Something for Bromide: "Andrew Jackson tended to relish violence almost to the point of connoisseurship. His instincts for it helped him beat the British in 1815." - not a perfect article, but right up our alley - "Andrew Jackson’s assault on habeas corpus.
In war, there are always shady issues of rights, esp for enemy combatants and--worse--collaborators and spies. But giving the executive the leeway to wage combat is NOT the same as giving the executive the power to make up its own rules. The executive should have a healthy respect for the legislative and judicial branches, not open contempt for and crass defiance of them. They aren't speed bumps or road blocks, they are the necessary checks to our natural urge to "follow the leader" into a dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteTrue democracy, ie mob rule, is barbarism; but no American signed up for a kingdom just to protect us from it. Hence, those checks and balances things.
Where did we put those, by the way?
Just what you'd expect from Florida-stealing, Indian killing, bigamist-marrying Burrite! What were good Whigs doing while "King Andrew" was denying the rights of citizens? Making peace, that's what.
ReplyDelete