[Dead Dog]

Well, he really hasn't stated anything on this thread that we can debate. It would be better if he would make a statement that we could attack and he defend.

How about his assertion that we have abandoned principle for power, and rule of law for rule of man? I'd like to see him both provide an example, and at the same time defend Bill Clinton's suborning purgery.

[sissyjane]

>>Well, he really hasn't stated anything on this thread that we can debate<<

You're right. All Perlstein does is refer posters to one of his various articles from the Village Voice. This is not a debate in my opinion.

[Kackikat]

I happen to know the definition of "the rule of law", do you?? It has none. It is a term perpetuated in the writings of the left political books and articles over the past quarter of a century to focus power on the courts. It was started to undermine the three branches of government and add legitimization to the Madison vs. Marboro concept that the Supreme Court is the only institution who can intepret the constitution. The term "rule of law" does not have a definition; it is fraudulent term with no real meaning. It can be used to confuse, manipulate and confer an invisible power not earned to the lawyers, courts and other legal bodies creating an imbalance in power that did not exist prior to using the term.

[Perlstein]

Sorry I'm 450 posts behind. Can't wait to read them!

Anway:
----How about his assertion that we have abandoned principle for power, and rule of law for rule of man? I'd like to see him both provide an example, and at the same time defend Bill Clinton's suborning purgery.
-------
Holding the medicare vote open for three hours, an unprecedented breech of congressional protocol. Producing memos approved by the VP's office saying the president doesn't have to follow treaties.

I don't defend Clinton because I didn't support Clinton.