Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

John Yoo and the Unitary executive theory's roots

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
FKA MNChimpH8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:42 PM
Original message
John Yoo and the Unitary executive theory's roots
apparently come from this character: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt

Some b/g on Schmitt

Carl Schmitt, who became a professor at the University of Berlin in 1933 (a position he held until the end of World War II) joined the NSDAP on May 1, 1933; he quickly was appointed "Preuischer Staatsrat" by Hermann Gring and became the president of the "Vereinigung nationalsozialistischer Juristen" ("Union of National-Socialist Jurists") in November. He thought his theories as an ideological foundation of the Nazi dictatorship, and a justification of the "Fhrer" state with regard to legal philosophy, in particular through the concept of auctoritas.

Half a year later, in June 1934, Schmitt became editor in chief for the professional newspaper "Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung" ("German Jurists' Newspaper"); in July 1934, he justified the political murders of the Night of the Long Knives as the "highest form of administrative law" ("hchste Form administrativer Justiz"). Schmitt presented himself as a radical anti-semite and also was the chairman of a law teachers' convention in Berlin in October 1936, where he demanded that German law be cleansed of the "Jewish spirit" ("jdischem Geist"), going so far as to demand that all publications by Jewish scientists should henceforth be marked with a small symbol.

Nevertheless, in December 1936, the SS publication Das schwarze Korps accused Schmitt of being an opportunist, a Hegelian state thinker and basically a Catholic, and called his anti-semitism a mere pretense, citing earlier statements in which he criticised the Nazi's racial theories. After this, Schmitt lost most of his prominent offices, and retreated from his position as a leading Nazi jurist, although he retained his post as a professor in Berlin thanks to Gring.

Nothing to see here.......

As for the Yoo connection, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well.... It's Why We Call Them Nazis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Right.
And Godwin doesn't apply to actual members of the Nazi party and their collaborators like Rove's father and Bush's grandfather.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. I wonder if he knows he'll be one of the first the Bushies throw over the side
they'll sacrifice the likes of him to save their country club buddies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidneyCarton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. No Kidding?
THE Carl Schmitt? I had to read up on this guy a couple of years back for a paper I wrote. This is truly fascinating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. Is it Fascism yet?
Edited on Wed Jul-23-08 07:10 PM by seemslikeadream
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. Is John Yoo a Moonie?
Inquiring minds want the answer to that question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. Fascinating!!!
In 1921, Schmitt became a professor at the University of Greifswald, where he published his essay "Die Diktatur" ("On Dictatorship"), in which he discussed the foundations of the newly-established Weimar Republic, emphasising the office of the Reichsprsident. In this essay, Schmitt compared and contrasted what he saw as the effective and ineffective elements of the new constitution of his country. To him, the office of the president could be characterized as a comparatively effective element within the new constitution, because of the power granted to the president to declare a state of emergency. This power, which Schmitt discussed and implicitly praised as dictatorial, was seen as more effective, more in line with the underlying mentality of political power, than the comparatively slow and ineffective processes of legislative political power reached through parliamentary discussion and compromise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt

In contrast:

While our Constitution makes the president the commander of chief of the military when at war, the power to raise and fund the army is explicitly given to the legislature (along with many other responsibilities awarded solely to the legislature). The president has powers and certain rights of the people may be suspended during a state of emergency such as an insurrection. The key is that the Congress must establish the rules for declaring a state of emergency. The president cannot do that alone by executive order. If the Congress passes laws giving the president authority in that area, then he can use it, but he can't claim it under the theory of unitary executive.

Also, it has been generally understood through history that the state governments possess more internal police powers than the federal government.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

I am going to copy the entire Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution as a reminder.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.ar...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
8. As an added comment, I would like to remind you that the idea
of the "UNITY of the Executive" as it applies to our system of government is discussed by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers No. 70.

It seems that, at the time the Constitution was being conceived, some suggested having a council or more than one executive sharing the limited powers of the executive. Hamilton argued that the Roman experiments with more than one executive failed, and also that a single office of one president meant would place more responsibility on the president. In other words, the president(s) would not be able to blame each other for mistakes or wrongs done by or failings of the executive.

In his discussion of the Federalist Papers, however, Hamilton makes it very clear that the office of the president, although held by one person, had only limited powers. I refer you to the Federalist Papers.

The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers.

The ingredients which constitute safety in the repub lican sense are, first, a due dependence on the people, secondly, a due responsibility.

Those politicians and statesmen who have been the most celebrated for the soundness of their principles and for the justice of their views, have declared in favor of a single Executive and a numerous legislature. They have with great propriety, considered energy as the most necessary qualification of the former, and have regarded this as most applicable to power in a single hand, while they have, with equal propriety, considered the latter as best adapted to deliberation and wisdom, and best calculated to conciliate the confidence of the people and to secure their privileges and interests.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedind...

Remember, although the Americans of the time of the Revolution strongly rejected the idea of a king and had experience with the Houses of Burgesses and such in the states in which they lived (subject to the Enclish monarchy), they had little experience with democracy as we know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. So unitary as Hamilton used it meant "one." Cheney and Yoo see it as
supreme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
9. I was just following orders
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 18th 2014, 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC