Authoritarianism as an ideal type
emaltz at CRAB.RUTGERS.EDU
Tue Oct 29 11:16:53 PST 2002
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Although I don't have any relevant
thoughts on the point, I think that discussions of specific questions such
as that posed in the last paragraph of Mark Tushnet's post can be very
fruitful and indeed are what this list is supposed to be about. I just
don't think we can have a useful discussion of whether the Bush
administration is authoritarian in general terms.
At 11:02 AM 10/29/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>In response to Earl Maltz's post: One of the problems in this
>"discussion" is that the "conservatives" have not engaged in a
>discussion at all. They have simply asserted that the terms being used
>were insufficiently well-defined for them to figure out why particular
>policies were being described as evidence of an authoritarian
>constitutional vision, without either defending the policies in
>substantive constitutional terms or explaining why those policies did
>not provide evidence for the assertions about a constitutional vision.
>Conservatives may continue to refuse to engage the merits of the
>substantive claims, or the larger argument about constitutionalism, as
>Earl recommends. But I for one would not take that as evidence that
>conservatives have cogent responses to the (at least by now) reasonably
>well-focused claims made in other postings.
>To get more specific: Precisely what position seems most
>constitutionally defensible, from a conservative point of view, about
>the evidentiary requirements that must be satisfied before an American
>citizen can be held in indefinite detention? Or, even more specific,
>why (if it is) is it a sufficient justification for such a detention
>that an employee of the government identified solely by name and not by
>position has signed and submitted to a court an affidavit containing
>factual assertions that, if true, might justify the detention?
More information about the Conlawprof