Replies

Like most of the people on FR, I have way too many books. But you never know when you might need one or another. I'm reminded of this because I just saw my copy of the Tower Commission Report on Iran-Contra.

One would expect every good leftist to have one, though the liklihood of any of them understanding it is much smaller.

The Reagan administration acted in secret to pervert the Constitution.

Non-public conduct of national security policy does not in itself pervert the Constitution. It's a regular and legitimate function of presidential foreign policy. The real issue here is with the constitutionality of legislative attempts to control executive policy for the executive in addition to its own policy making. See Chadha if you have further interest in this subject.

Interesting choice of words BTW from a guy who regularly defends The Lincoln's rampant and unilateral abuses of the U.S. Constitution, not to mention from the same guy who said only a few days ago that the Constitution was a "pact with the devil."

As you doubtless know, the separation of powers in that Pact with the Devil we call our Constitution

There you go again...

gives only Congress the right to raise and spend money.

Actually, it gives Congress the power to raise government revenue by taxation and appropriate the revenue that it raises.

The executive branch can't get the grass cut at the White House unless Congress approriates the funds.

Sure they could. The President could theoretically hire somebody himself to do it, get somebody to do it for free, get somebody to donate it, offer to cut somebody else's lawn in exchange for it, or cut it himself.

It's a real laffer for you to jump on Abraham Lincoln over something that has never been authoritatively decided

BZZZT! Wrong. Habeas Corpus has been authoritatively decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and affirmed by the U.S. Circuit Court. Legislative veto and the separation of powers have also been authoritatively decided by the Court in ways that show Congress to have been in violation during Iran Contra.

At least Lincoln did everything openly.

Really? Then why did he mark all his letters plotting the capture of Fort Sumter starting back in December 1860 as "confidential" and "secret"? This little tendency of his continued throughout his term and is evidenced by almost every government correspondence the guy ever wrote. Doesn't sound very open to me...

I feel that admiration for Reagan has rightly diminished over time, and rightly so.

The last polls I saw on the greatest presidents indicated Reagan was moving up the latter. As a Mondale voter, I have no doubt you wish this were not so, but to your dissappointment it indisputably is. If anything, Reagan's admiration has increased despite media and leftist attempts to drag him through the mud by turning a foreign policy dispute into a "scandal."

Bush denied any knowledge of these illegal activities in the 1988 campaign, but in his first term, it all came out. That is another reason he lost in 1992.

Aside from the far left who thought it was a "big deal" and who would have never voted for Bush anyway this is simply not true. Wish as you may otherwise, the issue never resonated because it was a non-issue. Bush lost for two reasons in 1992. (1) Bill Clinton was able to manufacture the perception that the economy was still bad and blame it on Bush even though it had been on the rise for a year, and (2) Ross Perot.

The Reagan administration acted in secret to pervert the Constitution.

Non-public conduct of national security policy does not in itself pervert the Constitution.

No, certainly the government needs to keep secrets.

But the --Congress-- had passed legislation that the executive branch was bound to obey -- the Congress makes law, not the executive branch. But the Reagan administration -- none of this is at all controversial or new-- conducted affairs in secret, went outside the letter and spirit of the Constitution and secretly funded an army with proceeds from the sales of U.S. government property.

Secretary of State George Schultz is well on the record as having opposed these activities. He was overruled.

None of this is at issue, but I do welcome your comments, because it certainly puts your condemnation of President Lincoln in a different light.

Walt

Bush lost for two reasons in 1992. (1) Bill Clinton was able to manufacture the perception that the economy was still bad and blame it on Bush even though it had been on the rise for a year, and (2) Ross Perot.

Read my lips.

Those are two of the reasons.

It bears repeating that Bush I was a foreign policy "expert". He had been ambassador to China and head of the CIA. His major expertise was in foreign policy. He was in way over his head and uncomfortable with the economy. I'm one of those who thinks the president can't control the economy that much any way. There was a big expansion under Reagan (another guy shot full of luck), it was only natural that there be a slow down. It didn't much help Bush I to look so clueless though.

But on foreign policy -- he'd been immersed in that, and the president DOES have a lot of power and leeway to conduct foreign policy -- and he blew it, plain and simple when it comes to Iraq.

Walt