage is not currently a majority, however.

On the surface, if you take things at face value, don't do any digging, etc... it's an ugly story --really ugly! Maybe ugly enough to warrant this crap.

Regardless of what you believe, pro this, anti-that, all of us really should be concerned about the inconsistancies that come with a closer look at what we've been told is true. The deeper we dig, the less consistant this story is --the weaker the case becomes for this being one of those times where the unitary executive is warranted. The case is not solid, in other words.

And that brings me to a last point, in context with these times right now:

If we are indeed living in times where the executive sitting above the law is somehow justified, shouldn't said justification ring true? Shouldn't the total need to act overwhelm all else but survival?

Lies, corruption, mistakes, cultivating fear, etc... all diminish the case for the unitary executive, do they not? If there is time for these things, then we are not at the brink are we? Meaning there is time for law to do it's thing right?

Honestly, I want to hear what you all think about that. It's worrysome, isn't it?

I am embarrassed that the last post was almost three months ago, but I did not step up either. Meanwhile, every pop trifle has been dissected, folks are attacking each other, and we have spiraled into discussions that leave many on the sidelines.

I really liked the article, and the link to the Federalist Papers, but heckfires, I never posted. I think this is a discussion worth having. We should be talking about past and future suspensions of rights in order to achieve the same level of security we had in the first place.

Specifically, we should be talking about the very real dangers of a unitary executive. We fought and died to gain independence from a King. Who still believes in a King? Be honest.

The freedom we enjoy is being debated, as if any American could debate restricting the freedoms of any another American. Yes, this is serious stuff. What we have taken for granted will not be granted, and already is not being granted on many levels.

We the people have got to talk about it. This has been nicely framed in journalistic and historical context by Missing and Edsel. So for me, I guess, it kinda boils down to this:

I am curious what freedom means to everyone. Really, what does it mean?

Isn't it defined quite a bit by life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- even now?

Leave the mud on the ground folks, toss aside your allegiances to any particular crowd and think about it. When it boils down to one person -- You -- how does this set in your gut?

Is giving your American birthright up ever a net gain?

What is terror anyway?

Fear of losing your job?

A child?

Do you worry more about yourself and your kin because of violent loony folks hopped up on cooked allergy medicine?

Or is your little corner of the world really so sleepy and comfortable that you are worried about rich Saudis with a western education that would not even bother to hit a place without huge media coverage?

When have you felt most secure?

Under the watchful eye of parents, teachers, superiors, or law enforcement?

Under starry skies with a few friends in the wilderness?

When you are alone?

Does freedom itself make you feel secure?

In my opinion, the current redefinitions of power and freedom are regressive. It smacks of pandering and forethought when we are so easily led into times like these. A homogenized media is playing on urban fears, rural xenophobia is rampant and those in charge are making back room deals for our sovereignty.

Essentially, the repressed, the reactionary, the unscrupulous and the alarmist kind of personalities are trying to tell the free spirited, the pragmatic, the skeptical and the empirical kind of personalities how to live life. Perhaps, that is why I push back so hard.

I think the last thing in the world we need is another King. Three Kings for Christmas, James Brown, Elvis, and Benny Goodman are more than enough.

Seriously though, what are your thoughts?

wow, my thoughts . . . well, you know, 6 years of King George has befuddled all of us. "WMDs" meas "installing freedom" and "enjoying freedom" means "turning over our library books to goverment snoops."

If Congress doesn't want to dethrone this King, maybe the people can do it on their own. Is that tipping point near?

Just re-read this mess...

I'm totally up for some greater discussion bent this general way.

I'm gonna pick one thing out of there and go:

Are we at the brink?

Yes, no, maybe so and why?

Does this warrant the unitary Executive in the fashion suggested above?

President Lincoln ignored many laws while fighting the war of northern agression, President roosevelt also ignored many laws while fighting WWII.

I have seen no evidence president Bush has ignored or broken any laws.

"I have seen no evidence president Bush has ignored or broken any laws."

So, are you saying it was okay for Bush to lie to us about the WMDs in Iraq?

NO Skep... He is saying that it's okay for DUHbya to lie about ANYTHING!!!!

He didnt lie, he furnished the intel info provided to him. Being partially wrong is not synonomous with lying.

"Being partially wrong is not synonomous with lying."

Nope, Bush didn't know if the statement he was going to make was factually correct, but he passed it off as the truth anyway.

Remember, the Bush adminstration was going around saying things like "massive amounts" and "we know where they are." At no time did they say "we think" or "we're pretty damn sure". They presented it as the absolute truth.

Bush lied.

Yep.

Slippery as always.

Anyone, having made that kind of mistake, and having the best of intentions where NOT LYING is concerned, would have zero trouble owning up to the mistake.

This has not happened. In fact, our policy is hobbled because it has not happened. So, to prevent from losing face and to continue the LIE, we are in the bizzare position of not actually being able to do the right things --because they would then reveal having done the wrong things.