Where's Audrey Hepburn? Rogue outfits at Royal Ascot.
Cultural Offering notes the bizarre logic behind a judicial power grab.
Wally Bock on the need for downtime.
Tim Berry outlines how to create a habit.
YouTube is experimenting with full length video.
Beautiful planes: Donald at 2Blowhards visits the Air Force Museum.
Must reading: Robert Samuelson on learning from the oil shock.
Revisionist history: Victor Davis Hanson and Pat Buchanan. [My take: Hanson wins.]
Kevin Kelly at Cool Tools lists books that changed his life. [And provides a photo of his library!]
2 comments:
Hi Michael,
as someone whose writing I enjoy and respect, I felt compelled to comment on your characterization of the Boumediene decision as a bizarre power-grab by the judiciary.
The link itself points out the novelty of the decision, but omits that the novelty exists purely because no president has asserted the legal theory that you can ignore the constitution using the legal equivalent of an offshore tax haven. There's lots of reasonable arguments to be had about how we should handle detainees, but it's hard to imagine that the founding fathers expected the government could do whatever they wanted to someone if they just took them on a boat trip. It's telling that the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute filed an amicus brief on the detainee's behalf:
http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=0b07989a-c59a-4e44-befc-75f9cf5ae1c3
I was mostly disappointed because I've come to expect more thought-provoking and meaty links on the political side, ones that make me think even if I don't agree. Treating this as self-evidently stretching the constitution like Roe v Wade (which I see as bad law, even though I'm pro-choice) is a big missed opportunity. The discussion over at Opinio Juris for example has a lot more depth from legal scholars on both sides of the argument.
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Pete Warden
Dear Pete,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments and the links. I'm aware of the range of opinions from the libertarian bar and the more liberal sources. I agree that a mere boat trip would be insufficient to elude constitutional protections but likewise feel that mere control is equally insufficient to impose them. This was not a mere boat trip. An American citizen was not taken to Gitmo and denied rights nor was a noncitizen seized on US territory and then denied rights. In either of those cases, I would understand Justice Kennedy's position. The executive and legislative branches, however, had worked out a solution and the judicial branch, through what appears to be a new theory, knocks it over. I don't believe the president is saying the Constitution can be ignored. He is simply saying that under certain circumstances, it does not apply.
You are correct. A topic this complicated shoiuld not have been addressed in a Miscellaneous and Fast posting. Pure sloth is my excuse. I'll provide more analysis on such issues in the future. Thanks again and best wishes.
Post a Comment