(Darryl) Levinson thesis (continued)

[Sanford Levinson]

Today's Darryl Levinson is right story, from tomorrow's NYTimes:
 
February 3, 2006

Senate Session on Security Erupts in Spying Debate 

By SCOTT SHANE <http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=SCOTT SHANE&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=SCOTT SHANE&inline=nyt-per> 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 - Senate Democrats on Thursday angrily accused the Bush administration of mounting a public relations campaign to defend the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program while withholding details of the secret eavesdropping from Congressional oversight committees....

But none of the Republicans on the panel joined the Democrats in their criticism..... 

 

Can one imagine the Republican reaction if this had been President Clinton or Gore?  And, for that matter, would one expect the Democrats to be so vigilant about oversight if that were the case?  Can anyone still take James Madison seriously re the way that "checks and balances" operates?  Are political parties not of "constitutioinal" significance?  Are these simply rhetorical question?

sandy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20060202/201219d9/attachment.html