But that's not structural. There's a difference between someone having power and not using it and someone not having power. Congress has power, they're not using it right now. The legislature under Pinochet had no power. It's the current operating structure. No, it's of course not the paper structure, but very few of the major tyrannies of the 20th century had that as the structure on paper. China's constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. The Soviet Union's guaranteed all kinds of political freedoms. Nazi Germany was operating under the legislative framework of the Weimar Republic through 1945! The Reichstag continued to meet! Revoke the Enabling Act - which they could've at any time - and ping! Back to parliamentary democracy! At least, on paper. Hell, the Roman Senate continued to meet throughout most of the duration of the Empire. Sure, sometimes it had horses appointed, but by the gods it continued to meet and debate!
If there is no enforcement of law, no enforcement of these limits and checks, then there is no law. Currently, aside from habeas corpus (which, given the reported secret prison system onboard US Navy ships, I'm not sure we can actually set aside - given Mr. Bush's actions of the past, I think they've simply shifted the location of their activities to new locales harder to find), there is no enforcement. Not even of Congressional subpoenas - Mr. Bush's politicised and co-opted Justice Department simply refuses to enforce them. Accordingly, there is no law. There is culture, there are suggestions, both of which can be and routinely are set aside.
At some point there very well could be a showdown, and the fact that the President claims he has such and such power doesn't mean he has that power. If there is no showdown, there is no enforcement. That what the showdown is about - enforcing that law. There hasn't been any. And in a system of precedent (and with a long history of recognition of precedent), getting away with something once in a legal framework means you can get away with it again. Also, if you can and do use a power and no one stops you, you have that power. You may not have that power on paper, but that's irrelevant in a lawless structure; it's what you can do that matters, and we've seen what the Chief Executive thinks he can do and has done - at least, some of it. Who knows how much else? We don't, and probably won't, because the investigations are being blocked - in some cases, as now, by Congress itself.
no subject
It's the current operating structure. No, it's of course not the paper structure, but very few of the major tyrannies of the 20th century had that as the structure on paper. China's constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. The Soviet Union's guaranteed all kinds of political freedoms. Nazi Germany was operating under the legislative framework of the Weimar Republic through 1945! The Reichstag continued to meet! Revoke the Enabling Act - which they could've at any time - and ping! Back to parliamentary democracy! At least, on paper. Hell, the Roman Senate continued to meet throughout most of the duration of the Empire. Sure, sometimes it had horses appointed, but by the gods it continued to meet and debate!
If there is no enforcement of law, no enforcement of these limits and checks, then there is no law. Currently, aside from habeas corpus (which, given the reported secret prison system onboard US Navy ships, I'm not sure we can actually set aside - given Mr. Bush's actions of the past, I think they've simply shifted the location of their activities to new locales harder to find), there is no enforcement. Not even of Congressional subpoenas - Mr. Bush's politicised and co-opted Justice Department simply refuses to enforce them. Accordingly, there is no law. There is culture, there are suggestions, both of which can be and routinely are set aside.
At some point there very well could be a showdown, and the fact that the President claims he has such and such power doesn't mean he has that power.
If there is no showdown, there is no enforcement. That what the showdown is about - enforcing that law. There hasn't been any. And in a system of precedent (and with a long history of recognition of precedent), getting away with something once in a legal framework means you can get away with it again. Also, if you can and do use a power and no one stops you, you have that power. You may not have that power on paper, but that's irrelevant in a lawless structure; it's what you can do that matters, and we've seen what the Chief Executive thinks he can do and has done - at least, some of it. Who knows how much else? We don't, and probably won't, because the investigations are being blocked - in some cases, as now, by Congress itself.