Scholars we pomocons like, such as Charles Kesler and Jeremy Rabkin, review Obama’s overall pattern of consulting the Constitution when considering action. And the overall pattern is by now clear:
H/T Instapundit.
P.S. Anyone read much of the new Kesler book yet?
October 16th, 2012 | 12:03 am
I like that article you posted, the writer really did his homework and covered alot of different areas of Constitutional law that I don’t usually think of as a whole body of law, but indeed are a whole. The writer is correct, Obama couldn’t give a darn about laws or precedents that get in the way of his chosen policies. Precedent in general is opposed to Obama’s progressive philosophy, as Carson Holloway pointed out in his review of Kesler’s book (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/6541/).
I haven’t read through Charles’ whole book yet, but I now know enough to judge a review to be correct or not. Lilla’s review was really problematic, if for no other reason than that he had Charles pegged wrong. Lilla surmised that Charles approved of the Populist movement contra the Progressive movement in “I am the Change”, but after reading that section (and taking Kesler’s course on American Political Thought II), that is completely incorrect. Lilla was tempted to make this error since it was a nice connection between Charles and the populism of Tea Partiers.
Having not finished the whole book, my own view is that I wish Kesler would have spent more pages exclusively on Obama and fewer on the whole history of liberalism (2 chapters vs. 3 chapters, with some Obama stuff sprinkled into the 3). But on the whole it’s a very good book and those 3 chapters on the history of liberalism will be the more important contribution after November and the defeat of Barack Obama
October 16th, 2012 | 4:59 am
Thank God someone is resisting this stuff, although what will probably happen is that The State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the 60 Plus Association will probably be found to have no standing in the courts. Isn’t that almost standard procedure, depending on the judge?
The Kesler book is sitting across the room waiting for me to wade through student papers. Those are not all I read this time of year, but I don’t dare get involved with a book right now. I’ve read into it, and have an argument with the Progressive meme that some conservatives present. I’ll write about that up front soon so everyone can pile on.
October 16th, 2012 | 8:28 am
Who knows what Lilla is thinking…
…but thanks so much CJ for the Holloway link. That essay is more Holloway on Obama and progressivism than it is Kesler on them, but as with everything Holloway touches, it’s very fine, very lucid, a pleasure to read.
October 16th, 2012 | 8:44 am
Reading the book in anticipation of writing a review. If you think that paying attention to the words of our political leaders is important (I do), then the book is very much worth reading, especially as it examines the links between Obama and his progressive/liberal predecessors.
October 16th, 2012 | 11:19 am
“He doesn’t [consult the Constituion]“. Hmm, the picture I have here is Bush picking up a facsimile of the Constitution before praying to his divine Saviour whether to invade Iraq
October 16th, 2012 | 11:41 am
Sorry, I hit a button on the keyboard by mistake. Let’s try again:
“He doesn’t [consult the Constitution]“. Hmm, the picture I have here is of Bush picking up a facsimile of the Constitution before praying to his divine Saviour whether to invade Iraq, or whether to allow waterboarding (I think it was John Yoo he actually consulted). Or Kennedy deciding on the Bay of Pigs invasion with a constitutional pamphlet in his hands. In what sense is it realistic to expect “consulting the Constitution” (as it were, holy writ or the I Ching) when contemplating particular government actions that are meant to be in the public interest?
And, having a look at Holloway’s review, I run across a really extraordinary statement expressing a view Holloway appears to endorse: “Yet many Americans revere the founding and take seriously the founders’ claims to have discovered the truth for all time about the rights of human beings.” Gee, those sapient Deists sure were something: they DISCOVERED (nice Enlightenment word, that) the TRUTH FOR ALL TIME. Cool. No irony here. Can’t get more ex cathedra than that, baby.
I also like Holloway’s bald-faced endorsement of “a life of ordinary and quiet acquisition”; surely this ultimate, non-progressive human goal is part of the “truth for all time” that was discovered circa 1776.
October 16th, 2012 | 12:42 pm
“the picture I have here is Bush picking up a facsimile of the Constitution before [deciding] whether to invade Iraq”
Hmm. Well, let’s see, he did actually get explicit Congressional approval before doing so, which is considered oh-so-quaint nowadays…
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact