« Mandatory Data Portability and Interoperability: The Next Frontier? | Main | Taxpayers and Religion »

March 13, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Professor Stone, once again, nails the issue.

When designing procedures that the government can use to limit an individual's liberty, we should always design them imagining the worst possible abuses because history has shown that without accountability this is what always occurs.

The framers of the Constitution knew this well. Madison wrote, "[i]f men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." There is a reason that so many of Madison's quotes are now cliches: they ring true.

The presumption should be the government will abuse its powers without proper oversight. Why do we continue to give the executive branch the benefit of the doubt? Schlesinger may be dead, but the Imperial Presidency lives on.

Joan A. Conway

Imperialism belongs to the money class! So it will never go away. Never.

Imperial lessons are a means of separating us from others, and places an emphasis on insight of the abusive conduct or behavior under the existance of our laws, or the lack of laws. It is also a way of establishing the need for more laws to address the futility of the laws we already have, like the reason Tort Laws were formed.

I for one have witnessed imperialism in banking, education, and welfare, and I know a deceased historial, Schlesinger, does not have to be recalled to revisit the concept of imperialism. If you have a capitalistic society, you have imperialism. Period.


Indeed, the very concept of "trusting the government" is antithetical to the notions upon which the Constitution was built. The system is designed to insure that we need not trust anybody. Most of the complicated details of the Constitution are built to preserve the desideratum of insuring that nobody can "game the system" by secretly pulling levers. In this sense, every case of a government official, up to and especially the President, asking that the public "trust us" is a good time to grab your copy of the Constitution and see what they're trying to break down.

Joan A. Conway

Reconsidering the definitive influence of J. A. Hobson's Imperialism, on Lenin, Hilferding, Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Bakunin, during his lifetime from 1858 to 1940, as the greatest source of the Taproot of Imperialism:

It is the growth of powers of production, such like the globe has never seen until the United States of America exceeds its growth of consumption, more goods can be produced that can be sold at a profit, and that more capital exists than can find renumerative investment.

The international capitalists, and what appears to be European dominance in certain industries over U.S. businesses, can use government in order to secure for their particular use some distant undeveloped country by annexation and protection.

"Most of the complicated details of the Constitution are built to preserve the desideratum of insuring that nobody can "game the system" by secretly pulling levers."

Erasmussimo says on March 14, 2007, does not accord with "the scramble for markets which are responsible for openly avowed repudiation of treaty obligations of which the USA had not scrupled to defend." Hobson said.

"Germany and Russia professed adoption of material gain of their country as the sole criterion of public conduct other nations were not slow to accept the standard." Hobson said.

In our case the President's Supreme Court mobs us!

Republic appointed Supreme Court Justices controls the coordinate authorities of this government, from 1996 to 2006, for over a decade, and including the 2000 Presidential Election! I say.

The argument is that the co-ordinate braches are not the checks on each other and the constitution lacks its usual authority, because of the political force tied to the scramble for markets under a capitalistic system. I say.

"The poeple cease to be their own rulers and assign their government into the hand for ... the eminent tribunal." Thomas Jefferson said on 9/11/1804, in his Letter to Abigail Adams.

Abraham Lincoln said in 1861, that "It will be overruled and never become a precedent, concerning no single tribunal."

Thus, while it may be of some atrovistic sentiment to say that the public interest needs to be restored, the Supreme Court Majority of Justices may argue that does it perform a "disruptive inquiry?"

I see it as a quid pro quo for the votes that the Religious Right generated for G. W. Bush, and their past support of an alcoholic son of a former President, George Bush; its pay back!

The serious business is the taproot of imperialism - investment opportunities and lower races to subjugate.

Under procedural jurisdiction and imagining the worst individual's liberty, the option is of course the abuse of discretion.

Why else would a government(s) abuse its powers without proper oversight but-for material gain and extension of itself in foreign lands?

This is similar to the Nixon V. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) case: To take custody of Nixon's materials, to screen then to return, etc. President Recording and materials Preservation Act of 1974, looks a lot like the Patriot Act of 2001.

Nixon challenged the Act for violations of Separation of Prowers.

Did it have a disruptive inquiry?


See the qualified presumptive privilege: Beyer, Executive Privilege - A Constitutional Myth (1974) Fair Administration of Criminal Justice.

Seamus O'Bròg

And if Ronald Reagan didn’t convince you that having a mediocre but very sincere actor as a puppet president isn’t a bad idea, then vote for Fred Dalton Thompson for president. He’s a better actor than Reagan ever was. And Thompson makes Reagan look like a Democrat. But if you're going to elect another actor as president, first find out who his producers and directors are. What's the plot?


Excellent post.

Joan A. Conway

Thomason senatorial voice desires an audience, don't you think.

But you're on the money, here.

Would Mitch Romney get as far as he has gotten if he wasn't born into politics and not quite so handsome?

Mitch has many fans, but does he add up to diversity, or business as usual.

Curious Reader


Could you address the US attorneys firing scandal? I am curious to read your collective take on the issues.


The comments to this entry are closed.