Civics 101 and turds in the sandbox
Quick review of government procedures for those of you who missed the 11th grade.
The Constitution provides for three co-equal branches of government, Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary. If the President ignores Congressional subpoenas, rewrites laws with signing statements, ignores judicial decisions, and orders his Attorney General not to execute the laws of the country, we have a Constitutional problem.
If a rogue county District Attorney violates the law in the course of prosecuting a case, is forced to resign as a result, disbarred, convicted, and held liable for his actions in a court of law, not a Constitutional problem.
It's hard, but not impossible, to fathom the workings of a mind that would seek to conflate the two different issues, or consider prosecutorial malfeasance to be as grave a threat to the Republic as the attempt to establish a unitary executive. Is it a case of ego, of thinking that your own issues supercede that of the entire nation? Is it simply that, as a result of coming to age in a life of privilege, anything that forces the real world to intrude upon that privilege must be inflated to the greatest threat to our very way of life, evah?
Who can really know?
A 30 second Google search on "wrongful prosecution" will reveal hundreds, if not thousands of instances. "Wrongful conviction" will reveal many more. The very existence of the Innocence Project, and the success it's had in freeing those who might otherwise have spent the majority of their lives in prison, or even have been executed, for crimes they did not commit, speaks to the widespread nature of the problem, and belies the singular importance or uniqueness of any one case. This does not minimize the importance of holding prosecutors and police departments accountable for their actions, and requiring them to function within the law. But to equate any of these cases with the actions of the Executive Branch of the US government in ignoring its duties and covering up its own crimes is, in the final analysis, wrong.
Moving on to other stuff, i have to say i got tired of stepping in turds every time i went to play in the sandbox. So for the time being, i've disabled anonymous comments. This may or may not reduce the actual turd volume, but it will at least let people distinguish whose turds they're stepping in. You'll need to have a Blogger account, or an OpenID account to post a comment for the near future. And i really, really don't give a shit what anyone thinks about it.
The Constitution provides for three co-equal branches of government, Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary. If the President ignores Congressional subpoenas, rewrites laws with signing statements, ignores judicial decisions, and orders his Attorney General not to execute the laws of the country, we have a Constitutional problem.
If a rogue county District Attorney violates the law in the course of prosecuting a case, is forced to resign as a result, disbarred, convicted, and held liable for his actions in a court of law, not a Constitutional problem.
It's hard, but not impossible, to fathom the workings of a mind that would seek to conflate the two different issues, or consider prosecutorial malfeasance to be as grave a threat to the Republic as the attempt to establish a unitary executive. Is it a case of ego, of thinking that your own issues supercede that of the entire nation? Is it simply that, as a result of coming to age in a life of privilege, anything that forces the real world to intrude upon that privilege must be inflated to the greatest threat to our very way of life, evah?
Who can really know?
A 30 second Google search on "wrongful prosecution" will reveal hundreds, if not thousands of instances. "Wrongful conviction" will reveal many more. The very existence of the Innocence Project, and the success it's had in freeing those who might otherwise have spent the majority of their lives in prison, or even have been executed, for crimes they did not commit, speaks to the widespread nature of the problem, and belies the singular importance or uniqueness of any one case. This does not minimize the importance of holding prosecutors and police departments accountable for their actions, and requiring them to function within the law. But to equate any of these cases with the actions of the Executive Branch of the US government in ignoring its duties and covering up its own crimes is, in the final analysis, wrong.
Moving on to other stuff, i have to say i got tired of stepping in turds every time i went to play in the sandbox. So for the time being, i've disabled anonymous comments. This may or may not reduce the actual turd volume, but it will at least let people distinguish whose turds they're stepping in. You'll need to have a Blogger account, or an OpenID account to post a comment for the near future. And i really, really don't give a shit what anyone thinks about it.
Labels: Bush administration, Constitution, metablogging
Since 1949, Durhamites have slept soundly, secure in the knowledge that, in our town, erection can be depended upon. Now, thanks to the power of the internets, we can spread that security all over the world.
7 Comments:
It is your right but it is funny how you have disabled the anonymous feature after a couple of posters disagreed with what you were saying.
Thanks though because it forced me to get off my lazy butt and register.
By
TrinityRez, at 10:09 AM
I go away for a little while and come back to find you're the proud owner of a ridiculous looking gander covered in goose sauce. You got had.
Poor little Barry just simply cannot stand to be disagreed with. Was the anonymous poster vulgar? Nope. Was the poster profane? Nope. Did he threaten someone? Nope. All he did was disagree with you and suggest that the injustice right under your nose might be worth some attention.
If you don't like turds in your sandbox, quit crapping there. So much for free debate in this country if Barry and people like him get control.
By
Locomotive Breath, at 9:00 AM
LB, like me, you know it has nothing to do with what is correct but who are the participants.
By
TrinityRez, at 11:16 AM
I'm so glad you guys decided to register. It was going to be so dull without you around to laugh at.
Now that we're all happy and registered, maybe LB can go read a fascinating Wikipedia entry on Aristotle's discussion of rhetoric.
By
Unknown, at 3:36 PM
I've had a registration for a while. Go back and check - you'll find registered comments. Most of the time I simply don't bother logging in. Why would I?
By
Locomotive Breath, at 4:06 PM
You go, Barry!
Why do people assume that those of us who have blogs do so to provide some sort of "forum?" I have my blog so I can say what I want, not so everyone else can spout off. If I don't like what you have to say I don't want you to come play in my sandbox. It's my sandbox, dammit--go get your own. That's why I have comment moderation turned on. I allow anonymous commenters, but at the first hint that I'm not going to like them I stop reading their crap and hit "reject."
Barry, I'm glad you're pissing off the morons! In fact, I think you should go a step further and moderate--that really gets 'em mad. It's fun to make idiots mad.
By
Lisa B., at 10:30 AM
Poor little lisa can't stand having to listen to anyone else. Here's an idea. Disable comments completely.
Either that or abandon the blog and simply spend all your time looking in the mirror and telling yourself how wonderful you are.
By
Unknown, at 10:49 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home