More from the Washington Post

[Sanford Levinson]

 Matt writes:
 
 If expectations about normal practice in the separation of powers are
our touchstone for what is in keeping with the Constitution, then George
W. Bush--if he is blazing new trails, which I've argued he isn't--is
changing the meaning of the Constitution so long as "he gets away with"
what has Sandy so exercised.  Who knew Sandy was such a conservative?

 I agree with Matt that if Presidents (or Congresses or Supreme Courts)
"get away with it," then the Constitution, as a de facto matter, is
changed, perhaps even "amended."  It's like adverse possession.  (Is
a.p. a "conservative" position, incidentally?)  But this is precisely
why we should be exercised when presidents push the envelope, at least
if we don't like what they're doing.  If there is no opposition, then it
does indeed simply become just another presidential prerogative (or
easement).  And, incidentally, did anyone notice that it is Fox News (!)
that has led the way in questioning Bush's use of military personnel as
political backdrops?  At the very least, that should jar everyone on
this list, regardless of political views.
 
sandy 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051211/e491aebc/attachment.htm