This post is actually taken from a thread on my forum. I’ll link to the thread at the end.
I think one of the biggest problems currently facing our nation is that we are very quick to assume the worst of intentions on behalf of those on the other side of the aisle. President Bush and Vice President Cheney dealt with unprecedented problems relating to terrorism. 9/11 involved a loss of life greater than Pearl Harbor. The financial consequences of the attack are probably still reverberating through our economy.
I do believe Bush and Cheney operated with good intentions and did what they felt was necessary to protect the nation and nothing more. I also think that they inappropriately politicized our anti-terror and war efforts… but I give them the benefit of the doubt because I believe they were sincerely convinced that the Democrats wanted to see them fail for political purposes.
Darthbater wrote:
There is a misconception that the law cannot be broken and no person is above the law, the truth is: if the act is for a greater good then the law does not apply. The Constitution was never written to tie our hands because of principles, the preservation of America must be protected by any means possible otherwise there would be no ruling law.
I disagree with the premise but ultimately agree with the conclusion. The fundamental basis of our nation is that we are a land of laws. Monarchies are defined and ruled by kings, dictatorships by dictators, theocracies by religious leaders, and democracies by a vague “will of the people” determined by majority of the vote. We are a Republic. A Republic is defined and ruled by the law itself - nothing is higher. The U.S. Constitution, which is the highest principle of Law in our country, spells out a government which is ultimately defined in relation to the law. We have a Legislative Branch which exists solely to create law. We have an Executive Branch which, as we so often forget, exists merely to enforce law. We have a Judicial branch which was created solely to interpret law. I would argue that when a branch of our government violates its relationship to the law by acting as though it is above the law, it undermines its own legitimacy.
There is something we tend to overlook, however, and it is in this that I believe you make a valid point. The Law, in its pure sense, is supposed to be a thing of Higher Principle. The beauty of the Constitution, for example, is that it is supposed to reflect and protect God-given rights. In its most pure sense, Law is not something created by men, but rather something created by God and, again, Higher Principles. Our laws do not always reflect that, and even the Constitution, being a document of man, is an imperfect reflection.
Much of this goes back to classical Western thinking. Plato spoke of Forms and Aristotle spoke of Essence. There is a thing, as we see it in the world around us, and then there is that thing’s fundamental nature which is core to its existence. An example of the idea is that had man never existed and even had three sticks or whatever never fallen in a closed shape with three sides and three vertices, the essence of a “Triangle” would still exist on some higher level. Another example is the fact that two plus two would still be four, even if no one were around to articulate it. Of course, philosophers such as David Hume ultimately came about and discredited concepts such as this, but it still reflects a core idea upon which our nation was founded.
In a Republic such as ours, Legislators are meant to create laws. Being human beings, and considering that nothing can be higher than its source, our laws are limited to greater and lesser degrees. Being human beings, however, we are capable of articulating principles which are higher than ourselves. We are not really the source of those ideas. No man invented two plus two being four, nor did a man invent the shape of a square - we’ve merely discovered such things.
Insofar as our laws reflect higher principles, we are bound by them. Were all our laws framed so perfectly, no man could be above them. This is the ideal of the Republic. Considering that we live in reality, however, and not the world of ideals, our laws often are not reflections of higher principles. Were Congress to create a law tomorrow ordering that everyone upon their 30th birthday must be put to death, we would not be bound by such a law because it would be in direct violation of higher principle and, by extension, True Law.
The principles and rights reflected in the Constitution are perpetual because they are granted to us by Nature and by God. As far as this is true, no man is at liberty to strip other men of these rights. I would argue, however, that the “Law”, as determined by higher principle, as well as the Constitution so far as it reflects that “Law”, does not extend these rights to all men. Those whom actively seek to undermine the rule of Law in our Nation are, by definition, not protected by that Law. We don’t have to “play nice” with terrorists that seek to destroy us.
That which is ideal is stable, eternal, and unchanging. That which reflects reality is dialectic, fluid, ever changing, and is not necessarily always suited for what is ideal. The higher principles which apply to normal times are not the same as the higher principles which apply to times of grave danger and difficulty. In normal times, it is not acceptable to shoot a man under any circumstances. In times where that man has a gun, however, and intends to do you or your loved ones grave harm, it is fully acceptable to shoot to kill. The principles themselves have not changed, merely the principles which apply due to the change in circumstance. 9/11 and its wake was a massive change of circumstance and President Bush and Vice President Cheney had to react according to principles which applied in that situation. They did a magnificent job in ensuring that they did not undermine normal principle. They had an unprecedented opportunity to seize perpetual power for themselves - the fact that they made no effort to do so stands as a testimony to their good efforts and to the fact that these are men who truly did “get it” and who do love this country.
Things have slowed down a bit, though, and we find ourselves returning to the normal higher principles which ought to apply in normal times. With this in mind, President Obama returns us, at least to some degree, back to the status quo. I think Cheney makes a very valid point in stating that Obama has no right to criticize the actions taken by the previous administration, however - unprecedented circumstances require unprecedented approaches determined by an unprecedented Higher Law. As far as President Bush and Vice President Cheney were acting according to the highest principles pertinent to their situation, I would argue that they did not violate the Law but rather acted in accordance with it. No man is above the Law, but what is lawful is not a stagnant thing.
Discuss it here or debate it at Snarkbate!
