Executing Laws
The loose interpretation of the U.S. Constitution posited by Harvey Mansfield in "The Law and the President" (Jan. 16) is troubling. Mansfield appears to embrace the concept that the Framers created a "strong executive"--not only one who could independently define "emergency" but also who could knowingly violate the law in such an emergency. Strangely, the phrase "strong executive" and the word "emergency" are not written anywhere in the Constitution.
The Constitution, however, does state that the executive "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (Article II, Section 3). To grant Mansfield due credit, "emergencies when liberties are dangerous and law does not apply" have indeed been proclaimed throughout history--often after a military coup. This principle was well employed by Antony after the death of Caesar, as well as by Lenin in 1917.
In Federalist 70, upon which the author also relies, Alexander Hamilton emphasized the desirability of having one person serve as the executive (as opposed to a committee or a council of advisers). It is surely a vast leap of faith to interpret the word "secrecy," contained in one sentence of this long paper, as carte blanche authorization to ignore current legislation, even the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. The tradition of adherence to the rule of law has been a foundation of democratic governments since Socrates' refusal, as recorded in Plato's Crito, to disobey the Athenian death sentence pronounced upon him. The "Framers' intent" game, which the author so eagerly plays, is always dangerous given its inevitably subjective conclusions. If strict construction of the Constitution is a conservative value, should we deem Mansfield a liberal interpreter of the Constitution?
William M. Miller
Medina, Wash.
Harvey Mansfield responds: My critic presents the "rule of law" viewpoint. Fair enough, but it needs to be supplemented by the other side presenting necessary departures from the law. In my opinion the Constitution contains both viewpoints and thus legalizes both. It is not going to say it is legal to disobey the law--that would be contradictory. But it does set up a competition between the executive and the legislature as to which is needed most, discretion or law.
Of course tyrants claim to use discretion for the common good, but you are not going to defeat tyranny by passing a law. You need, rather, a strong power beyond ordinary law capable of defending against tyranny. Thus a strict interpretation of the Constitution requires a loose interpretation of the rule of law. By the way, Socrates in Plato's Apology mentions a law he would disobey.
Airing Ariel Anxiety
Ariel Sharon's switch to the peace camp has brought near universal praise, including Peter Berkowitz's "Ariel Sharon's Legacy" (Jan. 16). But missing is the nationalist viewpoint, which contends that the three field generals (Rabin, Barak, and Sharon) have failed as political leaders by jeopardizing the security of Israel. Sharon betrayed his electoral base by unilaterally pulling out of Gaza, thereby leaving the Palestinians a safe haven to import vast amounts of arms from the Gaza-Egyptian border, which Israel can no longer monitor. Breeching the Sadat-Begin agreement, he has let Egyptian troops back in the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza. Sympathy for Sharon's plight is commendable, but that should not prevent an understanding of his foreign policy blunders and his betrayal of campaign promises to protect Jews living in Gaza.
MARVIN MAURER
TORONTO, CANADA