On the 17th, the New York Times published another one of John Yoo's wretchedly obtuse op-eds. When it comes to the "public intellectual" providing cover for a Leader's accretion of power unto himself, President Bush could do a lot better. To wit:
A reinvigorated presidency enrages President Bush’s critics, who seem
to believe that the Constitution created a system of judicial or
congressional supremacy.
Is this the best Yoo can do? The most childish of strawman arguments? Well, he follows it with the most tired of ad hominems:
Perhaps this is to be expected of the generation of legislators that
views the presidency through the lens of Vietnam and Watergate.
Actually, it has far more to do with a generation of Americans who are coming to view the presidency through the prism of the Bush Administration, combined with the American's deep ingrained sense that fundamental freedoms are at stake.
Congress has for years been avoiding its duty to revamp or repeal
outmoded parts of bygone laws in the light of contemporary threats. We
have needed energy in the executive branch to fill in that gap.
The abdication criticized in the first sentence is undeniably true. Congress has abdicated its role, yet for reasons that contradict the second sentence. George Bush has been using the specious legal theories of John Yoo -- which have wilted when exposed to the daylight of American democracy -- in order to keep Congress inactive and sidelined from doing its Article I, section 8 duties during time of war. Implying that Bush's power grabs is forced by necessity is an appallingly self-serving claim. That these power grabs have failed, and have only served to undermine and erode the legitimacy of the presidency -- ala the Nixon presidency -- has been the predictable result.
Anyway, the letters section to The Times' today has six responses to Yoo's piece, in which one writer exclaims, "I am amazed that an American would write something like that." Indeed. Two others follow:
To the Editor:
Schoolchildren have checks and balances drilled
into their heads as the hallmark of our government system. John Yoo
mentions it not once.
Instead, he talks of George W. Bush’s reinvigorating the presidency, but doesn’t acknowledge the need for limits.
The incompetence in prosecuting the Iraq war aftermath and Katrina
alone are reason for vigorous oversight by other branches to bring
accountability and transparency.
“Trust me” no longer satisfies the public.
Phyllis Sato
Virginia Beach, Sept. 17, 2006
To the Editor:
We can leave it to the legal eagles to rip and
tear at John Yoo’s constitutional (and basically sophist) arguments for
a strong executive branch, but most people don’t need a lawyer to know
an argument for despotism when they hear it.
James Day
Berkeley, Calif., Sept. 17, 2006
[
Edited Wednesday AM for grammar]
Recent Comments