The Idea of limited government in English history plays during the reign of Elizabeth I, 1558 - 1603. By Edwin Peter Ellertsen. 1975.
https://www.facebook.com/peter.ellertsen/posts/1771880313073007?pnref=story
<
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html
Oxford University Press, Online Resource Centres. Endicott Administrative Law 2e [Online Resource Centre materials written by Timothy Endicott and Emer Murphy. Updated July 2011.]
Notes on key cases
Chapter 1: Administration and the principles of the constitution
Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74: Lord Coke held that the Crown has no prerogative to change the common law or statute, or to create new offences. He also held that the King only has the powers that the law allows him. This case is important as it is a move away from arbitrary government. It cements the separation of powers and the subjection of the executive to the rule of law.
Prohibitions del Roy (1607) 77 ER 1342, 12 Co Rep 64: All judicial power is exercised in the name of the monarch, but Lord Coke held that the King could not determine legal disputes in person. The separation of powers required that the task be delegated to the King’s judges. This case reinforced the separation of powers between the executive and the courts.
This is the single most dangerous thing Donald Trump said in his New York Times interview By Chris Cillizza November 22
Trump's statement carried considerable echoes of Richard Nixon's famous/infamous line to interview David Frost three decades ago: "Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”
It's impossible to know whether Trump was purposely channeling Nixon. (I personally think he wasn't doing so consciously.) In truth, it reminded me as much if not more of Sylvester Stallone as Judge Dredd declaring "I am the law."
No matter where Trump got the idea, it's a very dangerous one for any president to hold: That you (or anyone) is effectively above the law.
U.S. code Title 18 Section 208,
Hiding behind the "well, there's no law that says I can't do this" is not exactly presidential. And a belief that the president isn't bound to do everything he can to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest suggests a dangerous slippery slope about what a president can and should do in office.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/22/this-is-the-single-most-dangerous-thing-donald-trump-said-in-his-new-york-times-interview/?tid=pm_politics_pop
Trump’s Kleptocracy Is So Astounding It Already Feels Like Old News By Jonathan Chait
Nov. 23
The question receded into the background, in part because an endless series of other controversies obscured it, in part because Americans couldn’t fathom what Trump had apparently promised: the presidency as an adjunct of his real-estate and branding business. The developing world is filled with ruling families that use the state to amass huge and usually secretive fortunes. Such an arrangement has been heretofore unimaginable in the United States. And yet the surreal has quickly become real.
Astonishingly, the president-¬elect has treated the sanctity of government as a nonissue. In a recent tweet, he pronounced the question of his own enrichment through power to have been settled by the voters (or at least the Electoral College). “Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world,” he wrote. “Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!” He is not even claiming innocence — he is placing the question itself off-limits.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/trumps-kleptocracy-already-feels-like-old-news.html
Bracton on the King of England: “The king has a superior, namely, God. Also the law by which he was made king. Also his curia, namely, the earls and barons, because if he is without a bridle, that is without law, they ought to put the bridle on him.” [31]
"The king has no equal within his realm. Subjects cannot be the equals of the ruler, because he would thereby lose his rule, since equal can have no authority over equal, not a fortiori a superior, because he would then be subject to those subjected to him. The king must not be under man but under God and under the law, because the law makes the king... for there is no rex where will rules rather than lex. Since he is the vicar of Jesus Christ, whose vicegerent on earth he is..."[32] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_de_Bracton
De legibus & consuetudinibus Angliæ The laws and customs of England 1235 AD, 1569
Calvin’s Case (1608).
The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction; and this is lex eterna [the eternal law], the moral law, called also the law of nature. And by this law, written with the finger of God in the heart of man, were the people of God a long time governed, before the law was written by Moses, who was the first reporter or writer of law in the world.
. . .
This law of nature, which indeed is the eternal law of the Creator, infused into the heart of the creature at the time of his creation, was two thousand years before any laws written, and before any judicial or municipal laws. And certain it is, that before judicial or municipal laws were made, Kings did decide causes according to natural equity, and were not tied to any rule or formality of law, but did dare jura [give laws]. https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/08/30/sir-edward-coke-on-the-natural-law/
… the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God … -- DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Dan Rather, FB, Nov. 22, 10:44 a.m.
Now is a time when none of us can afford to remain seated or silent. We must all stand up to be counted.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/05/the-real-concerns-of-the-trump-transition HIstory will demand to know which side were you on. This is not a question of politics or party or even policy. This is a question about the very fundamentals of our beautiful experiment in a pluralistic democracy ruled by law.
When I see neo-Nazis raise their hands in terrifying solute, in public, in our nation's capital, I shudder in horror. When I see that action mildly rebuked by a boilerplate statement from the President-elect whom these bigots have praised, the anger in me grows. And when I see some in a pliant press turn that mild statement into what they call a denunciation I cannot hold back any longer.
Our Declaration of Independence bequeaths us our cherished foundational principle: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
These truths may be self-evident but they are not self-replicating. Each generation has to renew these vows. This nation was founded as an opposite pole to the capriciousness of an authoritarian monarch. We set up institutions like a free press and an independent court system to protect our fragile rights. We have survived through bloody spasms of a Civil War and a Civil Rights Movement to extend more of these rights to more of our citizens. But the direction of our ship of state has not always been one of progress. We interned Japanese Americans, Red Baited during the McCarthy era, and more. I feel the rip tide of regression once again swelling under my feet. But I intend to remain standing.
In normal times of a transition in our presidency between an incoming and outgoing administration of differing political parties, there is a certain amount of fretting on one side and gloating on the other. And the press usually takes a stance that the new administration at least deserves to have a chance to get started - a honeymoon period. But these are not normal times. This is not about tax policy, health care, or education - even though all those and more are so important. This is about racism, bigotry, intimidation and the specter of corruption.
But as I stand I do not despair, because I believe the vast majority of Americans stand with me. To all those in Congress of both political parties, to all those in the press, to religious and civic leaders around the country. your voices must be heard. I hope that the President-elect can learn to rise above this and see the dangers that are brewing. If he does and speaks forcibly, and with action, we should be ready to welcome his voice. But of course I am deeply worried that his selections of advisors and cabinet posts suggests otherwise.
To all of you I say, stay vigilant. The great Martin Luther King, Jr. knew that even as a minority, there was strength in numbers in fighting tyranny. Holding hands and marching forward, raising your voice above the din of complacency, can move mountains. And in this case, I believe there is a vast majority who wants to see this nation continue in tolerance and freedom. But it will require speaking. Engage in your civic government. Flood newsrooms or TV networks with your calls if you feel they are slipping into the normalization of extremism. Donate your time and money to causes that will fight to protect our liberties.
We are a great nation. We have survived deep challenges in our past. We can and will do so again. But we cannot be afraid to speak and act to ensure the future we want for our children and grandchildren.
https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10157761985710716
FAL. God save thee, my sweet boy!
KING. My Lord Chief Justice, speak to that vain man.
CH. JUST. Have you your wits? Know you what 'tis you speak?
FAL. My King! my Jove! I speak to thee, my heart!
KING. I know thee not, old man: fall to thy prayers.
How ill white hairs become a fool and jester! …
Henry IV, part 2 | Act 5, Scene 5
COMMENT DECEMBER 5, 2016 ISSUE
THE REAL CONCERNS OF THE TRUMP TRANSITION
Amy Davidson
In terms of Trump’s own transition to office, there are indications that the arc of his character is more like a loop. His attacks on everyone from the NBC News reporter assigned to cover him to the cast of “Hamilton” are a repeat of his campaign behavior. He seems unwilling to view the Presidency as an office, which has defined limits, instead of as a new way to express his personal desires, which have none. This is reflected, too, in his supposed gestures of moderation. His waning interest in locking up Hillary Clinton, which he expressed in an interview with the Times last week (“I don’t want to hurt the Clintons. I really don’t”), reveals a view of prosecution as something that a President can decide to unleash or withhold arbitrarily. In the same interview, Trump spoke in vague terms about keeping an “open mind” on international climate-change accords, but he also expressed a distrust of climate scientists, echoing the conspiracy-minded attitude of his campaign.
Trump also seems unwilling to engage seriously in the project of moving from the private sector to the public. The possible conflicts of interest posed by his many businesses, which operate in countries from Turkey to Argentina, can play out in farcical ways, such as when he complained to Nigel Farage, the acting leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, about the wind farms that mar the view from his golf course in Scotland. But the conflicts potentially involve politicians with more real power than Farage and interests that are more damaging to the United States. It would be difficult to manage them even if Trump were willing to give it a good-faith try, which, so far, has not been the case. “Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world. Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!” he tweeted last week.
He had said that he would hand the management of his business interests over to his adult children, but they are now advisers to the transition. He claims that, if critics had their way, “I would never, ever see my daughter Ivanka again.” But there has to be distance: if it is not between him and his children, then between his children and the business.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/05/the-real-concerns-of-the-trump-transition
No comments:
Post a Comment