Attorney General John Ashcroft continues to demonstrate that he’s not going to go quietly into that good night of retirement.
In his first remarks since his resignation was announced Tuesday, Ashcroft forcefully denounced what he called “a profoundly disturbing trend” among some judges to interfere in the president’s constitutional authority to make decisions during war.
“The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war,” Ashcroft said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers group.
Certainly the person in charge in wartime must be able to command without every command being contested. But, then, a rather famous republic that formally created a provision for a war leader to rule without question during the emergency also handed down to use the names they used for that position — dictator and imperator (emperor) — and demonstrated the dangers of such powers if unchecked.
I’m not imputing sinister motives here, just noting that those with sinister motives could take advantage of such a setup. Presidential decisions must, within broad parameters even in time of war, be subject to some measure of review.
Is the situation today too intrusive and interfering? Possibly? But it would be nice if that case were made, rather than simply asserted.
Without mentioning [the Hamdan] case specifically, Ashcroft criticized rulings he said found “expansive private rights in treaties where they never existed” that run counter to the broad discretionary powers given the president by the Constitution.
“Courts are not equipped to execute the law. They are not accountable to the people,” Ashcroft said.
Putting aside that certain judicial positions (in lower courts) are, actually, accountable (hence the endless ballot “Do you approve Judge Henry Michael Frim to continue as Oshkosh County judge?” questions), the federal courts were intentionally set up by the Founders to not be accountable to the people, for fear that the masses would sway critically important decisions, that judges would be subject to political persuasion and coercion. The independence of the judiciary, once appointed and approved (by representatives of the people) serves as an important check in the system, as frustrating as that can sometimes be.
There is a balance needed here. But it’s up to the Administration to demonstrate to the people (you know, the ones they’re “accountable” to) that the courts are the guilty ones here.
(via BoingBoing)