The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. – Article II, Section 2
It’s not a good feeling agreeing with Dennis Kucinich. Finding myself on the same side of an issue as Kucinich makes me seriously reconsider my opinion. But as they say, even a bind, deaf, paralyzed, rabies-afflicted squirrel finds a nut every now and again.
It’s less distressing to disagree with Charles Krauthammer. He’s usually spot on, but he tends to go off the rails when it comes to foreign policy. Not always, mind you, but in Krauthammer you can see the legitimate difference between neoconservatism and traditional conservatism. Last night he had this to say about the War Powers Act and President Obama’s
war hostilities kinetic military action in Libya:
KRAUTHAMMER: I understand why Congress wants to retain prerogatives, as does the president. I’m not surprised that Durbin would act this way. I am surprised that so many Republicans are jumping on the war powers resolution. They will regret it. If you have a Republican in office, you have isolationists Democrats trying to restrain his exercise of his powers under constitution and the Republicans aren’t going to like it.
I would not truck in war powers resolution. I have also think the administration’s defense of what it is doing is extremely week and misguided. Obama’s answer essentially is well, the resolution is out there. But it’s not relevant because it isn’t really a war, which is absurd.
BAIER: We’re not in hostilities.
KRAUTHAMMER: Right. What he should say I, like my other predecessor, I do not recognize the legality of this act and its authority over the presidency. That’s where he should make his stand.
BAIER: When he was Senator Obama he spoke the opposite.
KRAUTHAMMER: And as a president he is implicitly supporting the resolution saying it doesn’t apply here. It implies if it were a real war, as he pretends it’s not. I have to comply. No president ought to do that.
I agree with him with regards to Obama’s duplicity. I also share his skepticism about the War Powers Act. But he’s wrong about the rest. Continue reading
I remain fairly ambivalent about Glenn Beck (an ambivalence that got me involved in a heated debate on this very site, but that’s another matter). His style, especially on television, just doesn’t appeal to me. He also seems to believe that having the dial turned to 11 is the only way to get his point across. That said, I am appreciative of his efforts to teach American history to his audience. He’s had some excellent academic guests like Ronald Pestritto on his show, and he has an appreciation of some of the nuances of American political thought that go over a lot of other heads.
Then I saw this, and I’m ready to grab the pitchforks. From the product description:
Adapting a selection of these essential essays—pseudonymously authored by the now well-documented triumvirate of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—for a contemporary audience, Glenn Beck has had them reworked into “modern” English so as to be thoroughly accessible to anyone seeking a better understanding of the Founding Fathers’ intent and meaning when laying the groundwork of our government. Beck provides his own illuminating commentary and annotations and, for a number of the essays, has brought together the viewpoints of both liberal and conservative historians and scholars, making this a fair and insightful perspective on the historical works that remain the primary source for interpreting Constitutional law and the rights of American citizens.
So it’s the New American Bible for the Federalist Papers. I wonder if Bishop Trautman consulted on this project.
Just as the average person can probably handle such mysterious words as “ineffable,” I’m sure that most Americans can pretty much figure out what’s going on with the Federalist Papers without Glenn Beck re-translating it for us. Yes, there are no doubt some tricky words in the 500+ pages and 85 essays, but that’s what footnotes are for. Annotated versions of the Federalist Papers already exist, and those should suffice for Beck’s purposes. Besides, part of the joy of the Federalist Papers is reading Madison and Hamilton’s beautiful prose.
Jeff Goldstein elaborates further on why this is problematic.
On the one hand, we’re supposed to believe that anyone can read and understand the Constitution — meaning, we don’t need a special priesthood to interpret the thing (and of course, this is true, assuming a base level of reading comprehension and intelligence, and assuming one can get past the fact that the document itself is like, over a hundred years old!); and yet at the same time, the Federalist Papers, we’re to understand today, are so arcane and abstruse and unintelligible that they aren’t even being taught anymore — a problem happily solved by Beck’s latest offering, a book that rewrites the Federalist Papers using modern language, which can be yours for only however many dollars (through the website, blah blah blah).
I agree with Jeff that this sends a very poorly thought out mixed message. In fact Beck is playing into the hands of those who criticize the concept of originalism. He’s conceding that the language of this era is difficult for people to comprehend, so the only way to make these writings more widely accessible is to completely re-write them. It is a contradiction that I doubt Beck has thoughtfully considered.