Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

justsecurity.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 92 posts

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#11

Post by awinter-py »

bitwize wrote: post #6
awinter-py wrote: post #2

I was really hoping that barack would be the con-law president. If uchicago hasn't moved down in the rankings because their prof. emeritus is so bad at 'rule of law in practice', there's something wrong with the ranking system. It's shocking to hear a guy who was a professional legal theorist argue that something is legal based on the fact that he ordered the DOJ to write a memo.

Obama's reign was never about hope and change; it was always about der Wille zur Macht . Riddle me this -- what if Obama became a Constitutional law professor not so much to study, understand, and teach about the Constitution and its checks on government power, but to give scholarly support to a loose interpretation of the Constitution which does not meaningfully restrain government power ?

Also reasonable: law professor is a great job if you can get it. Plus when you run out of money you click your slippers and say 'no place like corp law'.

Also possible that he's a lizard person. Not much textual evidence for this case but if you like 45 minute youtube videos I'll recommend some good ones.

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#13

Post by astazangasta »

bitwize wrote: post #6
awinter-py wrote: post #2

I was really hoping that barack would be the con-law president. If uchicago hasn't moved down in the rankings because their prof. emeritus is so bad at 'rule of law in practice', there's something wrong with the ranking system. It's shocking to hear a guy who was a professional legal theorist argue that something is legal based on the fact that he ordered the DOJ to write a memo.

Obama's reign was never about hope and change; it was always about der Wille zur Macht . Riddle me this -- what if Obama became a Constitutional law professor not so much to study, understand, and teach about the Constitution and its checks on government power, but to give scholarly support to a loose interpretation of the Constitution which does not meaningfully restrain government power ?

I think this is giving him too much credit. Obama's career is too short to think of him as anything other than a lucky ticket holder. He's Warren Harding, or even George W. Bush again - it matters less what he believes and has done and more what the prevailing wisdom is. The main story in American government is continuity: no matter who sits the throne, it's the needs of the same establishment class that get met.

This is not to excuse the behavior of the man who chose to push buttons and kill people from the sky, but Obama did not invent any of this stuff. The drone program had already been created and had a life of its own. Obama was merely willing to play along with the game (instead of, say, cleaning out the CIA of torturers). The same goes for the rest - certainly, Obama wants power, but I think he actually sold himself for precious little of it.

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#14

Post by actsasbuffoon »

Agustus wrote: post #9
wavefunction wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps one should consider if a "constitutional scholar" is the perfect candidate to dismantle the Constitution bit by bit rather than someone who holds true to whatever your definitions of "Constitutional" are. I'll admit I voted for the guy the first time, but I was hoping for some significant differences in what we ended up with. Partially the fault of the obstructionist opposing party as well.

When he was elected, I was happy, perhaps he could enact the changes that needed to be made to reign in some of the spying, ridiculous defense contracts, and other items. I based this on the "not red or blue country" speech at the DNC convention. That hope passed quickly when he made the "I won" comment to the Republicans instead of just assuaging or listening to their now valid concerns. I would argue that the obstr…

> the healthcare act fiasco

The Affordable Care Act was based on RomneyCare, which in turn was based on model legeslation from ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Counsel). They're a conservative organization that writes bills and gives them to republicans to propose.

The republican reaction was just showmanship; a cry of indignation for the sake of the cameras.

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#15

Post by [deleted] »

awinter-py wrote: post #2

I was really hoping that barack would be the con-law president. If uchicago hasn't moved down in the rankings because their prof. emeritus is so bad at 'rule of law in practice', there's something wrong with the ranking system. It's shocking to hear a guy who was a professional legal theorist argue that something is legal based on the fact that he ordered the DOJ to write a memo.

[deleted]

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#16

Post by jandrese »

Agustus wrote: post #9
wavefunction wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps one should consider if a "constitutional scholar" is the perfect candidate to dismantle the Constitution bit by bit rather than someone who holds true to whatever your definitions of "Constitutional" are. I'll admit I voted for the guy the first time, but I was hoping for some significant differences in what we ended up with. Partially the fault of the obstructionist opposing party as well.

When he was elected, I was happy, perhaps he could enact the changes that needed to be made to reign in some of the spying, ridiculous defense contracts, and other items. I based this on the "not red or blue country" speech at the DNC convention. That hope passed quickly when he made the "I won" comment to the Republicans instead of just assuaging or listening to their now valid concerns. I would argue that the obstr…

The fiasco was the instant and complete evisceration of the single payer options originally present in the law. If private insurance companies can't do a better job than a big bloated government run institution, then they shouldn't be protected--they should be allowed to die. The public option would set a minimum bar that the companies would have to stay above to stay in business.

Instead, the thing the detractors feared has basically come to pass. Insurance companies in areas where there is not a lot of competition and suddenly a legal mandate for people to join are screwing over those people enormously. It's like if Comcast run your healthcare insurance.

Plus it did little to address the expensive and inefficient army of middlemen required to run the current system. Your doctor still needs people on staff dedicated to calling the insurance companies to talk to their middlemen to haggle over the need for every single procedure and then to haggle price and then to make a mountain of paperwork to document it all. It is an enormous waste of time and manpower but it pays a ton of salaries.

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#17

Post by bsbechtel »

actsasbuffoon wrote: post #14
Agustus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When he was elected, I was happy, perhaps he could enact the changes that needed to be made to reign in some of the spying, ridiculous defense contracts, and other items. I based this on the "not red or blue country" speech at the DNC convention. That hope passed quickly when he made the "I won" comment to the Republicans instead of just assuaging or listening to their now valid concerns. I would argue that the obstr…

> the healthcare act fiasco The Affordable Care Act was based on RomneyCare, which in turn was based on model legeslation from ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Counsel). They're a conservative organization that writes bills and gives them to republicans to propose. The republican reaction was just showmanship; a cry of indignation for the sake of the cameras.

I can't speak for the OP, but he may not be talking about the actual law or it's basis, but the execution of it, which has been a fiasco. We're 3 years into it, and insurance agents and "qualified" healthcare navigators still don't know what they're doing because it's so complicated. Never mind the security issues and complete lack of usability that is the healthcare.gov marketplace.

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#18

Post by matt_wulfeck »

How it should be:

- "Let's challenge these theories in the courts"

- "the courts have decided that the application of the law is too broad and we're going to add clearly defined limits so as to protect the rights of our citizens"

How it is:

- "the courts can not review or speak about what may or may not be a problem because of FISA orders."

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#19

Post by randomgyatwork »

awinter-py wrote: post #2

I was really hoping that barack would be the con-law president. If uchicago hasn't moved down in the rankings because their prof. emeritus is so bad at 'rule of law in practice', there's something wrong with the ranking system. It's shocking to hear a guy who was a professional legal theorist argue that something is legal based on the fact that he ordered the DOJ to write a memo.

I don't think his actions have much to do with what he believes, despite his intentions the government must function as it functions.

I think that Obama sincerely wanted to change things, but once he got the power he realized it wasn't possible, or he is a very convincing liar, so convincing that he believes himself what he said.

Re: The Obama Administration Has Embraced Legal Theories Broader Than John Yoo's

#20

Post by bpodgursky »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #18

How it should be: - "Let's challenge these theories in the courts" - "the courts have decided that the application of the law is too broad and we're going to add clearly defined limits so as to protect the rights of our citizens" How it is: - "the courts can not review or speak about what may or may not be a problem because of FISA orders."

FISA orders are completely unrelated to this.

These cases take a long time to trickle up to the Supreme Court. And you would have to either convince one of the 4 solid left-wing judges to side against the administration (hah -- and before downvoting, look at the voting records) or have a unanimous opinion on the right, which was difficult even when Scalia was alive, and obviously not helpful now, since a split enforcing a lower court decision doesn't set precedent.

Post reply on HN