Wed
Jan 10 2007
10:50 am
They do not see what lies ahead, when Sun has faded and Moon is dead.
By: Sven


This piece is titled, "Undisclosed Location"

I think I've finally figured out what's driving this surge business. As a military strategy/tactic it's completely incoherent, even by Bushian standards. Nor does it make much sense politically; even Ollie North won't drink this weak Kool Aid. They have to know the disgruntlement will increase when it doesn't work or, more likely, makes things worse.

So what's the point?

I believe it's a delaying action on the presidential prerogatives front. We dirty hippies like to think of Iraq as Cheney and Co.'s obsession. But it absolutely pales in comparison - both in scope and duration - with the real Precious®: the Federalist Society gospel on Article II. There will always be more countries to wreck and a-rabs to kill, what what good are they if the Preznit can't pull the trigger?

Viewed through this lens The Surge begins to make sense. It's a logical, if cynical, reaction to the midterm elections - which presented a real threat to Executive Authority as defined by the FedSocs. It also helps explain why the roll out was delayed to coincide with the debut of the new Congress, when they could have easily gained permission from the lame duck 109th.

And given the emerging reaction from congressional Dems, it may prove to be quite shrewd. Even the moonbattiest, tricksiest of the pinko caucus appear to be content with sniping at the New Way Forward - which was obviously designed to be disposable (along with the troops) - rather than the war in general or, God forbid, Cheney's Precious itself.

Topics:
Johnny Ringo's picture

Maybe I'm missing something

Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Wed, 2007/01/10 - 2:04pm.

I've read the article you cite and I see nothing in it that mentions the Federalist Society. My understanding of the FS is that it does not, as an organization, adopt policy positions. It is more of a debating society for conservative and libertarian lawyers and law students, set up in part to counterbalance the National Lawyer's Guild. While there may be some who claim FS membership and support the view of Art.II that Dean discusses in his article, it is just as likely that there are more libertarian members of the FS that take an opposite view.

If you have an example of the FS, as an organization, taking a policy position as regards Presidential Power under Art.II, I'd love to see it. Otherwise it kinda looks like you are using the FS as a kind of boogieman, much in the fashion that the Right often uses the ACLU.

[EDIT] From the Federalist Society's FAQ:

Q. Does the Federalist Society take positions on legal or policy issues or engage in other forms of political advocacy?
A. No. The Society is about ideas. We do not lobby for legislation, take policy positions, or sponsor or endorse nominees and candidates for public service. While overall the Society believes in limited government, its members are diverse and often hold conflicting views on a broad range of issues such as tort reform, privacy rights, and criminal justice.

Sven's picture

While there may be some who

Submitted by Sven on Wed, 2007/01/10 - 3:46pm.

While there may be some who claim FS membership and support the view of Art.II that Dean discusses in his article, it is just as likely that there are more libertarian members of the FS that take an opposite view.

That's fair dinkum, JR. I shouldn't generalize.

My prejudice comes from 1) the fact that the architects of the administration's legal strategy are FedSoc members 2) the fact that Cheney rants about this stuff at their meetings and 3) the fact that founder Steven Calabresi is regularly quoted by the press as in favor of the positions Dean outlines.

Also, I highly doubt that the Society considers Article II to be a "policy" matter (I don't doubt there's a wide range of opinions on the policies that have resulted from the Cheneyan usage of "inherent authority," but I do doubt there's a lot of dissent on the legal principle of said authority).

Johnny Ringo's picture

Perhaps "policy" isn't the right word

Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Wed, 2007/01/10 - 4:23pm.

But as Dean points out, there is room for more than one interpretation of the amount of power afforded the President under Art. II, and I doubt that all FedSoc members would agree on the boundries and limits to that power.

I attended a Federalist Society convention at the University of Chicago once. The topic of the conference was the role of "conservative" judges. About half the speakers advocated for the traditional "stare decisis" rule - the very definition of paleoconservative jurisprudence - while about half advocated for a more activist role, arguing that if liberal judges take activist positions on the bench while conservatives hew to a "stare decisis" line, over time the left's agenda will inevitably be enacted by the courts. It was a lively discussion.

The point is that there is a broad range of thought within the FS, and I don't think that its safe to characterize the organization's outlook of the question of presidential vs. congressional power simply because some of the more high profile members advocate a particular position.

Besides, what member of a Presidential administration ever argued for less power for the President?

Sven's picture

because some of the more

Submitted by Sven on Wed, 2007/01/10 - 5:19pm.

because some of the more high profile members advocate a particular position.

Fair or not, I use the name as an adjective/pejorative because I've never once heard a Society member advocate "paleoconservative jurisprudence." I don't think Bruce Fein is a member; if he is, he sure doesn't brag about it.

Every time I hear an FS member open his or her mouth, I hear the same thing. Just last night I listened to one of them speak nothing but Cheneyish. Maybe I don't get out enough. Or maybe they need better PR counsel.

Anyway, it really isn't my mission in life to demonize the FedSocs. Honestly. We have the LaRouchies (and Robert Bork..heh heh)for that, and its my bad for bringing it up and distracting from my point. But I won't back down from arguing that the people responsible for legal Cheneyism - whatever they're called - are radical freaks. Dangerous radical freaks.

Nor am I a dogmatist about presidential power. I consider myself a pragmatist in the tradition of Robert Jackson, who I think would say our current circumstances are as much a result of Congress neglecting its power as much as the executive usurping it.

Johnny Ringo's picture

It was ever thus

Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Wed, 2007/01/10 - 5:31pm.

Nor am I a dogmatist about presidential power. I consider myself a pragmatist in the tradition of Robert Jackson, who I think would say our current circumstances are as much a result of Congress neglecting its power as much as the executive usurping it.

Of course. The essence of the Constitutional framework was based on the assumption that the variois branches of government would seek greater power, and would be checked by the other branches that did not wish to lose power. Executive power tends to ebb and flow, although the general trend since the Civil War has been toward a more powerful executive. Congress is now in a position to reassert itself, as it did in 1994.

Sven's picture

I sure hope so. Like

Submitted by Sven on Wed, 2007/01/10 - 6:11pm.

I sure hope so. Like Jackson, I'm a pessimist on these issue and don't believe the ship automatically rights itself. It takes massive effort and ingenuity. The worrisome trends he outlines in Youngstown almost 60 years ago have magnified exponentially. The accumulators of executive power have the advantage in incentives, organization, motivation and, as we'll witness tonight, they have a big-ass microphone.

If the Our Gang Clubhouse response from the Dems above is any indication, our long national nightmare may be just beginning.

Sven's picture

Holy crap. WASHINGTON, Jan.

Submitted by Sven on Wed, 2007/01/10 - 2:18pm.

Holy crap.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.

[...]

While Mr. Kennedy and a relatively small number of other Democrats were pushing for immediate, concrete steps to challenge Mr. Bush through legislation, Democratic leaders said that for now they favored the less-divisive approach of simply asking senators to cast a vote on a nonbinding resolution for or against the plan.

They also sought to frame the clash with the White House on their terms, using language reminiscent of the Vietnam War era to suggest that increasing the United States military presence in Iraq would be a mistake.

O'tay 'Panky. That'll show 'em who's boss!

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives