Executive authority v congressional oversight

Playing politics with the law?

The president is under congressional attack for a series of supposed power-grabs, just as used to happen under George Bush

See article

Readers' comments



Unless this country become more united than divided we will watch our major and minor competitors lead us in everything because (they see that for years we never worked together unless blood was shed)while we bring our country down from within........we should be called the United States of Babylon......it seems more fitting. :(


The great thing about Obama is that just when his critics say his is being "soft", he makes a bold decision. Giving the young and undocumented employment authorization was the right thing to do and a bold move. In addition, it is a political knock out punch. Romney is scared to voice his opinion on this. Keep in mind that a few months earlier, Obama proposed a rule to allow certain undocumented people to file for waivers of inadmissibility stateside and get a decision in the United States before going home. When that rule is finalized, Romney will be stuck once again. The immigrant population in the United States is stronger than ever. Romney is going down fast..

Anonymous in America

Why is The Economist not holding Eric Holder to the same standard of transparency that it held to Alberto Gonzales in response to the firing of "prosecutors, who after all work for the president?" www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2007/03/bring_me_the_head_of_... Is The Economist not aware that Sen. Charles Schumer introduced a resolution of no confidence in Alberto Gonzales? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SJ00014:

Whether a no confidence or a contempt resolution, the objective is to leave the attorney general with no choice but to resign.

Anonymous in America, There’s some important differences between the actions of Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Holder. The firing of U.S. attorneys by Mr. Gonzales received special attention because it seemed clear that his Justice Department was using its authority for purely political purposes. The justices being fired were let go either to impede investigations into Republican politicians or because they failed to initiate investigations into Democratic politicians.

Certainly the deaths of American agents and Mexican civilians that resulted from an idiotic scheme by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) are much more tragic. But it’s also just as clear that “Fast and Furious” wasn’t an effort by Mr. Holder to abuse his authority for political gain.

We can debate whether ineffective oversight (or outright stupidity) is better or worse than abuse of power for political gain, but they are not the same sorts of offense. Mr. Holder is trying to ‘clean house’ -- Ken Melson, the Director of the ATF, was forced to resign over the botched program. Mr. Gonzales couldn’t ‘clean house’ without resigning because he was directly involved; he had his own Chief of Staff compile the list of attorneys to be sacked!

I believe, and perhaps The Economist does too, that abuse of power for political gain is corruption, pure and simple, and is by far much worse. Thank You.

I commented on congressional oversight and administration transparency. You commented on the substance of the congressional investigations of the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales and Eric Holder.

If Eric Holder knew of the "Fast and Furious" program, then he failed to speak out and immediately terminate a program that was at best a very bad idea and at worst designed to fail, and Mr. Melson is the fall guy. If Mr. Holder did not know of the program, then he failed to adequately oversee an "idiotic scheme" that he now claims he inherited from Michael Mukasey, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as attorney general under President Bush. Either way, Mr. Holder is in no position to conduct an honest internal investigation and "house cleaning" as a result of the "Fast and Furious" program.

I return to congressional oversight and administration transparency. Unlike the prosecutor firings, the U.S. government and taxpayers are exposed to civil liability from the "Fast and Furious" program. The family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, an agency of the Justice Department. More lawsuits might follow. As a co-equal branch of the U.S. government, Congress is entitled to Mr. Holder's complete cooperation (including the provision of confidential documents pursuant to some type of nondisclosure agreement) in its investigation of the "Fast and Furious" program.


None of this matters. America is going down. Side-shows like this are merely a distraction akin to squabbling over chess rules while the Titanic goes stern-up in the icy North Atlantic waters.

John Mayberry in reply to CA-Oxonian

CA-Oxonian, You wrote “America is going down.” Really!? That’s a bit melodramatic, don’t you think? Most of the world is in an economic slump – some countries have even slipped back into recession, but I don’t see thousands in the U.S. jumping off skyscrapers, emigrating en masse, or barricading themselves in bunkers. Do you really believe we survived all the calamities, the ups and downs of the last two centuries, but now we’ll just give up and die? Get a grip!


This article is a one-sided, biased, intellectually dishonest piece of political advocacy.

"Fast and Furious"
Would someone please explain how executive privilege applies to something Obama's White House didn't know about?
"The first I knew about it was on the news"

Holder is conducting an obvious cover-up.

And before the "It Is Bush's Fault" believers chime in -
Please point out the case(s) where an American Citizen was killed as a result of "lost" guns.
Please point out the case(s) where a Mexican Citizen was killed as a result of "lost" guns.

CosmicCharlie in reply to 7uEK6tXmvR

Fast and Furious is not Bush's fault...you are right!

But trumped up allegations of WMDs (you know, those "lost" WMDs) in Iraq are Bush's fault, and a hell of a lot more American citizens died from Bush's act of treason.

FFlump in reply to 7uEK6tXmvR

Bush Jr was a terrible mistake the republicans inflicted on the world twice. No democratic President in our lifetime will ever get close to Bush in horridness. Keep mentioning Bush and Obamas second term is assured.

7uEK6tXmvR in reply to CosmicCharlie

>> But trumped up allegations of WMDs (you know, those "lost" WMDs) in Iraq <<

Oh come on - so it is the German's fault, and the French, and the British, and the Democrats in Congress ....???

Quit bringing up these straw-man arguments - stay on point - there is every sign that Holder is conducting a coverup, and anyone can see it.
The coverup is the issue.

7uEK6tXmvR in reply to FFlump

That is not the way I see it.
I don't think everyone is to pleased at the prospect of 4 more years of this.
Just exactly how do you explain the the results of the 2010 elections - ecstatic joy and happiness with Obama/Pelosi/Reid?
Just what is your answer to 40% deficits - higher taxes?
Do you thing that Government debt >100% GNP is healthy?
Do you really have fond memories of the Carter Administration?


"he [Obama] has insisted that health-insurance policies offer contraception free of charge in an effort to appeal to women"

Perhaps the Economist threw that one in becuase lists of three are appealing to write. It makes the author sound like it can go on and on, but still constitutes an easily remembered group. I would like to believe this so I can continue to enjoy the Economist. Oversights are forgivable

However, to ape Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update... REALLY!?!

Does the Economist really believe that Obama supports/pushes for "free*" contraception to "appeal" to women voters? No, it is part of his personal beliefs, part of his party's platform, and, most of all, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT 1954 AND THIS IS NOT SAUDI ARABIA. He doesn't do it to "appeal" to women voters, he does it because he believes it's the right (sane, enlightened, choose whatever word you want) thing to do -personal beliefs. Contraception saves vast amounts of money and is absolutely instrumental in gender equality; women need to have freedom with and control over their sexual and reproductive lives -party platform.

To the extent women do not have acess to contraceptives, we are a society unequal along gender lines -U.S. ca. 1954 or Saudi Arabia.

(I'm not fond of saying "free" when one must pay for insurance, because "free as long as you pay something" is obviously contradictory. I suppose when I watch Fox News, it's "free," as long as I pay my cable bill.)

tryworkingforaliving, you are either ignorant or a liar. Conservatives in the U.S. having been trying to reinstate bans on contraceptives ever since they were legalized in the U.S.

Conservative view: I value personal liberty thus I want to control you in the bedroom.

Liberal view: I value personal liberty that is why I want to regulate businesses that want to step on you.

CosmicCharlie - please explain, in detail, how American conservatives are trying to reinstate bans on contraceptives. (Mitt Romney took a primary debate moderator to task for raising the issue because it was never discussed on the campaign trail.)
Contraceptives are manufactured, distributed, purchased and sold in interstate commerce. As long as contraceptives are safe to use, the states have no authority to ban them.
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled state laws banning the use of contraceptives violate the right to privacy. Are conservatives proposing a federal constitutional amendment to repeal Griswold v. Connecticut? Considering the difficulty to amend the U.S. Constitution (affirmative two-thirds votes in the House and the Senate, and affirmative majority votes by three-fourths of the states), it is extremely unlikely that such an amendment will be ratified.
Talk on the issue of contraceptives is intended to energize constituencies in the run up to the November elections. If, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare in its entirety, then President Obama will accuse the activist, if not rogue, Reagan/Bush/Bush justices of taking away your right to contraceptives which, again if Obamacare is struck down in its entirety, President Obama will no longer have the legal authority to order employers or insurance companies to provide in their insurance coverage plans.

Interesting argument, except for the fact that even though you are using accurately the precedent and the logical consequence of the need of a new precedent or a super-majority in Congress to change the ruling. But, unless you have forgotten how laws work (I assume you are either a lawyer or someone with legal knowledge). You can make sure through REGULATIONS that the enforcement of a particular ruling, would become almost impossible to enforce. And again, have you been living out of the country for the last 2 years? Just check up what Republican dominated congresses have been doing in that period of time. They have passed more laws against abortion and contraception than they have tried in the last 20 years. The Federal Law and ruling from the Supreme Court, dictate the framework of the laws at that level, but the implementation and regulation of those laws go down to the states. Do I need to remind you of 1965 and the South and why those states are still looked after when it comes to voting rights? Sad that you would try to confuse the others with "proper legal writing" Socrates call those sophists.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. Birth control pills have been on the market for decades and condoms for centuries. The most federal regulators can do today is slow down the testing and approval of new devices and drugs and remove unsafe products from the marketplace. I suppose a Republican-controlled Congress could pass a law to prohibit the manufacture, distribution and sale of contraceptives in interstate commerce, but such a ban would be challenged in lawsuits seeking to apply Griswold v. Connecticut to federal laws and/or repealed by a subsequent Democratic-controlled Congress.

There are at least two important distinctions between contraceptives and abortion. Contraceptives are a product in interstate commerce (Congress has the authority to regulate products in interstate commerce; the states may prohibit a product only if it is proven to be unsafe to use), whereas abortion is a medical service that is not in interstate commerce (the states, but not Congress, have the authority to regulate medical professionals, facilities and services). And in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court found no state interest at stake in regulating contraceptives, whereas in Roe v. Wade, the Court found a state interest in regulating abortion. Taking advances in medical technology into account, the states are passing more and more laws to protect that interest. Lawsuits are filed seeking a determination that the state interest is trumped by the right to privacy.

Although there is more to this issue than is discussed by the candidates, the media (including, sadly, The Economist) and the public, I find that discussion to be no more than an attempt to distract voters from the feeble economy. I am sorry if you find my writing confusing.

Just to keep it simple, if you can show me any reliable study that says that there have been discovered "new" or "different issues that were not available at the time" related to abortions that really deserve the attention of republican congresses all over the country then we are talking facts and science backing it up. Bible studies do not count, and people nowadays forget that it was this great nation-USA-the one that gave to the entire world the prove of the division of church and state and the concept of modern democracy. If you have found any of those studies, I will spend the time to read them entirely. I am sure that will help me with my vocabulary anyway.

I need to read your comments more carefully.

In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court found a state interest in regulating abortion and ruled the states can regulate or prohibit the abortion of viable fetuses. Fetal viability is a medical question. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court allowed the states to further regulate abortion as long as the regulations are not an "undue burden" on the privacy right to abortion. Following the Planned Parenthood decision in 1992, a number of states have enacted laws requiring, for example, informed consent (including ultrasound testing), parental notification (minors are presumed to be unable to consent to medical procedures) and waiting periods before an abortion is performed.

As for the separation of church and state, the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that the separation is absolute. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court ruled government action must have a secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not excessively entangle government and religion. I suppose government action that has a religious purpose as well as a secular purpose will be upheld as long as the action does not advance or inhibit religion or excessively entangle government and religion. I am not aware of any court decisions striking down, for example, laws prohibiting the death penalty because legislators or voters looked to their religious beliefs (the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty) in enacting such laws.

I do not go to church, so I am less concerned about the relationship between church and state and more concerned about the relationship between the People and the state. If the state is not subordinate to the People, then the People are screwed. Following President Obama's announcement on work permits for undocumented aliens and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the Arizona state immigration law, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were ordered to discontinue cooperation with Arizona state and local law enforcement on immigration status checks. President Obama's immigration announcement and the ICE order take us back to executive authority versus congressional oversight.

Again, if the government is not kept in check and thus is not subordinate to the People, then the Framers' promise to posterity is broken and the People are screwed.

I am only following it up because so far you are the only Republican I have met so far that is at least trying. But, still you are not playing the game at your best yet. I do not think I need to remind you that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, therefore the Constitution remains the main law of the land. When you are interpreting the law, there is room for it only when the language was not particularly self-explanatory-clear and precise- or whether the circumstances have changed so dramatically that the contexts in which the law was supposed to be enforced are no longer in existance, and blah blah blah and so on, you need interpretation. But the main tool you have is to go to the papers written by those who created the law, yes yes wait for it, the founding fathers. And I guess you know now where I am going with it. Church and State bad together. Why, because you need only to contextualize it. Colony, kingdom, europe, catholic church, anglican church, etc. It is not hard to put two and two together if you know your history. Second, you never answered if there were any studies in the medical field that will back it up. Again when you explain the Plan Parenthood vs Casey case and the "undue burden" and its link with the following states regulating abortion, you just admitted what I told you before, that republicans have used their power of regulation to prevent women to access to abortion instead of promoting it. By the way, I am pro life, but I cannot impose my ideas on any woman, simply because I am not one and my rights end when theirs begin- like law101-
Through regulations they have stripped their rights, based on their beliefs. It is as simple as this, if you and your fellow religious friends have good standards of living and morality and blah blah blah, you do not need laws to impose the behaviors you do not only preach but most importantly follow.
About the Immigration Reform, I am all for it. I always told my friends that if someone wants to come illegally to my country I would be the first one having issues with it. But, it is hypocritical to say that is the immigrant's fault. It is simply an economical issue, "if job-creators, aka republican farmers, would not offer them jobs, immigrants (and I am guessing you are concerned about the brown ones like me :) ) will never come here," so you should not enforce your borders but set severe penalties on those americans hiring them. Punish the cause not the consequence. It is hypocritical to be blinded but the fact the American agriculture depends highly on uneducated immigrants to do the jobs on the farms no one else here want to do.
Always nice chatting with you Anonymus. Before you answer me I will just tell you that I went to Law school, not in the US, but still not very hard to catch the "verborrea" when someone is trying to avoid the main question. :)

In asking for medical studies, you seem stuck on my statement "Taking advances in medical technology into account, the states are passing more and more laws to protect that interest." At the risk of repeating myself, I need to correct that statement in order to move this discussion forward.

In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court found a state interest in regulating abortion and ruled the states can regulate or prohibit the abortion of viable fetuses. Fetal viability is a medical question. I imagine medical studies have been done to determine a generally accepted point of fetal viability in the course of a pregnancy. I also imagine viability varies from pregnancy to pregnancy. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court moved away from the Roe v. Wade viability analysis (courts sometimes have trouble resolving complicated medical questions) in favor of allowing the states to regulate abortion as long as the regulations are not an "undue burden" on the privacy right to abortion. The states thus do not need strict medical evidence in hand in order to regulate abortion and instead may rely on the general power to protect public safety and health to regulate medical services, including abortion. Whether a regulation is an "undue burden" on the privacy right to abortion is a question for the courts.

As for the separation of church and state, you have not explained how state abortion regulations violate the First Amendment Establishment Clause. How does, for example, a parental notification requirement for an abortion violate the Establishment Clause? If state law says minors (age 17 and under) cannot consent to sexual activity, then how can minors consent to an abortion? You might see parental notification requirements as an attempt to prohibit abortion in violation of the Establishment Clause (which you have yet to explain). I see parental notification requirements as a straightforward harmonization of a state's statutory rape laws and medical services laws and regulations. By the way, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a parental notification requirement for an abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

As for the separation of church and state generally, Framer intent does not help you. The best evidence of Framer intent is the First Amendment itself, which was ratified in 1791. Upon ratification, the Establishment Clause prohibited only the federal government from establishing a national religion (the First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"). The Framers were aware colonies and states had established religions. If the Framers had intended to prohibit the states from establishing a religion, then they would have included language in the Establishment Clause to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court first applied the Establishment Clause to state law, via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, in Everson v. Board of Education, in 1947. The Supreme Court has never ruled that a separation of church and state is absolute.

In sum, (1) because contraceptives are a product that is manufactured, distributed and sold in interstate commerce, the states cannot prohibit the sale of them unless they pose a risk to public health and safety (if a product is unsafe, then the federal government too may prohibit the sale of it under the Commerce Clause); (2) the states may regulate medical services, including abortion, as long as the regulations are not an "undue burden" on the privacy right to abortion; and (3) I am not aware of any court decisions striking down state abortion regulations on First Amendment Establishment Clause grounds.

Whether the issue is abortion, physician-assisted suicide, the death penalty or same-sex marriage, separation of church and state arguments might work in the court of public opinion but are far too vague for a court of law.

Interesting logic, I agree that it sounds pretty good but let's play lawyer. I have not played for over 4 years now but I guess it is like riding a bike.
First of all, that means I needed to use precedents as well and that was a hell of a job; nevertheless, it was fun.
Separation of Church and State answers everything, simply because those who oppose abortion, gay marriage, etc. are "enlightened" through the moral framework that their religion provides-they call themselves Christians, I call them Biblists, because I am a Christian and that means that before I do something I ask myself what would Jesus do?- But let's go with the key issue here: viability.
Did you bother to read, COLAUTTI v. FRANKLIN, 439 U.S. 379? Do not worry I did it for you and I will explain to you why my medical approach made sense even before I read the aforementioned precedent.
(1) In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court states that the right of privacy "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Therefore unless there are some restrictions due to her marital status, her age, or the viability of the fetus, it is her right, though not absolute. The Court also concludes, "But AFTER VIABILITY, the [439 U.S. 379, 387] State, if it chooses, may regulate or even prohibit abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman"(The Capitalization is mine.) Correct me if I am wrong but that still leaves that regulation restricted to the viability of the fetus, no? It does not leave it to the "undue burden" to the right of privacy as you said, even though that is obvious since it is her right. And on top of that it restricts the States' regulatory power if the life of the pregnant mother is at risk, determined by "APROPPIATE MEDICAL JUDGMENT" that is never the appropriate judgment of the legislators. (2)In the same case (Roe v. Wade) the Court concluded that viability of the fetus refers to, "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid(...) And we noted that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." Id., at 160. We thus left the point flexible for anticipated advancements in medical skill." Again the Court is always leaving the decision to the physician, and it is not setting an objective date simply because as you said, pregnancies varies from woman to woman.(3) In, Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), the Court decides what medical judgment should be like,"may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient." Finally I understand that this is the relevant point most extreme Republicans ( I know a few intelligent ones now, including you) have used through crazy regulations. But, I have to agree that they are acting within the scope of the Law...sort of. We can argue this point later if you want. Let's go to the meaty case.
(4) In Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth 428 U.S. 52 (1976), the Court stated, and I think that the statement speaks for itself, even though since it is my second language you might disagree but let's see, "In any event, we agree with the District Court that IT IS NOT the proper function of the legislature or the courts to place viability, which ESSENTIALY IS A MEDICAL CONCEPT, at a specific point in the gestation period. The time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy, and the determination of whether a particular fetus is viable is, and must be, a matter for the judgment of the responsible attending physician." Thank you Supreme Court I could have not said it any better.
(5)Finally we get to the case I cited first,COLAUTTI v. FRANKLIN, 439 U.S. 379, I will try to summarize the main point, they are arguing the differences between "viable" and "may be viable" because as usual in the State's law (PA) they introduced the latter. Nobody needs to take several philosophical courses( and I took a lot of them) to understand that something that may be viable is just inderterminable, under that newly introduced term, a sperm could be protected, because it may fecund an egg and that zigote may become a fetus and that fetus ma become a human baby. The Court also discuses the "illuminating" medical opinions about the preferred abortion techniques on SECOND TRIMESTER pregnancies (to give you again an idea of in which context viability is set). The Court concludes: "The choice of an appropriate abortion technique, as the record in this case so amply demonstrates, is a complex medical judgment about which experts can - and do - disagree. The lack of any scienter requirement exacerbates the uncertainty of the statute. We conclude that the standard-of-care provision, like the viability-determination requirement, is void for vagueness."
I am close to the 5000 characters :(

Now about your Establishment Clause argument, it has been interpreted that it defines no preference of religion should be imposed by Congress. A historic and systematic analysis of American Law completely impedes that States would be able to establish a religion of their own. I assume that your only argument would be that the Constitution enumerates the Federal Government's attributions and therefore limitations, but that does not include the sovereign States, no? But, that theory is a little bit ludicrous, because the Federal Government will set the bar(they cannot reduce the rights granted to each and every American citizen) and the States are able to extend the rights of their citizens. That does not only make sense, it is the only possible way to establish the survival of your dual sovereignty system.
Regarding the argument of Separation of Church and State ever use in Court, I never said that should be the argument, I said that that is the main reason why the arguments took place.
The Court have never reached a decision on whether or not the division of Church and State is not absolute, because it was not until the fifth decade of the last century that you changed your motto for "In god We Trust," it was never in the Constitution. Anyway, this argument of separation of church and state and the possibility or their reunion is medieval. The Establishment clause has a sentence simply because there was no room left to interpretation on whether the newly created federation was going to commit the same mistakes the european crowns went through their whole existence as colonies. I am starting to get tired. But looking forward for your reply. Good luck with the "viability" issue. And if you try to answer with an evasive, I will be ready to remind you of the unanswered issues, as a friend of course :)

eroteme in reply to tryworkingforaliving

Nonsensical interpretation of the the underlying issue. The Catholic church is not just a spiritual organization but also controls and operates a multimillion dollar business and as such that side of things must obey wider societal norms and rules and cannot try and force there own private spiritual doctrines on employees. Imagine if the Jehovahs Witnesses ran huge universities and hospitals and insisted that no employee could have healthcare that funded blood transfusions, or the Christian Scientists insisting that no medical care at all is needed as it is all in the mind? Both are strongly held doctrinal positions but could not be imposed on employees in a business run by either religion.
By the way you got the conservative view dead wrong: I will force you to only ever have sex in a heterosexual church sanctified marriage so condoms are never needed.

I do not into great detail in my comments because The Economist limits comments to 5,000 characters. I will clear up any ambiguity in my prior comments with this comment.

If you are saying Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, Planned Parenthood v. Danforth and Colautti v. Franklin stand for the proposition that the states can regulate or prohibit the abortion of a viable fetus (fetal viability is a medical question) except when the life or the health of the mother is at risk (risk to life or health is a medical question), then your argument is not inconsistent with mine (I did not raise the life or the health of the mother exception in order to save characters for other areas of discussion). My point is simply that prior to Planned Parenthood v. Casey (decided in 1992, well after the lawsuits you listed were decided), the states could not regulate or prohibit the abortion of a pre-viable fetus because the privacy right to abortion trumped the state's interest in protecting a pre-viable fetus. Planned Parenthood v. Casey allows the states to regulate pre-viability (which explains the growth in state regulation of abortion services) as well as post-viability abortions as long as the regulations are not an "undue burden" on the privacy right to abortion ("undue burden" is a legal question). By the way, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a parental notification requirement for an abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (decided in 1976) but upheld a parental notification requirement in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (decided in 1992).

You wrote "Separation of Church and State answers everything."

"Separation of church and state" is not a statement of law; rather, it is a facile rhetorical device that people use to avoid an intellectual discussion of ideas and opinions that they disagree with.

You wrote "A historic and systematic analysis of American Law completely impedes that States would be able to establish a religion of their own."

Your statement is not correct with respect to American history prior to 1947. The American colonies were settled by people who fled religious intolerance in Britain and Europe (it appears that, sadly, religious bigotry followed them to the New World); they were not fleeing religion as a whole (the colonies, after all, were still ruled by the Crown). The First Amendment Establishment Clause clearly states "Congress [the national legislature] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Prior to 1947, there was no reason to believe the Establishment Clause applied to the states (again, if the Framers had intended to prohibit the states from establishing a religion, then they would have included language in the Establishment Clause to do so ... but they did not). In Everson v. Board of Education (decided in 1947), the U.S. Supreme Court said for the first time the Establishment Clause, via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (ratified in 1868), applies to the states. I never said the Establishment Clause does not apply today to the states; rather, I am simply saying there is no historical basis to support the argument that the separation of church and state is absolute (which suggests some intersection between church and state is permissible, and the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman sets out the test to determine if government action violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause).

Finally, you still have not explained how state abortion regulations violate a separation of church and state (again, which is not a statement of law), let alone the First Amendment Establishment Clause.

I just came back from the bar, so I do not think this is the greatest time for me to check the jurisprudence hehehe, I need to be completely sober. But, I can always go to common sense to start the dialogue.
If you say that prior to 1947 my statement is not accurately, I have to ask you why? Why do those groups of people came from Europe risking their lives? Everytime you found an inconsistency withing the explanation, you simply need to ask why, how, when, and most importantly in politics, which group benefited the most from those policies. I will come back tomorrow, I do not feel up to the task, too many gin and tonic tonight :)


"The Economist" demonstrates more left wing liberal bias today than at any time since it began in the early 1800s. It's sad to watch what was a great publication disintegrate into "Junk Tabloid" status. Just think about it...if a United States citizen had been killed because George Bush was selling assult weapons to Mexican drug lords...would TE have written an article slamming congress for investigating?


Regardless of politics, at the end of the day a US Border Patrol agent is dead and the Obama administration for whatever reason doesn't seem to be concerned with determing who's responsible. End of story.

mayankji in reply to guest-islsmej

Justice (Holder) has admitted that they lost the guns. Now it's about was congress misled. Not the same ... right?

Surely the person(s) who killed him are responsible. If we hold the ATF (thus Holder) responsible...then why not the gun manufacturer, or the steel maker(s), or the iron ore extractors and the myriads in between.

guest-islsmej in reply to mayankji

Mayankji, I'm a huge fan of empathy so I would ask you to put yourself in the shoes of Brian Terry's parents. What would you want to happen if your child was killed? I'm a father of 3 and if one of them were killed in a similar fashion I'd want answers as to why and who was directly responsible. For myself I personally could care less if a Democratic or Republican administration was in charge while this happend. It's besides the point. We owe it to the memory of Mr Terry to get answers.


The Constitution put Congress in charge. 2/3 each of both House and Senate is omnipotent. Removal of Executive and Judicial Branch officers requires only a majority in the Senate after 2/3 of the House impeaches. But only a chamber of Congress can remove one of its own members.

Executive Privilege can be legitimate, but it has more often been abused. It ultimately depends upon the specific content of the documents. Certainly, it is suspicious when invoked against an investigation of what seems a real screw-up.


This was the first article I have read so far that does not seem to be written in that "Fox News" style and I celebrate it. The other comments are about victimizing the GOP instead of explaining with facts and logic why this "attack on the GOP" might be unfair. Come on people emotions are for other realms, like Rush Limbaugh's audiences. This is the Economist, explains your points of view without stupid clichés or propaganda-like responses.

JJ Hantsch

So this article could be summed up in four words.
GOP bad, Obama good.
That's certainly all the information passed on by this correspondent.

CosmicCharlie in reply to JJ Hantsch

Just keep in mind...no matter how many people died in Fast and Furious, a hell of a lot more died due to a lie about WMDs in Iraq. Truly this is an issue of magnitude. Once we have investigated, prosecuted and punished the folks that marched ten of thousands of U.S. citizens (not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) to their deaths based on a LIE, then we can go after the idiots who gave guns to narcos that caused a few deaths.

Where were your calls for an investigation when Nixon and Kissinger had Allende assassinated and put Pinochet in power? Fast and Furious is small peanuts compared to the blood that republicans have on their hands.

JJ Hantsch in reply to CosmicCharlie

Cosmic, Charlie. I was four years old when Nixon was elected and although, according to my mother as my own memories are unclear, I was full of protests and calls for investigation at that age. They were mostly unheeded.
As to the number of deaths allocated per political party, all of the major wars of the twentieth century were started under Democratic administrations. When McNamara is strung up from a tree, you may start your vendetta.


Perhaps quotes from Stephen Colbert would be more appropriate than Yoo: "you want to talk about pandering, just look at what the democratic logo is: a burro. And I'm sure if you hit it with a stick, candy and free healthcare falls out."

JJ Hantsch in reply to thispaceforsale

As for the smear of John Yoo, it is inaccurate. He argued that what the Red Cross called "non-torture" when applied to US, Brit, Aussie, NZ and Canadian POWs of the Korean War and US and Aussie POWs of the Vietnam War, but then after 50 years reversed itself out of political expediency, could be applied terrorist POW while in legitimate detention. And also FAISA warrants could be expedited to eavesdrop on phone calls to/from phones of known terrorists outside the USA even if the other end of the line was in the USA. A terrorist in the Middle East should expect that wherever he dials, even if his accomplice in the USA, that phone could be tapped. Hardly the violator of human rights the author prefaces his quote with.

Damn Dirty Ape

It was a mistake to include quotes from Yoo in the blog, it is even worse in the paper. He is an advocate for lawlessness and torture. Why not include quotes from David Duke about race relations or Qaddafi quotes on human rights? The economist can do better. There is a legitimate issue here regarding separation of powers and rule of law. Why not get a legitimate representative of the other side? To do otherwise gives credence to this loser and risks biasing the perception of the coverage as it pits one side represented by the president and Eric Holder against a war criminal. Surely there is a more balanced approach to the issue.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Regenerative medicine: Bad science
Banyan 1 hrs 12 mins ago
America's economy: Waiting for inflation
Free exchange 2 hrs 58 mins ago
The European economy: Four is a trend?
Buttonwood's notebook 3 hrs 8 mins ago
Graphic detail 3 hrs 6 mins ago


Products and events



