
U.S. Constitution (source: Wikipedia)
I recently attended the Second Annual “Living Constitution” Lecture at the Brennan Center for Justice. The keynote speaker this year was Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and his topic was “Living Up to Our Constitution.”
Sen. Whitehouse identified four ways in which we live up to the Constitution; I am excerpting some of the best bits and breaking them into four separate posts for your contemplation this holiday weekend.
Part One
Demanding That the Executive Branch
Remains Committed to the Rule of Law
The Bush Administration left a parade of horribles: grandiose views of executive power and executive privilege; politicized hiring and firing at the Department of Justice, with the work of that illustrious agency manipulated for political ends; political meddling at the Environmental Protection Agency that turned enforcement of our nation’s environmental laws over to the polluters; torture memos and other shameful national security opinions from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel that are now the subject of disciplinary investigation. For those of us who have spent time in the Department of Justice, it is wrenching to think of OLC as subject to a disciplinary investigation.
The Bush Administration’s torture memos make clear how important it is for the executive branch to commit itself to the rule of law.
If there is only one thing that I could wish of my government, it’s that the Obama administration gets this part right: without adherence to the rule of law, the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. I get teased a bit around the shores of the Lake because I revere the Constitution like a secular Bible and treat the rule of law like a secular religion. So sue me. Without the rule of law, everything else you think you have — including your wealth, your health and your freedom — can be taken away at a whim.
To put this in practical terms, if our nation is to live up to our Constitution, we must insist that executive branch attorneys have the independence and integrity necessary to protect the rule of law. This is not merely a question of hiring good people. Process matters.
…
As Jack Goldsmith told the Judiciary Committee two years ago, the Office of Legal Counsel, or OLC, had “developed a number of practices to help it avoid errors, and to compensate for the fact that its opinions are not subject to the same critical scrutiny of adversary process and dissent that characterize the judiciary. These practices include (1) insisting that agencies seeking OLC’s advice request OLC opinions in writing, setting forth their view of the law and facts; (2) seeking the written legal and factual views of all agencies with expertise or that may be affected by the opinion; (3) subjecting draft opinions to multiple levels of scrutiny and review inside OLC; (4) writing narrowly tailored opinions; and (5) publishing non-classified opinions when possible.”
The Bush Administration also made it painfully clear that substance matters, as well as process. Outlandish “unitary executive” theories spawned a litter of mischief: the endless signing statements claiming a unilateral right to amend laws; seemingly unlimited Article II authority claimed for the President in anything touching upon national security; the claim that Congress could not limit the President’s control over lower-ranking officials; exaggerated claims of executive privilege—for example during our investigation into the politicized firing of U.S. Attorneys, an assertion of executive privilege against Congress whose purpose to avoid embarrassment or responsibility for wrong-doing appears confirmed by the White House stonewalling executive branch investigators.
Former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey made a speech last year, about this very point, about how the process and the institutional culture itself promotes the integrity of the system. I concur. By fostering a culture of integrity, you make “doing the right thing” the default position for an administration decision maker and the standard operating procedure in the organization.
I’ll end with one last quote from the first section of Sen. Whitehouse’s speech, wherein he complains about Bushco’s abuses:
Each episode reveals hostility to Congress and to the laws it has passed. Each jumped the well-established rails of governmental practice, whether those rails were laid on solid judicial precedent or in traditions yielding a settled modus vivendi. We now need to put the trains back on the rails.
Amen to that.



46 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Thank you for this Cynthia.
Too many people think the BushCo years were just “business as usual”
I am thankful this Thankgiving ,that Bush and Cheney are no longer in power
Thank you, Cynthia
Couple of questions:
First, you mention Jim Comey. I have a very mixed take on him. He seems to subscribe to the notion of nearly unlimited Executive Branch authority and autonomy (like Ashcroft), but his adherence to process (as exemplified in his House Judiciary testimony during the US Attorney firing mess) is also his foundation. Have I misread Comey?
And, is there any chance that the Living Constitution Lecture(s) will show up on C-Span?
We also need to put Bush’s Caboose in the Pen !
Sorry to be negative but I think it’s going to take many years to get the train back on the track. It’s like trying to repair after Katrina.
You won’t get teased from me. It’s EXACTLY how I feel. And the Constitution was totally trashed by Bush/Cheney.
The thing is, it is being further trashed by Obama. By not holding Bush/Cheney accountable for their illegal and unconstitutional acts, it removes any incentive whatsoever for future presidents to follow the rule of law or the Constitution. And then, we won’t really have laws and a constitution then anyway. We’ll have become a nation of men, rather than law.
This is my BIGGEST disappointment (outright RAGE) with Obama. Bigger than the disappointments over health care, because healthcare ain’t worth a shit in a society that has no protections for it’s citizens. Where, as you said, it can be taken at a whim.
I would sacrifice all I have (not much to be fair) to see Bush/Cheney held accountable. Not because of my hatred of them (which is there) but because if we don’t, there is nothing that prevents abuses in the future. Nothing.
No, I’m not going to tease you. I revere the Constitution as well. I don’t think it’s perfect (first thing I’d change is the Electoral College), but it’s OURS. And it’s supposed to be THE LAW. And it’s nothing but a piece of paper if the words aren’t adhered too.
I am not so sure about “living up to,” but I am all for “abiding by.”
We can win control of the House of Representatives for restoration of the Constitution in the next election cycle. To see how visit:
http://laboratoryofthestates.org/call_to_action_story
Thanks for this, Cynthia and for taking the time to split Whitehouse’s speech into four posts. It sounds like a tremendous event to have attended.
And shamefully, Congress reacted, not by exerting proper oversight, but by tailoring new laws to fit those outlandish legal views. That is going to take much work to undo and more resolve than our Congress exhibits at the current time.
The way i see it the constitution has already left the building. The only thing missing is the blood and crying in the streets. The whole thing was a good idea. Greed always wins.
“…the Obama Administration argued in a filing earlier this month that the Supreme Court should not consider an appeal by Don Siegelman…”
This is something that really stuns me. Makes me feel there is no justice. Same old, same old? How can that be? We live through the Bush Regime only to have the same policies by the Obama DOJ?
Happy Thanksgiving Cynthia,
Well, many criminals grew up in fine homes and went to church every Sunday. When clear criminal conduct is apparent, criminals need to be visited by the business end of our judicial system. Anything else, like looking forward and not back, sounds whiny and soft on crime. I wonder why Democrats have an image of being weak?
he rails.
Seems to me like Congress and particulary the Senate welcomed, embraced and strenghtened so much of Bushco and now Obamas advances.
We have lots of work to do. Better Dems… not just more.
Aloha Ya’ll… Happy T-Day…! ;-)
Really appreciate your writing this up – looking forward to the next in the series.
Whitehouse Rawks…
He was screaming about it as it was occuring… Alas, to little avail…! 8-(
I have speculated (among others) that if there were to be an successful third party, it could gain quite a bit of traction if it were called “the constitutional party”
Happy T-day CT.
Thanks for writing this Cynthia. The Constitution is my Bible actually, as I don’t have another.
A thing I’m picking up out of this, is while Sheldon was being quite exhortative, and rightly so, is a glimmer of positivity.
Where there’s an issue, there’s always opportunity.
If our Reps and Exec have left the care and feeding of the Constitution to us, we are probably the better guardians of it, and better for us to know that and do it ourselves.
Happy Thanksgiving all! – back later
Aloha, ES! Are you gonna run for Blanche’s seat…? ;-)
Was there anything in the Constitution about ads automatically playing when you enter FireDogLake? If not there should be, it’s really getting annoying.
Ha! No I don’t think so.. I’ve had too much fun in my life. That’s a no no.
But wait.. senators get dental don’t they?
It kinda chokes ya up, eh…? ;-)
Dang, the things I’ve missed…
Apparently, Diaper Dave still hasn’t learned…! ;-)
Ya’ll still here huh?
That seems to reflect the RhamObama thinking also.
Hey, Bro… It’s still afternoon here in the Isles… The triptophan still hasn’t kicked in…! ;-)
I am with you on That! I thought I was hallucinating.
When our Constitution became the law of the land, the rules it subscribed to sanctioned slavery. It also sanctioned class, gender and racial bias. And eventually genocide and imperialism.
Indeed, the law of the land was pretty much of, by and for white anglo-saxon protestant males.
And though we abhored grandiose exectutive power when it was being used by the Bush administration to do really terrible things wouldn’t it be great if Obama used it to do really wonderful things instead.
[Of course it would also be great if Obama wasn't channeling Bush for 4 more years---but that's another post]
Power, rules, laws, institutions, procedures etc. are sometimes not nearly as crucial as electing those who will use them to do what we want rather than what others want.
Especially if what others want belongs in the vicinity of BeckWorld and the la la land of dangerous reactionaries like Sarah Palin.
Revere the rule of law, sure. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that some laws are only as reverable as the motivation behind those who have the power to make them do, well, practically anything they want to.
Especially if they have friends on Wall Street.
Yea, I didn’t eat too much so I’m hangin in.
Yes. I really think we need to accept that we are now living under a fascist government and direct our thinking and efforts to how to mount and sustain an insurgency to restore democracy. Uhmm. sounds sort of Tea Baggie. If we could just enlist them to direct their passion toward restoration and not destruction of democratic government.
After watching Whitehouse almost wet himself over Bill Clinton’s visit to the Senate a few weeks ago ( he was glued to Bill like white on rice, or on a blue dress ), I plan to watch his Senate actions. Talk is cheap.
I have my firewall set to blog the ads that aren’t hosted by FDL itself. Makes it so much nicer ….
Whitehouse talks a good game, but he never seems to follow through with action. Kind of like the rest of the progressive block, kind of a placeholder for the base. The Democratic establishment plays us constantly and progressives in congress are their enablers. Unless congressional progressives begin to present a real and liberal alternative to the DLC, I find it hard to contribute to their causes anymore. Look what their appeasement has lead to with Health Care Reform, for lack of a more imaginative term for the travesty with which they have played along. Perris has it right, the Constitution Party. Sounds better every time it rolls off my tongue. Echoing others here, I take the Constitution deadly serious. Without an unyielding adherance to its principles we will loose everything that we have tried to make of this country over the years. Call me sentimental.
What are you talkng about?
The Constitution is not the friend of progressive causes. In fact, it was designed to be an ally of the status quo.
Sorry about the audible ad – we’ll try to track that one down. If you are able to let us know which company the ad is for, that would speed things along.
WHen it comes to Executive Branch power you have to read Comey VERY precisley. He does not seem to state his position in a way that is meant for mass consumption. I think he chooses his words very carefully.
That being said, I do think he believes that high ranking officials do have a great deal of power but that their own self restraint should protect from overreaching.
When that fails, THE PROCESS, will. The process is important and Jack Goldsmith has also made this plain.
The absolute most important thing the Constutution says is that the Government is supposed to of the people by the people and for the people, and that our elected Representatives are our representatives.
We gave that up by letting them become our deciders, and now they deside for us, not represent what we want.
We will never get this back because they now tell us what we can do, instead of us telling them what they can do.
The American people gave up the Constitution because they thought that voting once in a while, and choosing between two parties was the answer to good Government.
The Governemnt now dispenses those rights, and we are at the mercy of what they decide. We also should be able to see that our Government doesn’t work. If it did it would protect us, not the rich and powerful. It would keep us safe, not just from enemies and terrorists, but from the crooks in our Country. It would be the keeper of our economy so that we all prospered. It would solve our problems, keep the Country solvent.
We have none of that, and are seeing with healthcare that we will get what they give us not what we need or want. We are seeing with the wars that the military and political adventures come before Country and people. We have seen with them spending our money to bailout the big money interests, while people are losing homes, jobs. businesses, and life savings. They are actually going to allow all from the Banks, Wall Street, the Insurance Industry and Bid Phrama to continue ripping us off.
We kissed the Constitution goodbye long ago, but just can’t face up to the fact.
I’m with you on that. Karl Rove’s perversion of the rule of law by corrupting Justice has to be one of the worst crimes against the Republic ever.
Dick Cheney’s secrecy is up there with it.
Your attitude reminds me of something I read in Scott Horton’s blog, No Comment.
Faith in the rule of law is the only “state religion” proper to a democracy.
But that makes us vulnerable to betrayal. Note how the Caesarist neocons use the “noble lie” to advance their agenda. They take advantage of the people’s need for faith in the rule of law by jacking us to hell and back under the color of the law they seek to subvert.
Scott Horton wrote about Caesarists back in August of ’07:
That bolded sentence is a perfect example of making a myth to jack a democracy. Call it PR, call it propaganda, whatever. Myth-making is the state of the art in manufacturing consent. Andy Worthington posted this today about the myth-making that preceded the Iraq War:
They used our faith in the rule of law, the trust we had in our elected leaders, to jack us to war in Iraq. As war of aggression is the supreme war crime, shouldn’t we consider “fixing the intelligence to fit the policy,” lying to the people, a crime of equal magnitude?
But for the myth-making, there would have been no myth-jacking us into an illegal war of aggression.
Your initial comment was, for some reason, trapped in the filters. It has been released, and you will be able to see it by refreshing your screen.
Wow, freaky, I usually ctrl+A ctrl+C before submitting, and that’s not the version I just pasted into MS Word. No point in posting a shorter version now, eh? My apologies.
Oh, that explains that.
No worries. It happens sometimes.
I hate to strike a dissonant note but when talk of reverence is applied to practical matters such as the application of the law, I think that whole notion is misplaced. I think that the application of the law is only as good as the people that are in charge of enforcing those laws. The current and past administrations amply prove that point.
Obama has chosen to restrict the rights of criminal suspects in the case of Gitmo detainees under no known legal pretext, he has failed to conform to legal requirements to ban the use of landmines, and most notably he has failed to prosecute the crimes committed by the Bush/Cheney regime. These are just a few cases that come to mind. So please spare us the reverence for the rule of law.
Vincent Bugliosi, who actually does take the prosecution of cases seriously, has proposed in the past the prosecution of two serious infractions of the law, one by the Judiciary and the other by the Executive branch.
He proposed that impeachment hearings be held against the judges that handed down the Bush v Gore decision for being a power grab by these judges based on completely flawed legal judgements, in violation of their sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution. This is a case against Supreme Court judges mind you. I don’t recall any clamor by anyone in the legal profession or anywhere else to carry out this task simply because it was inconvinient to do so.
Further he offered his legal assistance to any state prosecutor that would be willing to bring the charge of murder against Bush for the unlawful deaths of over 2,000 soldiers in the illegal war against the Iraq. His basic rationale being based on overwhelming evidence of willful deception on the part of Bush. Again I don’t recall any prosecutor taking him up on that offer.
I find it particularly offensive when people in the legal profession praise the rule of law in exhalting terms, when evidence to the contrary is rampant in the past and in the present. This willful failure to admit the obvious, namely that laws, Constitutional or not, are violated often with impunity because to prosecute the perpetrator is simply not convenient.
As a stark contrast we have the case of war crime violations against the Bush administration being brought by the governments of Spain, Germany and Holland, all of course being frustrated by the current US administration.
One of these things that truly outrages me are those who call themselves Christians and conservatives who defend torture — Hannity, Buchanan, others. This is a disgrace to the cause of Christ.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof AT aol DOT com