Nat Hentoff, one of the Washington Times’ pet liberals, has his thoughts about the NSA telephone monitoring argument.

In brief, he has concerns about concentrating too much power in the hands of the executive branch, and breaching the Constitutional protections against excessive executive power.

In the Federalist No. 47, Madison said plainly: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

…Justice Roberts and Judge Alito have shown excessive deference to executive government powers.

There’s a question-begging term for you. “Excessive deference”. Hentoff does not show that Alito or Roberts are giving “excessive deference” to executive power, he asserts it, and then takes it as given with no further need for demonstration.

As it happens, there are many knowledgeable lawyers and law professors who don’t consider these Justices (Alito was sworn in a handfull of hours ago) to give “excessive deference”. That such a divergence of opinion exists should warn Nat Hentoff, and others, that they aren’t allowed to assume “excessive deference” as a premise and base their argument on it.

Rate this post:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...