Monk

The Constitution is ink on parchment. It is forty-four hundred words. And it is, too, the accreted set of meanings that have been made of those words, the amendments, the failed amendments, the struggles, the debates—the course of events—over more than two centuries. It is not easy, but it is everyone’s. It is the rule of law, the opinions of the Court, the stripes on William Grimes’s back, a shrine in the National Archives, a sign carried on the Washington Mall, and the noise all of us make when we disagree. If the Constitution is a fiddle, it is also all the music that has ever been played on it. Some of that music is beautiful; much of it is humdrum; some of it sounds like hell.

-- Jill Lepore for The New Yorker

I suppose this overview on Constitutional history and contemporary attitudes was spurred by the Republicans' theatrical call to have it read aloud when they took control of the House. Part of the power of the Constitution may be the sparseness and vagueness that allows it to be all things to all people.

♠
The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress’s side.

-- Adam Cohen for The New York Times

Mr. Cohen gives us the historical and constitutional grounding for the argument that Congress does have a determinative voice in matters of war. I must confess that I had thought that Bush really did have all the cards as commander in chief, in spite of the level of popular and Congressional disapproval, and this was just one of the consequences of electing the man to a second term. But I guess it's not that simple.

( Adam Cohen )

xXx

♠
“Abolish presidential term limits”

-- Jonathan Zimmerman for The Christian Science Monitor

On another Blah-ish, what-is-the-point-of-waking-up morning, this headline gave Monk the giggles. I would have thought this would be the last suggestion anyone would make at this point in our history, as more people may be more inclined to tighten restrictions and limit the president to one term if anything. However, Mr. Zimmeran is suggesting that it would make Bush more responsive to what the people want, as in wanting to get out of Iraq now rather than digging in deeper, if Bush had to face another election in the teeth of the voters' disapproval. And he uses President Eisenhower to poignantly make the point:

Indeed, as Eisenhower sensed, term limits reflect a loss of faith in democracy itself. If we believe in a government for and by the people, we should allow everyone - including Bush - to run for America's highest office. That would make the presidency less imperial, not more so, because presidents who were eligible for reelection would be more likely to heed the people who chose them.

I disagree with Mr. Zimmerman's reading of Bush. I do not think he would be responsive, but would only stand taller in his self-righteous belief that he knows best against the wishes of the mob. And I would not go so far as to say that term limits represent a loss of faith in democracy, but after the controversial 2000 elections, we are a little more worldly and skeptical, and faith is not enough by itself. We are talking about the most powerful office in the world, and some safeguards may be wise.

xXx