Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe State, That's Me!
The presidential pardon is a vestige of monarchy.
A few years ago a contributor to The Nation referred to Bush as George II. I wrote in to correct him; that's not how the Brits and other nations number their monarchs. If we follow their example, our George I was George Washington. Then come the two Bushes, making the current inhabitant of the White House our own George III.
Of course, the name George III has, or should have, a special negative resonance in the United States. But that George III was a constitutional monarch, constrained in his actions. We have to go back to the 1600s to find a royal counterpart to George W. Bush.
In 17th-century England, conservative royalists and the Stuart kings, James I and Charles I, insisted upon absolute monarchy and rulership by divine right. Essential to the concept of absolutism was the notion of arbitrary rule. From the Latin root arbiter, the word originally meant "deciding according to one's own discretion," but came to mean "whimsical" and even "despotic."
Monarchs could raise armies and the taxes to pay for them, foist their troops upon the citizenry, and declare expensive and unnecessary wars. The absolute monarch did not have to explain himself to his subjects. He was "the Decider," and if you disagreed with him, you could fritter away the rest of your life in the Tower of London or even lose your head.
Not only was the king was the source of all laws, but he was also, according to this belief system, above the law. The people could not hold sovereigns accountable for their bad behavior, poor judgment, or foolish actions. Arbitrary or absolutist rule meant that James and Charles could ignore the wishes of Parliament and the English people. Both James and his son followed the bad advice of the Duke of Buckingham, who urged, among other things, an expensive war on France.
The liberal alternative to absolute and arbitrary rule was the rule of law -- including due process, issuance of a warrant, habeas corpus, presentation of evidence, and trial by a jury of one's peers.
During Henry VIII' s reign, Parliament granted the monarch the ability to pardon. Rulers could act according to the dictates of their own hearts. Against the advice of her counselors, Henry's daughter, Elizabeth I, pardoned her suitor, Sir Robert Dudley, despite his treasonable behavior.
Writing before the American Revolution, William Blackstone doubted that a democracy could successfully exercise the power of the pardon. The constitutional monarch, unlike the leader of a democracy, existed in a realm beyond party politics. If such a leader could pardon, the common people would be unable to tell "whether a prisoner were discharged by his innocence, or obtained a pardon through favor."
A pardon through favor. Blackstone's words have a particular resonance as everyone wonders whether George W. Bush, who has already commuted Scooter Libby's sentence, will proceed to issue him a full pardon.
President Bush, who claims to favor a strict construction of the Constitution, should therefore consider what the Founders intended when they conferred upon the president the power to pardon. Alexander Hamilton explained their reasoning in The Federalist #74:
"The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel."
Hamilton and his colleagues surely never imagined the presidential pardon being used to rescue a high official in distress-a lawyer who had lied under oath and obstructed the course of an investigation. More likely, he and the other signers of the Constitution envisioned the presidential pardon being used on behalf of some desperate Jean Valjean.
The president would surely appreciate the gravity of his power to pardon, Hamilton wrote in #74, because:
"The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance would beget equal circumspection, although of a different kind. "
The Constitutional Convention vested the authority to pardon in a single person. A group of people, Hamilton explained, "might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency."
The language Hamilton used in #74 is all too relevant to our current scandal. It would certainly be "injudicious," even unscrupulous, of Bush to grant Libby a presidential pardon. The very thought of doing so should inspire in him the dread of being accused of "weakness" or "connivance."
Because the Convention had decided that the presidential pardon should not be "fettered," Hamilton does not give many specific examples of its use. He does, however, give one, and it is not at all applicable to a case like Scooter Libby's. A few sentences after a reference to Shays's Rebellion, Hamilton writes:
"The principal argument for reposing the power of pardoning in this case [sedition] is this: in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth. "
Presidents George Washington and John Adams used their power to pardon in exactly such circumstances-Washington after the Whisky Rebellion and Adams after the Fries Rebellion.
As Governor of Texas, George W. Bush showed no mercy to prisoners on death row, not even when vigorously lobbied to do so by his supporters. As President of the United States, he has been stingy with pardons.
If he does give Libby a full pardon, he will not be extending mercy to the unfortunate, as the Founders intended. Instead he will be demonstrating yet again his belief that he and his courtiers--"my government," as he recently called his administration--are not subject to the law, but above it.
Like another absolute monarch, his motto seems to be, "the state, that's me!"
Carol V. Hamilton, Ph.D.
Center for the Arts in Society
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA
23 Comments so far
Show AllHolymoly Schomoly!
So you think we're unaware of what a complete basketcase of a country Great Britain is, uh?
Has been ever since 1789, don't you know?
Whereas you dozy morons have the constitutional means to do something about your sorry mess (would you like it spelling out?...Impeach! Impeach! Impeach! Yes, that's it. That is IT! BINGO!!), all we can do is sit around on our equally fat arses and type out a message trapped in a corner somewhere. Oh yes, or go demonstrate…just so long as we get permission from the cops!
Really, your people's myopia in all things beggars belief…yet another reason for you to come home to your ancestral roots. You see, the Queen's hubby and your ever so charming father-in-law, Phil the Greek, has such an all-seeing eye that it would be unlikely you got menaced by any nasty abusers ever again. Your future safety would be, of course, their every obsession, oh yes.
Holymoly! You know it's time to ditch the coffee. Come to us and feel the 'perfect' freedom to choke on a cup of Earl Grey. It would be simply splendid old boy!
Weepingbuffalo: you should be crying. Our cousins in England are in the same boat as here. Tony got you into a war with false info, you have bombings of trains carried out by radical "Islamists" who turn out to be patsies in British intelligence "war games" and you have a new law that says you can't protest anywhere around parliament--it seems that parlaying is just for the elite few--like here. Soooo--as the American GI said in WWII to the British soldier who bragged and bragged about the Queen: "Piss on the Queen." The Brit, not at all disturbed replied: "But I say, o boy, ye can't get near her!"
We have no desire to come home to mummy. We couldn't get near her, anyway. BTW, I think George W. is really George II. George Washington refused to be King even though the love-child-want-to-be-aristocrat-so-badly-he-could-taste it Hamilton tried his best to get Washington to be a monarch. While Washington was elitist, he did not wish to be king and he refused to wear a uniform while president because he wanted the post to remain civil and not military. Well, at least that's what I remember from history class; however, I need to re-read Zinn's book, I suppose, if I want the truth.
"The State - that is I" is a quotation from Louis XIV. He nowadays comes across as a peace-loving pinko liberal in comparison to our modern "elected" leaders.
weepingbuffalo: What are you weeping about? You sound quite jolly to me.
Moses Kassandra and cruxpuppy: thanks for your insightful posts.
In fact, cruxpuppy's characterization -- particularly the sentiment regarding personal integrity and honor -- should at this moment be evident for all to recognize. Many of us sensed this man's lack of integrity and honor from the get go, but others wished/pretended that it wasn't so. Well, we should all know now, and it is time for the momentum to build into an unstoppable force - it can happen.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
* I support HRes333 - Impeach the VP
***** time is of the essence *****
P.S. Moses Kassandra - just wanted to mention that I briefly checked out your website and found some of the stories I was able to read interesting (I enjoyed Jenna's "The Consummate Professional") - I plan on adding it to my list of sites to visit weekly. I hope you keep it going. Peace.
Just been back out in our garden clearing away some thorny bushes in preparation for some very special guests.
When I say our garden, we're actually just temporary tenants.
Those thorns were absolutely everywhere though. And you should have seen the size! It took quite a while to clear enough space for table and chairs: each thorn had to be cut down one-by-one with great care, you see. I got scratched quite a few times.
It's a lovely sunny day now and our intention was to have lunch out there when our guests arrived. But guess what? They're stuck in traffic down London way and, who knows, may not even get here until supper! Just goes to show you Ipenek, it's not size that really counts. You should know better by now!
All of this is rather worrying. We were planning to have a nice big meal together this evening, with a nice cup of tea to finish, of course. Yet to have lunch at suppertime, out there in the dark surrounded by dangerous bushes somehow doesn't quite hold the same appeal as our original plan.
We do hope they arrive soon.
Wouldn't want to labour the point you understand, oh no, but two hundred and thirty years is nothing compared to a mother's enduring love. And now your Queen awaits in excited anticipation because she knows that now your house has been finally repossessed by the dark one, it's only a matter of time before you'll have nowhere else to go.
The door is open and the kettle is still on the boil.
Her preference would be for China's finest leaf but, given your homecoming will be such a magnificent occasion, Earl Grey or any other muck will do. Just make sure you bring bulk, and she knows you have plenty of that!
Don't hold anything back now. There's no fooling mother!!
Mommie's waiting!
Don't forget the tea now....kettle's boiling!
Hurry up America!
weepingbuffalo -
Of course we don't let you get our gander up. That would be too......ironic.
But really, even if we could get into those tiny contraptions you call cars (autos?) where would we all go? There's 300 million of us. Even if we leave behynd the inlawws, thets a houwl lotta pueple. YEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAA!!!!
"it's only a matter of time before you'll have nowhere else to go"
That's where you're oh sooooo wrong. There's always the "land down under."
Working in the garden? Isn't the UK a snowy desert already? I thought the mid-ocean conveyor went down years ago. I'll send you some snow-shoes and you can join me in jolly old San Jose, it's only a 6,000 mile trek. Sorry, don't have my units converter handy; let's just say thets a houwl loota met-res!!! YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Glad you pointed out that all the Stuarts supported the "the right of kingship" right down to the Bonnie Prince although he never mentioned it. James I the same bi-sexual monarch they hold dear for having their bible translated into the "kings english" made sure that the "right" was included. Yes they are all connected why else would W stay in Buckingham Palace with HM.
I am sorry but "the state, is him".
The state is never neutral. It does not protect "all" equally. The state is set up to protect the economic base. Any worker who has ever been on strike understands this. The police, (the state) help break the strike and protect the company. If you demonstrate against the government, the multi-national corporations, then the police, the national guard, (the state) protects the multi-nationals interests.
The police, army, national guard, courts, congress, media, well you get the idea, all are part of the super structure that supports the economic base. If you challenge capitalism, then you go up against the state.
The Libby case is all about protecting US multi-national corporations, as they compete in a global economy. The control of oil, is a key component in keeping and maintaining a competitive edge.
The coincidence of the Georges inclines people to think of Bush in terms of monarchy, but the coincidence is not apposite.
This man is a petty gangster with delusions of grandeur and he's saving Libby from the slammer to prevent him from singing.
One has to stop seeing Bush in terms of the dignity and importance of his office. He's a sleazy little gangster, the type who never does his own dirty work. He has no personal integrity and he has no honor.
He is not even capable of understanding the political finesse inherent in the power to pardon. When he proclaims himself "The Decider", he is not rising to the level of an absolute monarch who proclaims "L'etat, c'est moi", assuming in his own person a sublime and impersonal ( not to say impossible ) role.
What he's saying is "I'm the Boss". He is focussed exclusively on his own little in-group, his gang. He does not have the capacity to appreciate or understand the "realm" as a whole. Bush boy cannot be presidential, let alone kingly in his bearing. It's not in him to do that. He's a strutting, cocky little gangster who understands one thing only - power.
The leaders of the world have had to bite their tongues over the rudeness and impertinance of this little bastard.
So enough of this "King George", already!
Been out tending the garden: the Red Rose of England everywhere, don't you know! Marvellous! You all really ought to learn to love them. Such beauty. Even though they're all rotting in the floods along with everything else.
Anyway, I thought my original posting would get someone's gander up but just because it hasn't doesn't mean that I won't proceed as if it had.
Look, we're all quite aware who won the Revolutionary War, but really, don't you think it's about time you Americans got over it?
It's quite simple. No one ought ever think themselves too big or clever not to just go back home to mommie when in trouble. It's always so terribly safe with her. Your fat constitution appears to be well and truly dead (apart from Amend' 2 of course, hurrah!) and, while she never actually had a constitution like yours, our Queen will always know how to love her wayward children. That's right, once home you would indeed be 'subjected' to her fond affection (just make sure you leave the inlaws behind!) and, big as you are now, there'll always be room for you in that white(ish) house of hers. There'll be no forced evictions from that one, that's for sure.
Come home! You know it makes more sense than ever.
The comparison with quotes from the Federalist Papers is nice, but Hamilton was a MONARCHIST. Seriously. And the Constitution was designed to SUBVERT the democratic impulse of the American people. Just as we now fear the undue influence of money and corporate power in our government, the framers of the Constitution feared the undue influence of the PEOPLE in democracy. It was framed to protect minority rights from the will of the majority. The minority in question were the WEALTHY minority who feared a redistribution of wealth. Jefferson OPPOSED the passing of the Constitution and backed off of his opposition only when he came to believe that one must let our "little experiment" go its own way. That his paternalism would stifle the learning process of democracy. He assumed that it was a mistake that would be remedied by later generations.
Of course, in light of this, it is interesting to note that Bush and Cheney are doing things that the Monarchist apologist of our framers considered worthy of fear. Things that he felt obligated to assure the people would not come to pass under the Constitution.
I have to agree with all of you, though Salia has a truly valid point and appears to be as much a cynic as I.
"Scooter" was probably screaming about getting a pardon in the first place. In fact, it was probably what Cheney/Rove promised him if he took the fall originally. Since it didn't happen right away, he probably did offer to "sing" in order to get what he wants out of it. You KNOW that quater mil didn't leave a scratch in the plunder he's made off this administration. It's all a matter of pact amongst criminals.
"The very thought of doing so should inspire in him the dread of being accused of "weakness" or "connivance."
He would require a concience (or even a functioning brain) for that to be true.
I respectfully disagree with the author, and I believe that the president did the right thing. Were clemency and pardon intended to apply only to cases involving compassionate and humanitarian considerations, the hands of our good president would have been tied to save an honorable man with distinguished record of serving his president and VP. While I am of the conviction that the matter of life and death should only be decided by the Creator, let us not forget that the President of the United States has a direct line to the Almighty, and that the same God that told him to attack Iraq and kill thousands upon thousands of innocent and not so innocent humans may have also told him to commute Libby's sentence LEST HE GOES TO JAIL AND SPILLS THE BEANS. Thank you Mr President for showing the world the spectacle of the American justice system. I'm with you, ya becha!
There is anger in the Blogosphere at the outrageous behaviour of this Administration but where are the mass demos, the general strikes, and savage political reactions that will be elicited in other democracies? There are no mass demonstrations because Americans are too fat, too self-satisfied, too ignorant, and lulled into a complacent coma by MSM infotainment. There are no general strikes because the unions are compliant and co-opted by the same corporatist forces that produced the Bush-Cheney cabal. There is no political reaction because the opposition, except an honourable handful, has no principles and are merely triaging public opinion to get (somehow) elected. The Bush-Cheney coup d'etat goes on apace! Bush is the state because no one is challenging him on it.
Sad, really, what has happened to the country that once was a beacon of hope and beckoned idealists in all parts of the world.
Carol,
The timing of this article is perfect. In previous posts, I have cited the "Federalist Papers" numerous times. As you mention, it is abundantly clear that this President has no regard for the Constitution, and as a result King George III is an appropriate title. However, do you not think that it is so much a monarchy as a fascist oligarchy functioning within a corporatocracy?
The author states:
**
Essential to the concept of absolutism was the notion of arbitrary rule. From the Latin root arbiter, the word originally meant "deciding according to one's own discretion," but came to mean "whimsical" and even "despotic."
**
No wonder this concept came to mean "whimsical" / "despotic", because it seems to me that if one ever thinks one is the "decider", that individual will soon discover otherwise and will likely then seem to be either whimsical and/or despotic. In my opinion, these terms characterize the current occupiers of the white house accurately (particularly one of the them).
I'd like to also say that I accuse both the President, George W. Bush, and the Vice President, Dick Cheney (what is his middle name anyhow?) of "connivance". Me and a zillion others.
But what difference does it make what me and a zillion others say or what we think or even if we accuse. Now if the House of Representatives
(you know the uninspired unseemly misfit un-inwit DC outfit)
made an accusation, this might mean something, but well, they are so busy right now taking care of business.....
Regardless, every one has the ability to do their own part and everyone's part is obviously different. Taken together who knows what could be accomplished. It seems to me there is power and safety in numbers.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
* I support HRes-333 : Impeach the VP *
***** time is of the essence *****
** I plan on doing some walking **
Democracy is never fair to all. The function of capitalism is mainly to take in a democracy, it is up to the good of heart to give.
Bush is simply making use of two things very American.
Keeping the CIA escapades under wraps, it has been possible for America to be seen as generous in the past century. There are still several Americans (dare I say Majority?) who would like to be seen around the world as generous. Generous with their love and resources.
For the rest of us, we are doing fine. And if you mistakenly get your poor behind to the doorstep of a McMansion, the armory inside will be used against you.
Given the administration's pitiful silence on the gun control debate following the Virginia Tech atrocity, it would appear that the one clause in the US Constitution that the Neocons will always uphold is the 2nd Amendment. Ah, such delicious irony!
However, there is a popular stereotype round these parts that has it, American's just don't get irony (lucky for some, eh?) and more often than not simply mistake it for crass, sarcastic 'humor.' No wonder, if indeed the stereotype holds (?), there are still as many as 20-25 per cent of the US population that still think G. W. Bush would be a great guy to have round for a beer (go steady, George)….or perhaps a Bloody (hail) Mary, yee Haw!
Listen guys, you know the game's up, don't you? Why don't you just throw away your guns and come back home (sweet home) to live with the Queen, your nation's natural mother? Your lives would be much, much safer that way, though perhaps even less dignified than they are now, and she would be sure to lay on the most splendid reception, pip pip! You would be required to simply provide the tea.
Y'awl ok with that?
America is dulled with tobacco, alcohol, illegal drugs, over the counter legal drugs, television, movies theatre and etc...There are too many cowardly men and women who compromise their lives with immoral behavior, dishonesty and the disrespect for life. Anymore, anything goes, "the greater love has cooled off" although they know how, the collective will to unite against corruption, greed and racism is just a romantic thought. The fear of death at the hands of brutes keeps them locked up in their gated communities and associating within their own cliques. Their shame and guilt keeps them in constant denial and they cannot stand it when someone points out the error of their ways. When you tell them that they are wrong, they want to cut your tongue out and eliminate your thoughts. Faggots run the Media, lesbians are trying to gain the Oval Office. If this occurs, what direction will the country go in next term? Sorry for using that word, "faggot" but afterall, I learned it in America and watched the Brits in the House of Commons don their wigs. I hope, I make you laugh, and I hope I make you cry, but this is all getting ridiculous as time passes by.