Is there a pill for regressive-induced,
hypocrisy-produced, chronic nausea?
And, if so, where can
I buy a truckload of them?
Hey, guess who's running
around nowadays banging the drum calling for limiting presidential power
and prerogatives? Some lilly-livered liberal wimp? Nope.
Some weak-kneed hate-America terrorist-sympathizer? Nein, dummkopf.
How about some bleeding-heart card-carrying ACLU-type litigating lawyer
for depraved criminals? Sorry, that's a negative, good buddy.
Turns out, of all people,
it's two of the most hard-core advocates for executive authority who
ever served the most anti-Constitutional administration in all of American
history. Remember John Bolton and John Yoo? Would you believe
that they're all of a sudden enormously concerned about the prospect
of overweening presidential power?
Yeah, that's right.
Obama isn't even president yet, and they have already worked themselves
into a tizzy about how "the new president and Secretary of State-designate
Hillary Clinton, led by the legal academics in whose circles they have
long traveled" might be "binding down American power and interests
in a dense web of treaties and international bureaucracies".
Ooooooohh, golly.
Sounds ominous, doesn't it? Fellow travelers, and all!
International bureaucrats restricting American interests. Yikes.
Does that mean like some nefarious plot by Ban Ki-moon to limit Citigroup's
total freedom to exploit Latin American countries with predatory loans?
Does that mean that some French guy in a suit will actually make us
share the use of the oceans with the rest of the world?
Dang, that sounds worse
than anything! Worse even than - and I'll just arbitrarily
choose a couple of examples here - say, torture or invasion or war.
Which provides quite
a fine and convenient segue, as a matter of fact, to a short reminder
of who these two characters are. Bolton is the lovely steroid-laced
bull who was sent by George Bush to the UN to remind the rest of the
world precisely what the United States thinks of it (hint: it's
kinda like what Dick Cheney thought of Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy,
that day he ran into him on the floor of the Senate and recommended
to Leahy that he perform an unnatural and rather improbable sexual maneuver
without a partner). Bolton is so radical, he has spent the last
couple of years criticizing the Bush administration for being a bunch
of pansies. They only invaded two countries in eight years!
What kind of superpower worth its name is that weak-kneed?!
Yoo, on the other hand,
is a legal 'scholar' who made a name for himself by authoring all
the memos that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Rumsfeld and that nice Mr. Cheney
told him to write, even if they did authorize torture and declare that
the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war were "quaint" and "obsolete".
He basically argued that you could smash people to within just about
an inch of their lives, and it still wouldn't meet the definition
of torture. I mean, true, it would hurt and all, but it wouldn't
legally qualify as torture. According to John Yoo, that is.
And, so, of course, the
Bush administration spent eight years doing whatever it felt like doing,
with less than zero interest in respecting any restraints on executive
power, whether those emanated from international law, other branches
of government, the Constitution, or Western traditions of democracy
and liberty dating back in some cases all the way to Magna Carta.
Remember signing statements? Scoffed-at subpoenas and Congressional
oversight? Telling courts they lacked jurisdiction? Claiming
the power to lock up any American at any time for any reason without
any means of redress whenever the president felt like it? Trashing
international law and subverting its institutions at every turn?
That was so yesterday!
Today, on the other hand, what this country really needs to fear is
an excess of presidential power so grave that it threatens the very
foundation of our constitutional republic! It's amazing how
fast that changed!
And it's amazing what
prompted these two great defenders of democracy and republicanism to
publish their warning salvo as a big fat New York Times op-ed.
It was their fear that the Congress would be left out of what they claim
is its crucial traditional role in sharing power with the president
on making agreements with other countries. Okay, well, actually
it's not even really Congress where their concern lies, but with the
Senate. And, um, actually it's not even quite the Senate they
seek to protect, but rather a super-minority of one-third of the Senate.
Hmm... Interesting that this should all of a sudden now become
so crucial in order to save Lincoln's last best hope for mankind.
As Bolton and Yoo point
out, presidents may sign executive agreements with other countries,
and such a process allows for no congressional involvement whatsoever.
Presidents may also sign treaties that are then submitted to majority
vote in both the House and Senate (known as Congressional-executive
agreements), as a second form of international agreement process.
Or, the president may go the third and most difficult route, which is
to have a two-thirds super-majority in the Senate ratify the treaty.
Throughout history, presidents have followed all three paths, as they
saw fit. In fact, as the authors themselves point out, such big-time
agreements as the Bretton Woods pact, the GATT treaty, and the NAFTA
treaty - three of the most consequential multilateral agreements of
the post-war period - all became American law via the less demanding
second route.
But now, Mssrs. Bolton
and Yoo are gravely concerned that the new president will do something
really nefarious, like force the United States to be even remotely responsible
on global warming issues, or subject American citizens to the rule of
international law concerning war crimes or genocide. You know,
abhorrent impingements on American sovereignty that would allow "international
bureaucrats" to tell Americans what to do. That's the difference,
you see. Bretton Woods, GATT and NAFTA were, of course, mere economic
agreements. They didn't threaten American liberties, even if
those liberties might be the freedom to commit planetary suicide, or
the freedom to avoid prosecution for mass murder.
Or worse. Bolton
and Yoo are also especially worried that the new president might pull
a fast one and get the land mine ban treaty or the law of the sea treaty
enacted by calling for a congressional vote! And winning majorities
in both houses! I mean how sneaky is that?! How anti-democratic?!
Next thing you know, he'll be calling for a plebiscite to decide these
issues, in order to complete his evil plan to shut out the public entirely
from any say in the running of their government. Or, more accurately,
in the running of King Barack I's government!
I just want to say that
I am grateful indeed for the efforts of these two fine gentlemen to
warn us against the dangers of international law, and especially against
the hazards associated with overbearing presidential power. I'm
sure they're as upset as I am that so many have been so silent about
these issues for so long. Like the last eight years, for example.
I'm sure it's just
a coincidence that they are just now getting around to speaking up when
they did, the day before the new Congress began work, and two weeks
before we get a president.
I'm sure it's just
an oversight that they haven't been just as worried and upset about
signing statements, trashed congressional subpoenas, scrapped Bill of
Rights liberties, and the absence of congressional war declarations.
Surely it's just a typesetting
error that they don't tell us in their article that the Constitution
does in fact also provide for treaty approval by both houses of Congress,
and that this process has historically been used for such non-economic
agreements as SALT and the recent nuclear pact with India.
No doubt it's just
an accident that they don't mention how US-signed and ratified treaties
- like, for example, the UN Charter, which prohibits war except in
self-defense or by Security Council authorization - are described
as "the supreme Law of the Land" in the Constitution.
No, bless these two protectors
of democratic governance for their courage and their dispassionate and
unbiased support for the rule of law and control of runaway executive
authority. Or even runaway majority Congressional authority!
No matter who is in power, there they are, in the trenches, fighting
for the Constitution.
They are quite right
to note that what really matters is to protect the right of a super-minority
of 34 senators to block international agreements that both houses of
Congress and the president want to enact.
Oh, by the way.
Did I mention that the only power Republicans retain anymore, after
getting clobbered in two consecutive elections, is the blocking power
of a minority in the Senate? No doubt another this is just another
odd coincidence.
Or, alternatively, just
the beginning of a whole series of remarkable conversions we're going
to see from those great enablers of Bush's devastatingly destructive
march to the sea. Government bailouts? Okay in 2008.
Wasteful pork-barrel spending in 2009. Gigantic deficits?
Couldn't be helped under Bush. Outrageous under Obama.
Stealing elections? Sorry, Sir Scalia would like to remind you
that Bush v. Gore was "limited to the present circumstances" only.
If you like hypocrisy,
you're gonna love the coming months and years.
As for me, I'd like
to get a whole bunch of those anti-regressive-induced, hypocrisy-produced,
chronic nausea pills, please.
And I'm going to need
lots of those little bags you find on the back of airline seats, too.