Re: Politics-- Overwhelmed

"Billy Bob F." <billybobf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:18c4aeb7-98a7-4410-9a50-383a53e5fe05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<I'm not sure who pissed in EP's cornflakes this morning, but>

That's not fair, Billy Bob. Please give me the benefit of the doubt when
reading my response to you and assume that I meant to offer my education and
expertise to this group on this issue, and to fulfill what I regard as my
professional responsibility as a lawyer to clarify the rule of law whenever
I feel I can help Americans understand it better. I think the tone of my
response was consistent with that purpose. I think that if you took it
otherwise, you are the one being pissy, not me.

<I didn't say that it did. The question was whether Bush could somehow
stay in office. Under the directive, he could simply not declare the
emergency over.>

No he couldn't. The directive gives him no such power. Read it again. Ask
other lawyers. The directive gives Bush no power whatsoever, because Bush
cannot give himself power of the type you fear consistent with the U.S.
Constitution. The directive is a housekeeping measure, not a delegation of
authority. Bush can't delegate the authority to stop a transition of
adminstration. Honestly. If Bush wrote some attempt to do so and signed
it, and then refused to get out of his chair in the Oval Office to let Obama
sit down, then the White House police would politely escort Bush out and,
hopefully, to a good doctor, because any such attempt to stop a transition
in power would be so fantastically silly as to be evidence of insanity. It
just can't happen.

<That the same document [the Constitution] that Bush called "just a
goddamned piece of
paper"?>

Did he, indeed. I hadn't heard that one. But I wouldn't put it past Bush.
I have a very low opinion of his character and no reason to believe he has
the slightest understanding of constitutional law.

That "directive" (I air quote the word because it's so damn
silly) isn't even a law. It's a piece of paper that sets out what
Bush/Cheney wanted the executive "policy" to be ("policy" is in quotes
because I'm quoting the first sentence of the "directive"). But it ain't
the law.
<I'd love to have a solid reference for this statement, because
everything I've been able to find on it (and I looked quite
extensively when I found out about it) says that both presidential
directives and executive orders have the "full force and effect of
law." The difference is that an executive order can expire at the end
of a presidential term and a presidential directive does not.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/predirective.htm>

Rob, the Attorney General opinion you cite does not have the force of law
and it does not support the proposition for which you cite it. The AG does
not make law. Legislatures make law. The AG is here stating its opinion of
the law regarding the very narrow (indeed, nit-picking and fairly
inconsequential) question the president has asked the AG, specifically,
whether "a presidential directive would not automatically lapse upon a
change of administration."

Nowhere in the AG opinion does the AG opine that executive directives or
orders have the "full force and effect of law." (At least I can't see any
such phraseology. But I'm not looking for it very hard because it would be
really really dumb for a DOJ opinion to say such a thing. But maybe this
particular Assistant AG is really really dumb. It happens.)

If you want a "solid reference," then learn how to do legal research and go
to your local public library. It takes about three years of law school to
learn how to do legal research. I'm pretty good at it, if I do say so
myself, but unless you're willing to pay my substantial hourly fee, I am not
going to do it for you. Because it is sadly apparent to me that you
wouldn't understand it if I did. You're not a lawyer, Rob. You can't
expect yourself to understand the law.

Now let's go back to the "Presidential Directive." Give it a quick look
instead of relying on some Internet pundit to (mis)interpret it for you
<<I did read it. In May of 2007.>>

Okaaaaaay. I'm really sorry to have to say this, but you obviously either
are misremembering it or didn't understand it in the first place. It would
be really asking a lot for anybody to understand the import of any given
executive, legislative, or judicial document without a solid academic
background in law and/or political science.

If anybody has any questions, please ask. I didn't set out to ridicule
anybody's opinions or impressions, here,
<Oh. You could fooled me :-)>

Seriously, Rob, I think you're misreading my tone and intention. I just
wanted to set the record straight.

but that article you cited is not a
very good source of information, Billy Bob.
<It's actually a pretty good source in that it summarizes the
directive. Notice I didn't use air quotes. It was not my sole source
of research on the topic because I could hardly believe it when I
heard about it. But, it's a good overview of what the directive
states.>

No, it's not. It is a very poor overview indeed. It's not even close. And
I think it's just dandy that you try to research these issues, but surely
you don't think your understanding of these issues is any better than, say,
a Chinese law professor's understanding is likely to be of, say, Beowulf?

Nothing personal, here, Rob, but it's quite obvious that you don't know what
you don't know when it comes to the law. And that happens a lot in the open
market of free speech and egalitarianism. But let's be reasonable here and
try to learn something. And again, give me the benefit of the doubt on my
intentions.

Let me try an analogy (again). I am as ignorant of the science of chemistry
as any adult can conceivably be, while my SO is a chemical engineer. I am
as ignorant about chemistry as he is about constitutional law. But we're
both very intelligent, by all known measures of intelligence. And we both
can read and have good research skills.

Now, let's say I go to my SO and say, "Bruce, honey, I've read on the
Internet that if I put a few ounces of wet nitrogen triiodide up my nose and
let it dry, it will clear up my hay fever. I'm going to try it."

And Bruce says, "No! Edna! Nitrogen triiodid is explosive! As it dries,
it becomes volatile. If you stick some of it up your nose wet and let it
dry, it will absolutely, positively, blow your face off!"

Now, I'm a smart person, so I would be inclined to just take Bruce's word on
this. But let's suppose I'm not quiiiiiiiite as smart as I am, so I decide
I'm going to do some chemical research all by my little self. I google
"nitrogen triiodide." And I do find quite a few references to its explosive
properties. But nowhere do I find anything that says, specifically, that if
I stick it up my nose it will blow my face off. And I find one website with
an editorial by a naturopath on how some volatile chemicals can be really
helpful in treating nasal congestion, in between banner ads for weigh loss
pills and t-shirts. All the websites include a bunch of chemical diagrams
that I don't have the education to understand, but which I think I can kind
of make some sense of.

Does this mean I'm going to stick nitrogen triiodide up my nose and see what
happens? I think not.

Is it likely I'm actually going to pretend like I know more about nitrogen
triiodide than Bruce? Is it likely I am going to ARGUE with Bruce about the
consequences of sticking nitrogen triiodide up ones nose? Is it likely that
I am going to ask Bruce "who pissed in his cornflakes" because he has
disagreed with me about the explosive properties of nitrogen triiodide? I
think not.

You see, Bruce is smart enough to defer to my opinion on constitutional law,
and I'm smart enough to defer to his opinion on all matters chemical.

I graduated first in my class from a major American law school. I worked on
Wall Street for three years. I served as a consultant to the first
democratic government of Czechoslovakia after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
I practiced civil rights law, including constitutional law, in the American
South for a decade.

It might be a smart bet to just trust me on this, like I trust Bruce when he
tells me a given chemical will blow my face off -- this is some serious
stuff we're talking about here, both constitutional law and explosives are
serious stuff.

Look, I'm being kind of blunt, here, but believe me when I say that I
haven't even started to take off my gloves yet. I'm trying to play nice.
And I hope you can take some satisfaction in the fact that you probably now
know more about constitutional law than our current President ever did.

--

ep ooooooooof
"Three things in human life are important. The first is to be kind. The
second is to be kind. And the third is to be kind." -- Henry James


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Effect of new Swedish file-sharing law
    ... they're denied the mainstream Internet infrastructure. ... itself, without any such directives. ... where the Swedish people can vote on privacy? ... Law and ask them for a directive that will, if granted, force the ISP ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Schiavo Lessons Learned - Protect Yourself TODAY
    ... There are several types of Advanced Directives that can ... A living will only comes into effect when you are ... Ask your doctor, lawyer or state ... representative about the law in your state. ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
    ... law.>>> ... There are precidents for what a court would ... "The majority of countries in Europe have far wider private copying ... There loads of EU directives. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: More good reasons for leaving the EU
    ... Europe, we are told, not least by senior Tories, is "off the agenda". ... a boring subject - no longer politically relevant. ... One result is that the media, reporting on some controversial new law, ... Brussels waste directives. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • More good reasons for leaving the EU
    ... Europe, we are told, not least by senior Tories, is "off the agenda". ... One result is that the media, reporting on some controversial new law, seem ... directives. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)