More from the Washington Post

Sat Dec 10 08:54:25 PST 2005

Mark takes a more moderate line, plausibly arguing that a) the 
president's speeches are irresponsibly partisan, and b) that the Bush 
administration unwisely seeks to silence contrary voices in the 
government.  I disagree with both arguments but find them 
respectable.  I note, however, that stated thus, they cease to be 
arguments about constitutional law, so I will say no more about them 
on this list.

Matt
***************************
Matthew J. Franck
Professor and Chairman
Department of Political Science
Radford University
P.O. Box 6945
Radford, VA 24142-6945
phone 540-831-5854
fax 540-831-6075
e-mail <mailto:mfranck at radford.edu>mfranck at radford.edu
www.radford.edu/~mfranck
***************************
At 11:33 AM 12/10/2005, Mark Graber wrote:
>I should preface this by noting that a) I am relatively ignorant on
>foreign policy matters and b) think in my ignorance that oversimplistic
>Democratic proposals to cut and leave are irresponsible.  Having said
>this, I believe that the manner in which the President defends policies
>before the troops is irresponsibly partisan (two wrongs do not make a
>right).  Telling the troops this is what we are doing and this is why we
>believe it to be right is legitimate.  Taking potshots at the
>opposition, however merited those potshots may, be converts the
>President from commander-in-chief into head of a faction.
>
>Are civil service appointees above politics.  Of course not.  Do their
>recommendations have to be followe.  Of course not.  And there is
>something to be said for a Justice Department in which all persons are
>political appointees.  But it does seem to many that this is an effort
>to silence contrary voices in the administration, and that this general
>practice has not had healthy outcomes for this country or, for that
>matter, this administration.
>
>Mark A. Graber
>
> >>> "Matthew J. Franck" <mfranck at radford.edu> 12/10/05 11:20 AM >>>
>Now I know Sandy woke up on the wrong side of the bed this
>morning.  He has now moved from his recent reliance on public opinion
>polls for criticizing our fixed election calendar, to complaining
>that when a president defends an eminently defensible policy while
>speaking before those individuals charged with carrying it out, he is
>acting in an "unconstitutional" manner, indeed a "profoundly"
>unconstitutional manner.  I suppose Sandy thinks that it really was a
>proper impeachment article against Andrew Johnson that he went out to
>the country and (horrors!) gave speeches.
>
>Matt
>***************************
>Matthew J. Franck
>Professor and Chairman
>Department of Political Science
>Radford University
>P.O. Box 6945
>Radford, VA 24142-6945
>phone 540-831-5854
>fax 540-831-6075
>e-mail <mailto:mfranck at radford.edu>mfranck at radford.edu
>www.radford.edu/~mfranck
>***************************
>At 10:50 AM 12/10/2005, Sanford Levinson wrote:
> >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> >Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> >         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5FDA0.E158AE65"
> >
> >Consider the following story (see
> ><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/12/09/BL200 
> 5120900828_pf.html>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/12/09/BL2005120900828_pf.html
>
> >from yesterday's Washington Post.  I take it that the separation of
> >the military from (low) politics is as fundamental to our notion of
> >constitutionalism as is the separation of law from (low)
> >politics.  So is it proper to say that Bush is behaving in a
> >profoundly "unconstitutional" manner, or does the Commander-in-Chief
> >indeed have the prerogative of using "his troops" as the venue for
> >attacking his political opposition?  (Incidentally, what do you
> >think would happen if any of the troops started booing or otherwise
> >maniesting disagreement with the views of the
> >Commander-in-Chief?  Their speech is presumably not protected by the
> >First Amendment,)
> >
> >sandy
> >
> >Politics and the Troops
> >
> ><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177906,00.html>Greg Kelly of
> >Fox News is pursuing a story no one else seems to want to touch. On
> >Tuesday, he filed this report: "Twice last month in speeches to
> >military audiences, the president attacked Democrats and fired back
> >at their accusations that pre-war intelligence was manipulated by
> >his administration. . . .
> >
> >"The attacks against critics at military settings may have put
> >troops in the awkward position of undermining their own regulations.
> >A Department of Defense directive doesn't allow service members in
> >uniform to attend 'partisan political events.' . . .
> >
> >"Several members of the military told FOX News that Bush is inviting
> >the troops to take sides in a partisan debate in his speeches.
> >
> >" 'This is a very bad sign,' said retired Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar,
> >who led Central Command in the early 1990s and is an administration
> >critic. 'This is the sort of thing that you find in other countries
> >where the military and political, certain political parties are
> >aligned.' "  [my own emphasis]
> >
> >Kelly apparently isn't done with the story. Here he is asking a
> >question at yesterday's
> ><http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051208-1.html>press
> >briefing :
> >
> >"Q Scott, this is going back a little bit, but we've received some
> >complaints from soldiers, both former and current, about the
> >Tobyhanna speech and the Elmendorf, Alaska speech. They cite their
> >own regulations that say U.S. soldiers cannot participate in
> >partisan political activity. But when the President attacked
> >Democrats, they are -- they feel like they were put in the position
> >where they're supporting a democratic cause in uniform. Does the
> >President feel --
> >
> >"MR. McCLELLAN: Who said that? I think the President was talking as
> >Commander-in-Chief to our troops and talking to them about the war
> >that we're engaged in.
> >
> >"Q Well, he was talking about Democrats, as well. 'Some Democrats
> >who voted to authorize use of focrce are now rewriting the past.' He
> >said, 'It is irresponsible Democrats --
> >
> >"MR. McCLELLAN: That's true.
> >
> >"Q -- 'claim we misled them.'
> >
> >"MR. McCLELLAN: Now, I notice -- now, I notice they're not making
> >those same claims recently.
> >
> >"Q Well, nevertheless, does the President feel like it's appropriate
> >to inject the troops into what is, I think, quite clearly a partisan
>debate?
> >
> >"MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree. The President is the
> >Commander-in-Chief. No one has been more involved in this war on
> >terrorism than our troops and their families. And our troops
> >understand the importance of the mission."
> >
> >Here are the transcripts of Bush's remarks at
> ><http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051114-3.html>Elmendorf
>
> >Air Force Base in Alaska on November 14; and
> ><http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html>Tobyhanna
>
> >Army Depot in Pennsylvania, on November 11. At the air force base,
> >for example, Bush said that "some Democrats who voted to authorize
> >the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing
> >politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our
> >troops and the enemy."
> >_______________________________________________
> >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
> >as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
> >are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> >(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed 
>as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that 
>are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
>(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051210/6f470fa4/attachment.htm