Article II Phantasmagoria
Just saw Andy Card on CNN talking about Karl Rove and what a great, "ethical" guy he was. Yammer yammer yammer. Is Card a real person or just a wind-up sycophancy doll? Is Rove keeping Andy's dog on a spit in a subterranean pit somewhere? I don't really care--he sold his soul long ago, and his dog should have used that canine ESP to ditch town--but the mind wanders.
It grates, however, when Card says patently untrue things and John King doesn't even think to challenge them. For example, with regard to Rove's testifying before Congress, Card says [from memory but I think I've got the wording pretty damned close], "Article II says that the President is a separate and equal branch of the government and that his aides shouldn't have to testify, so that he can be assured of getting good advice. And he certainly hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing. This is just prurient interest on the part of Congress."
Where to begin? First, nowhere does Article II say that the Prez is a "separate and equal" branch. Trying to bring back Plessy v. Ferguson, Andy? I know this idea has become a kind of constitutional shorthand, but it is nowhere to be found in the constitution itself and is regularly contradicted by Madison in the Federalist, who comments that "separation" is never absolute and that the legislative branch "necessarily predominates." Same goes for all that crap about aide testimony. Simply. Does. Not. Exist.
The powers of the modern executive are as clear an example as can be found of the "living constitution" idea that conservatives supposedly loathe. I'm by no means averse to some of our departures from the founders on executive power, but let's not pretend that what's oh so convenient for the GOP is constitutionally mandated. Or that Congress has no prerogatives. 'Cause they have.
OK, so a CNN anchor has never bothered to read the constitution. No surprise. But when Card says there are no allegations of wrongdoing against Rove, that's just craaaaazy. This is not his bedroom. Congress doesn't want to ask about his "wife," or his atheist beliefs, or his gay dad. That would be prurient. They want to know about his role in a number of potentially criminal matters where there is strong evidence already in the public record involving obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and violations of FISA and the Hatch Act. Can someone please loan CNN some testicles?
posted by tenaciousmcd @ 6:07 PM
3 Comments:
Didn't it make your skin crawl watching Rove get all teary and sentimental about his years with GWB? Ick.
Listening to Rove talk about his "years of service to the country" was through-the-looking-glass bizarre. I can think of a lot of words to describe what he's done to the country, but "service" isn't one of them.
Nice to know that by September he won't still be receiving a taxpayer-supported salary.
'"separation" is never absolute and that the legislative branch "necessarily predominates."'
Yes, yes, yes, yes. Separation is never absolute because the principle of separation of powers WILL NOT WORK if you try to keep power utterly separate. This is why the constitution was never just about separating powers, but about separating and then giving each branch the proper weapons to fight the others fairly. And this is why Madison's 'true' separation of powers meant precisely a bunch of overlapping of the actual branches - which anyone who even bothers to glance at the constitution can clearly see.
Yeah, that Rove getting teary and trembly stuff really burned my grits. But my favorite Rove era irony is that his primary objective was to destroy the Democratic Party 4-evah, but he ended up blowing up his own house instead. Oops. Poor little sociopath.
What drives me most nuts about the CNN interview with Card is that Card was working from a script he's used a dozen times, it's a lame, bullshitty script, and King never thought to poke holes in any of it. Do yer' frickin' job, man.
Fro, you're dead on. If you take an absolutist approach on separation, ignoring checks and balances, etc., you end up pretty clearly with a system where no one is accountable to the rule of law b/c each branch can just ignore all consequences imposed upon them by the others. That puts the great Harringtonian slogan embraced by the founders, "an empire of laws not of men," on its head.
Post a Comment
<< Home