Live data from Hacker News

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

justsecurity.org

31–40 of 92 posts

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

#31
post #9

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…

>"if they had not stirred up the hornet's nest of populism from the right through the healthcare act fiasco"

To blame the President for this is ridiculous.

Our centrist President promoted a conservative think-tank idea battle tested in the laboratory of a large state, and was ridiculed as a marxist and a communist who was on the level of stalin. No hyperbole, these very attacks and words have become so common in conservative media that I am being very literal here.

The healthcare fiasco you point out was a manufactured fiasco.

The compromises made: conservative ideas, preservation of the private market, total lack of centralization are wholly anti-left anti-social ideas, and yet the opposition to him was as if he was an actual communist.

>"we would not be having Trump running for office today."

I consider this supremely naive.

The leaders of the national Republican party met before Obama was inaugurated and created the now-infamous obstructionist plan.

They promised each other: NO COMPROMISE, no assistance, no crossing the aisle. The only answer to ANY Democrat in the White House was simple: TOTAL uncompromising obstruction with the only valid and acceptable outcome being ideologically pure conservative policy.

The depth of the manufactured fiasco is proven by the simple history. A conservative idea to preserve the private market in the healthcare industry was hilariously tainted as socialist and the GOP successfully dragged their voters through another round of the Red Scare. This is indisputable: the renowned conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation is the genesis of the individual mandate which was battle tested by a Republican state administration. And yet, the second a centrist Democrat touches the plan, it's immediately the worst form of communism ever conceived...

>we would not be having Trump running for office today.

Trump is running today because the Republican Party promised their voters the Blood of any America-Destroying Commie-Democrat and failed to deliver what they could never deliver.

Republican leaders and Republican media stoked a fire for eight years and now they cannot control the four alarm blaze they've transformed their party into.

This is not Obama's fault. This is purely cause and effect. When you stoke a fire irresponsibly you get an irresponsibly large fire. Obama is a bystander. Republicans could have and would have stoked this fire for anyone who does not pledge fealty to their ideology. Look at how the #NeverTrump movement stokes this fire for Trump who they believe does not pledge true fealty to their conservative ideology. This is now how their party operates: Pledge fealty or you the problem that must be fixed, a RINO, an anti-Christ, a Muslim, a Marxist, a Leftist. Pledge fealty or you're the enemy. Obama was just a convenient target.

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

#32
post #3

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 wish more university rankings would have the results of their students held against them. An exit test of abilities, logic, and knowledge would be a great ranking system. Additionally, when Presidents claim to be constitution law focused and fail in almost all of the concepts of following the constitution, the professors have failed and the department should be redacted down, similar to the division system in socce…

Small correction, you're not redacted down in soccer but relegated down.

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

#33

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.

That's ... putting it mildly, Obama is a war criminal who condones torture. In a just state that followed the rule of law him, and many others in power, would be in jail.

It'll probably require a violent revolution or internal collapse before the endemic corruption in America is addressed.

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

#34

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.

It's not clear to me that narrow interpretations of the 4th amendment are more faithful to the Constitution than broad ones. It's true that the 4th amendment was put in the Constitution to provide a protection against warrantless searches of peoples' homes. At the same time, one of the motivating reasons for creating the Constitution as a whole was to create a powerful executive with broad authority to react to military threats, both external and internal. Why is it more faithful to the Constitution to give more weight to the 4th amendment and less weight to the President's broad powers as to national security?

The very first Congress provided for warrantless searches of goods entering and leaving the ports of the United States. Why does it offend the Constitution to interpret the border as being the line where the domestic concerns of the 4th amendment give way to the foreign powers concerns of Article II?

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

#35

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 is a war criminal who condones torture. In a just country he would be in jail.

Endemic corruption will continue in America until those in power suffer consequences.

Also, my comment will probably be banned by the pro state mods.

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

#36
post #34

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.

It's not clear to me that narrow interpretations of the 4th amendment are more faithful to the Constitution than broad ones. It's true that the 4th amendment was put in the Constitution to provide a protection against warrantless searches of peoples' homes. At the same time, one of the motivating reasons for creating the Constitution as a whole was to create a powerful executive with broad authority to react to milit…

It is also worth remembering that home searches were (and are) very annoying. The type of digital surveillance that is the topic of current 4th amendment debates do not directly inconvenience the person being investigated, so this argument does not apply.

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

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This probably is way way off-topic, but.... While on the face you seem to be decrying the polar tribalism that characterizes contemporary politics, you are using that very tribalism to make your argument. But the fact that some folks who label themselves "conservative" have advocated something does not obligate all people, or even any other people, who also label themselves "conservative", to also support it. Or will…

I appreciate the nuance of your argument. It's a good point in general, and I personally don't fit cleanly into any existing party.

That said, I think we can reasonably propose that most of the sound and fury over the ACA was political theater. Mitt Romney wasn't decried when he passed a nearly identical law in Massachussetts. In fact, the RNC chose Romney to run against Obama in 2012, so it clearly didn't hurt him much.

Ask yourself this: if John McCain had beaten Obama in 2008, and he proposed taking RomneyCare to the national level, do you think he would have drawn the same kind of criticism from republicans as Obama did?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is a republican problem. Democrats probably would have been furious with McCain if that had happened. They likely would have decried the lack of public option, and they would have called it a massive hand-out to private insurers. Democrats are not any better. They only supported the ACA because it was backed by their guy.

Obviously I'm speaking in blanket statements, and there will be individuals that this doesn't apply to. However, I'm pretty confident that these statements are true in the average case.

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

#38
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would like to see those videos actually.

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

#39
post #34

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.

It's not clear to me that narrow interpretations of the 4th amendment are more faithful to the Constitution than broad ones. It's true that the 4th amendment was put in the Constitution to provide a protection against warrantless searches of peoples' homes. At the same time, one of the motivating reasons for creating the Constitution as a whole was to create a powerful executive with broad authority to react to milit…

Can you tell me where the constitution gives the president "broad powers as to national security"?
Post reply on HN