This is really something. I suppose the world of the Great Society seemed as bizarre to the conservatives as this one does to me. Although I can draw some pretty stark distinctions between their world and mine based on the two documents they cite. But I'll settle for one. I was just teaching the Declaration and remarked that it boggles my mind to see people like Bush quoting it. The document is a radical call to revolution. Not the rule of law. It states that government is set up to protect our natural rights and if it fails to do so it is our *duty* to overthrow it. Rule of law. Right. Each day I think the moment of truth is closer; the day we need to accept our duty.

"This nation's fundamental commitment to the rule of law"

two takes on ROL (choose the one that best fits Ashcroft):
1. "The rule of law bakes no bread, it is unable to distribute loaves or fishes (it has none), and it cannot protect itself against external assault, but it remains the most civilized and least burdensome conception of a state yet to be devised" Michael Oakeshott

2) "It would not be very difficult to show that the phrase "The Rule of Law" has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general overuse. It may well have become just another of those self-congratulatory rhetorical devices that grace the public utterances of Anglo-American politicians" Judith Shklar

JohnStuart

For St. Cecilia's sake, someone should be there to disrupt the event if Ashcroft breaks into song.

My one oblique iota of respect for Ashcroft is based on the fact that the White House seems to have deliberately decided to keep him out of the loop when Gonzales requested the DOJ memo on conditions under which torture is okay, so long as we don't call it torture.

"Modern Republicans" say their abuse of power in the past four years is justified by external threats, that terrorist are the biggest threat we have ever Faced. Let me say politely, that's hogwash, these terrorist are infinitely small compared to the Soviet juggernaut, tiny, when held against North Korea, a flea in size to the NVA and positively microscopic when held against Europe's fascists and Asia's Rising Sun. Who are these men who cower in the face of serious, but manageable problem? Who are these men that say we must give up the country we know and love, who say we must revert back to some medieval form of government in order to "feel" Secure?

I don't know these men personally, but I'm sure the founding fathers of our country would have sickened at the sight of them. Let us pray that heaven is merciful and spares our founding fathers the sight of Gonzale's memos, or worse his confirmation.

But give these "modern Republicans" there due, they are right about one thing, there is a large and looming threat to the America we know and cherish. A threat so great that our nation is truly at risk, a monstrous beast that holds our nation in peril. Just as the international fascist's threatened Europe and Asia, we too are asked the same question asked of the, Spanish, Italians, Germans and Japanese, will we allow tyranny to plunge this world into darkness? A stateless tyranny is a weak and feeble parasite, but when it finds a strong host to feed on it becomes stronger than the host itself, since the host's future is superfluous to the parasite's design. Are we to be that host?

Having once lived under the same roof with Alan Bloom I learned to read the classics closely.

The Athenian notion was that the purpose of the rule of law was to make the state subordinate to law in order to prevent arbitrariness.

Aristotle considered whether it was better for kings to rule with discretion or according to the law, and determined that in a state ruled by law “God and reason alone rule” whereas “passion perverts the minds of rulers, even if they are the best of men”.

Alan Bloom’s 21st century heirs, the neocons and our departing Attorney General Ashcroft, however, have superimposed upon the Aristotelian view of law the Hobbesian construction that escaping the anarchy of a nasty, brutish and short life was the main reason people joined the state.

For the Hobbesian conservatives Aristotle’s rule of law (law that restrained the ruler) became “law and order”.

In the “law and order” construction, it became legitimate to suggest that the ruler’s power’s needed to be unfettered in order to defeat the forces of chaos.

When S Brennan writes ""Modern Republicans" say their abuse of power in the past four years is justified by external threats, that terrorist are the biggest threat we have ever faced", this is the Hobbesian vision of ROL.

Ashcroft is, therefore, faithful to the idea of the rule of law in his own, very Orwellian, re-casting of that concept. Aristotle would shudder, but Machiavelli would nod in understanding.

JohnStuart

Machiavelli might understand the current administration, but I doubt he would approve. You recall what he had to say about rulers who retreat into fortresses for security....

Speaking of asking questions (and particularly simple ones), here's one that's simple and straightforward that Gonzales should have to answer:

"In your interpretation, what limits did the September 14, 2001 joint resolution by Congress place on which countries the executive branch had the authority to invade?"

A simple question, but an important one. That resolution authorized the President to respond to the 9/11 attacks but said that the President could only retaliate against countries specifically connected to the attacks. However, Gonzales, as White House Counsel, received a memo from the Justice Department on 9/25/01 saying that "what Congress authorized didn't matter," and that there were "no limits" on presidential power. It also was the first official administration statement of the pre-emptive doctrine. The president, according to the memo, could attack preemptively any country he suspected of harboring "terrorists," "whether or not they can be linked to the specific terror incidents of Sept. 11." Given the facts, I wish Gonzales was on the record in terms of responding to this question.