Comments | jmc_bks: More Chalmers Johnson

jmc_bks

More Chalmers Johnson

Apr 22, 2007 14:01

I finished Johnson's Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, the third book of his trilogy on American empire. His basic thesis is that "republican checks and balances are simply incompatible with the maintenance of a large empire and a huge standing army." (p. 60) I took several pages of notes but don't think I'll be writing a review, ( Read more... )

nonfiction, political

Comments 3

anonymous April 23 2007, 03:08:04 UTC

Ah, Youngstown: good times, that one. Query: is Jackson's tripartite structure constitutionally sound, and has the Patriot Act changed the paradigm? I've been deciding on whether to pick up Johnson's book, and now I'm feeling inspired. I have Scheuer's book but haven't read it yet. Arendt is interesting, even when I disagree with her, which is more often than I want to, actually. I also loved Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Habermas and Derrida. Very dense but very good. Can't wait until August and the bar exam being O V E R!

Robin

jmc_bks April 23 2007, 13:37:48 UTC

I haven't read Youngstown since the Patriot Act was passed. Hadn't really thought about its influence, though I should have. Must reread carefully with that in mind. Sadly, I remember the main point of Jackson's opinion, but very little of the detail. What I do remember is the prof's comb-over flapping as he paced and expounded vigorously.

jmc_bks April 23 2007, 23:56:37 UTC

Initial thoughts after rereading Youngstown on the commute home: Jackson's tripartite structure *was* constitutionally sound, based on earlier executive authority case law and principals of statutory interpretation (I think). BUT I also think the Patriot Act and the current administration's overreach of power/authority (and the inability and/or unwillingness of Congress and the judiciary to check the executive) have gutted his structure and shifted the paradigm to the first category, at least with respect to terrorism.

I may post further on this after I've thought some more. Reading the majority opinion has me steaming on the issue of signing statements (again).

And I think the dissenting justices would fit in quite well on the Court today.