 |
| Erwin Griswold, U.S. Solicitor General (1967–73) Dean of Harvard Law School (1946-67) |
Madison, Wisconsin— Recalling his successful arguing of the landmark Fourth Amendment case in 1972 against the Nixon administration as Nixon literally sought the legal destruction of American Constitutional government through the Supreme Court’s imprimatur, the great civil rights attorney, Arthur Kinoy (1920-2003), writes:
The government’s team had arrived. I immediately looked for their most prominent member, the one wearing the traditional long morning coat that government lawyers invariably wear when arguing before the High Court. … I expected to see Erwin Griswold, the Solicitor General and a former dean of Harvard Law School (pictured above-right). … Instead, I saw an unfamiliar man, tall, dark, and scowling, wearing the morning coat. I turned to (William) Gossett and whispered, ‘It’s not Griswold!’ ‘No,’ answered Gossett, ‘it’s Mardian (Robert Mardian, a Nixon hatchet man at the DoJ Internal Security Division, dedicated to the destruction of anti-war and civil rights citizen groups.) … ‘All (Mardian) needs is the jackboots,’ someone later remarked to Kinoy. … Then something even stranger happened. Griswold walked into the courtroom and sat down in the seat reserved for the Solicitor General, as though to make it clear to the Court that he had not withdrawn because of illness or scheduling conflicts, but for some other reason. He sat there quietly throughout the argument, as if he were constantly saying to the Court through his physical presence, ‘I am not arguing this case. Just remember that.’
- Rights on Trial, the Odyssey of a People’s Lawyer [The case, UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), was unanimously decided, 8 - 0, on June 19, 1972 in favor the White Panthers’ citizens group (among other parties) and dealt a devastating blow to Nixon’s attempt to declare the nullification of the Constitutional guarantees of individual liberty at the sole discretion of the President.]
Under the administration of George W. Bush, there exists few modern-day Erwin Griswolds—though Jack L. Goldsmith, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General of the United States, are worthy candidates.
We do see the same legal and political assault on the Constitution that the president swore an oath to defend, though this administration shies away from the light of day and democracy more intensely than Nixon ever did.
But today, we have as Solicitor General, Paul Clement, a rightwing Cedarburg, Wisconsin native and former Federalist Society member, who has argued numerous cases in favor of a monarchical conception of the executive branch empowered with the secret authority of warrantless surveillance, legal torture and the alleged right to declare any American citizen an “enemy combatant” endowed with no legal rights under the U.S. Constitution or International law, and with no right of habeas corpus.
Paul Clement, respected scholar and soon to be acting Attorney General, sports a record of protecting the Constitutional liberties of citizens that is nothing short of scandalous for an American.
[- From the New York Times, March 29, 2006 on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld -
Justice Souter interrupted. "Isn't there a pretty good argument that suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is just about the most stupendously significant act that the Congress of the United States can take," he asked, "and therefore we ought to be at least a little slow to accept your argument that it can be done from pure inadvertence?"
When Mr. Clement began to answer, Justice Souter persisted: "You are leaving us with the position of the United States that the Congress may validly suspend it inadvertently. Is that really your position?"
The solicitor general replied, "I think at least if you're talking about the extension of the writ to enemy combatants held outside the territory of the United States —— "
"Now wait a minute!" Justice Souter interrupted, waving a finger. "The writ is the writ. There are not two writs of habeas corpus, for some cases and for other cases. The rights that may be asserted, the rights that may be vindicated, will vary with the circumstances, but jurisdiction over habeas corpus is jurisdiction over habeas corpus."]
Those objecting to Bush’s program of accumulating power in the Executive at the expense of the rights of American citizens are not long for service in the administration into which Clements fits snugly.
But we should not be surprised. Under this administration individual liberty has not had as determined an enemy since the darkest days of the disgraced Nixon administration.
What can we do:
- Demand that the permanent appointment to Attorney General be a person of dedication to the rule of law and liberty, and that the Senate not confirm anyone of Clement's anti-liberty views
- Contact the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU and other civil rights organizations and contribute as you can
- Vote against today’s Republican Party that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the libertarian Goldwater era
Today’s Republican party is an authoritarian-minded group of hypocrites, campaigning on bigotry and division, who like Bush seek power for their own ends, with no respect for public service or the liberty of Americans for whom and only with their consent does government derive its just power.
###
No comments:
Post a Comment