Al Gore’s speech from January 16 is long, but powerful. Highly recommended. And, no, it is not a coincidence that I read it and am posting it at the very moment when Gore’s opponent in the 2000 case before the Supreme Court is speaking–and on the very day when the vaunted “swing vote” on that Court was replaced with an adherent to the doctrine of executive unilateralism. None of this is a coincidence.



I wouldn’t have necessarily guessed you were a Dem for some reason.
Must have been the link I followed in.
I read your mission statement, and I must say that I give as much credit to Th J as Madison.
Do you think of yourself as a non-Republican Party originalist, by any chance?
I’m not for PR, by the way.
Although I’m not against any State handling its House seats this way.
Blaine Won.
Seed planted by JS Narins — 02 February 2006 @ 15:20
[...] Ever since the theory of the “unitary executive” (which really ought to be called the unilateral executive) first came to my attention, I have wondered the same thing. But only after reading Steven’s post and pondering it over the last few days did it dawn on me that the answers to this puzzle have been right there in both my own body of academic work, and in a simple understanding of the ideology and constituency base of the Democratic party, as well is in structural conditions that make a politically supported unilateral Democratic President highly improbable. Republicans presumably know how implausible a unilateral President Clinton is, and thus do not fear her. [...]
Scion grafted by Fruits and Votes » Blog Archive » — 19 February 2006 @ 19:12