Meese consistently expressed concern for the Constitution,
praised Scalia for his stances, values and defense of the document. In addition
Meese also identified himself as a devoted Lutheran.
The entire interview was a fraud.
Meese
is a criminal and an enemy of both the Church and the US Constitution. These
two don't go together but in this case his enmity toward both is all too clear.
Meese seeks to perpetuate the narrative that the Reagan
administration and the organisations Meese is affiliated with, the Heritage
Foundation and the Hoover Institution are curators of the 'True' American
heritage. They are the defenders of the Constitution and the original values of
the Republic which Meese would identify as Christian.
It has been argued extensively by this author that such an
identification requires a redefinition of what Christianity is, but at present
we won't labour this issue.
In one sense they have a point. Maybe they do represent the
true America. The United States has never actually stood for the values it
claims to uphold. It has always been a great experiment in hypocrisy and
self-deception. And thus in one sense the American story is one great lie. The
Founding Fathers themselves are complicated and ambiguous and in many ways
contradicted the values they themselves purported to uphold.
But in another sense if we take the values and ideas
expressed by the Founders then it must be stated plainly that the Right-wing
represented by figures like Meese represents a serious departure from the
original vision for the Republic.
This seems like a contradictory juxtaposition and it must be
admitted that the American Right like many other political orders contains
internal self-contradictions and tensions. This is why so many superficial
attempts at analysis ultimately fail. Despite this, a genuine picture,
narrative and direction can be formed and considered.
Meese expresses his concern for the Constitution and it
governing role and authoritative position in the US apparatus. And yet it was
Meese and the Reagan administration he served under who openly defied it by
conducting operations that were clearly against the laws passed by Congress
thus casting aside the power afforded to it in Article I. Meese and those whom
he associates with support the notion of the Unitary Executive and the Imperial
Presidency. They believe the nature of US power shifted significantly after
WWII and ironically they believe the Executive has new powers concerning war and foreign policy that all but 'gut' the
Constitution's original construction regarding these points. An argument can be
made for this new reality however one cannot make it and hold to Textualist
Originalism.
For Meese and the faction he associates with, congress is
despised and was clearly ignored and subverted under Reagan. If Meese really
was concerned for the Constitution he should have resigned in protest. Instead
he aided in cover-ups and ended up profiting very nicely from the whole affair.
Rather than revere the Constitution and the institutions it creates, Meese and
the Reagan administration seemed to hold it in contempt.
He played a role that we've seen all too often. He was the
concerned bureaucrat, the investigator who is actually leading the cover-up. As
Attorney General he was forced to 'investigate' when the Iran-Contra story was
surfacing. Failing to do so would have exposed the corruption, dereliction and
criminality of the administration. But instead of investigating, Meese perhaps
more than any other figure facilitated the obstruction of the investigation and
enabled the perpetrators to escape accountability. He was by no means alone.
There were elements in the Congress who also aided in this process. Their
reasons for doing so are not altogether clear though there are many viable and
plausible possibilities. Few doubt that corruption runs rampant within the
Congress but that's a discussion for another day.
Iran-Contra made Watergate look like child's play and was a
scandal of such magnitude that it literally should have provoked a massive
Constitutional crisis and brought the entire government down. Meese worked to
make sure the scandal went away and by the end, the Justice Department and the
subsequent administration made sure that everyone walked away with impunity. He
along with some of the key players in the scandal should be in prison. Congress
could have brought Meese and others up on charges of contempt, obstruction and
conspiracy. Some of the actors were technically guilty of treason. It is
arguable as to whether or not Meese would fall into that category. These points
have to be argued if one holds to the Originalist position on the US
Constitution. Meese was part of a cabal that conspired to deceive and defy the
Congress of the United States and in order to pursue what amounted to a de facto coup... aided American enemies.
They did it for the 'good of the country' they would argue.
But according to the Constitution it is Congress that has the power to declare
war, regulate commerce and therefore plays an essential role in determining
just what 'the good' of the country is. Again if one is going to argue for
Originalism you cannot ignore the congressional power afforded in the 'foreign'
aspect of the commerce clause even though longstanding jurisprudence has done
so and has subsumed it under treaty powers.
The Boland Amendment was legal and Iran was already under
sanctions and listed as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. The US was effectively in
a state of war with Iran at the time of the Iran-Contra weapons shipments. The
Tower Commission also revealed that the same players were selling chemical
weapons to Iraq. The illegality of the administration's actions cannot be
disputed.
Here's an interesting article from 1987 regarding the
constitutional basis for the Boland Amendment and its range of applicability.
Of course one must ask if the creation of the National Security Council in 1947
was in itself Constitutional or an appropriation of power by the Executive, the
first step in creating the constitutionally fictitious paradigm of the Unitary
Executive. At the very least it has been used as an illegitimate platform for
the creation of a massive extra-constitutional apparatus. Congress in passing
the Act undermined and weakened the powers afforded to it in Article I of the
Constitution. And yet this is celebrated by the so called Originalists!
As an interesting aside it's noteworthy that in 1951 General
Douglas MacArthur provoked a Constitutional crisis by openly challenging
President Truman's authority. After being sacked MacArthur appealed to Congress
itself. And yet by that time the Unitary Executive/Imperial Presidency was
already established. The military and most of Congress stood with Truman and
MacArthur's almost coup-like bid for power collapsed. MacArthur and his allies
were still holding to the historical notion that Congress had more or less an
equal stake in the control of the military. That era had come to an end.
MacArthur so keen to capitalise upon the new nuclear era in terms of not only
strategy but actual battlefield tactics failed to realise the political
implications of both World War II and the nuclear age. MacArthur was literally
a dinosaur and the military establishment was (for the most part) pleased with
the new freedoms and lack of accountability afforded by the National Security
Act.
Even the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 which was meant to
limit presidential power and hold the executive accountable to Congress was in
the end an abdication of power. It left the prerogative for reporting in the
hands of the White House. This simply made it all the more easy for them to
cover up proxy wars and the arming of them. The 1976 law despite leading to
some convictions has been for the most part a failure and did nothing to
curtail the powers of the president.
Rather than Ed Meese facing any kind of charges or even having
his name tarred, he like Oliver North has instead had a quite successful and
lucrative post-Reagan era career. For Meese this has largely been (at least
formally) within Academia. Like many figures of his stature he has a long (and
shady) resume with many connections to defense contractors and other sectors of
industry. North was humiliated as the 'fall guy' but came out squeaky clean and
today is revered by the Right. His 1994 senate bid failed but his post-NSC life
has been for the most part a happy and profitable one.
Meese along with Scalia support American Imperialism, covert
operations and wars, the formation of death squads and the subversion of
Congress to implement these policies.
Both support the notion of the Unitary Executive which
clearly exploits if not supplants the 'original' separation of powers as laid
out by the Constitution. The Unitary Executive theory not only subverts
Congress but it allows the president under 'war powers' to completely suspend
the Bill of Rights.
Meese is also considered one of the architects of the
'Signing Statement' wherein a president attaches a statement to legislation
expressing the administration's interpretation of it, effectively (in many
cases) contradicting the intent of the
law itself or at the very least enhancing executive power or undermining the
purpose of the law. It is an appropriation of legislative powers by the president
and clearly transgresses the checks and balances outlined in the Constitution.
Meese praises Scalia's Originalism which Scalia used to
support the American policy of torturing captured prisoners and accused suspects
apart from any notion of due process or obligation to international law and
treaties signed by the United States.
Scalia supported indefinite internment, and the various post-9/11
policies and legislation which have destroyed free speech, rights to
unwarranted search and seizure, due process and many of the foundational rights
that secure democracy and allow it to function.
Scalia worked to suppress voter rights and was widely
considered a racist by minority communities in the United States.
Scalia like Meese was corrupt as was displayed in the
Citizen's United ruling which completely subverted basic democratic values and
opened wide the floodgates for money laundering and corruption.
Meese was already well known when it comes to allegations of
corruption. He managed to evade criminal prosecution despite his involvement
with some pretty shady military contracting and energy deals. Numerous figures
in his Justice Department resigned in protest over his ethics and conduct. The
fact that they refused to stand by Meese indicates a great deal about what sort
of person he is and how those who knew him and worked with him thought about
his integrity.
We can only speculate at this time but we hope that in the
future there will be revelations about financial impropriety with regard to
Scalia and his unwavering support of the corruption of US politics. There are
rumblings and in time they may break out and be revealed.
It must also be mentioned Clarence Thomas is also part of
this very corrupt faction within the Supreme Court. At the very least it is
evident in the very lucrative relationships his wife has with the Heritage
Foundation and other Right-wing organisations. In fact many court critics would
point to Thomas as the most blatantly corrupt member of the court and yet few
doubt Scalia's part.
It is no great surprise that the Meese Justice Department was
happy to look the other way and/or facilitate the Reagan administration's (and
the Heritage Foundation's) collaboration with numerous ex-Fascists and war
criminals. On many points their ideologies all but overlap both in terms of
foreign policy, national narrative and certainly the role of government both in
terms of business, war and society. That accusation will shock some readers but
the case is easily made.
Scalia's Originalism is something of a legal joke that its
adherents obviously don't really believe in. Only the dupes and sycophantic
commentators on the Right actually believe in the concept. For Meese and Scalia
it's a convenient narrative tool that allows them to start with the premise
that their policies are right and then manipulate the Constitution to support
them.
I do not think it an exaggeration in the least to suggest
that were the Founders alive today they would view men like Meese and Scalia as
traitors and worthy of prosecution.
Numerous Evangelical buffoons and pundits like Albert Mohler
have written paeans and panegyrics devoted to Scalia and the concept of
Originalism. The concept resonates with conservative Christians because they
believe that there's a parallel with Biblical exegesis. They believe the
Constitution is to be treated like Scripture and that Originalism represents a
proper hermeneutic, a Grammatico-historical method for determining the true
meaning of the text.
However apart from the theologically idolatrous nature of
this position it must be pointed out that civil law doesn't work that way. And
there's no basis to treat the Constitution in this manner unless you think it
is a divinely inspired 'absolute' text like Scripture. Of course there are not
a few Christo-Americanist heretics in Evangelical circles who do indeed believe
this. It is quite literally another gospel another testament every bit as
dangerous as the claims of Joseph Smith and other cult leaders.
It's ironic that Originalism was birthed by Roman Catholic
jurists. Many Dominionists of the Protestant stripe have long lamented the fact
that Evangelicals are so far behind when it comes scholarship in some of these
realms. They blame the Fundamentalist retreat of the 1920's.
In fact the story is a much longer one and concerns the
nature of Protestantism and the cultural changes it effected with the Reformation.
Many Conservative Protestants fail to understand the 'liberal' and
'progressive' nature of Protestantism. It may not seem so today but in the
Reformation and Post-Reformational context Protestantism as a cultural movement
was turning its back on the Middle Ages and looking forward. Unwittingly it
opened the epistemological door to the Enlightenment. The US Constitution is a
result of these developments.
Originalism's hermeneutic looks like it should have been born
of Protestants and thus many resonate with it. But the law itself functions
(ironically) much more like Roman Catholic Canon Law. It builds on a basic
authoritative structure and is controlled by limiting concepts. However it
functions in the realm of context, tradition, precedent and reasoned principle.
It's quite complicated as any respectable legal authority will be more than
happy to explain.
Originalism is striking due to its almost pedestrian simplicity
as well as its iconoclasm. Despising precedent (stare decisis) and context it seeks to sweep away centuries of case
and common law. It purports to limit government and the possibility of
developing principles and yet it takes certain segments of the Constitution and
uses them to massively expand power. It is therefore a patent sham. It interprets
the Executive in broad sweeping terms and uses these 'discovered' powers to all
but nullify other portions of the Constitution itself.
They can criticise the Warren and Burger courts all they want
for the 'found' principle of privacy and yet they are guilty of exercising the
very same principle of development and discovery based on context.
Originalism all but destroys the ability to create amendments,
itself a problem since the ratification of Constitution involved the immediate
creation of the first ten, commonly known as the Bill of Rights. Originalism
seeks to treat many amendments as 'unconstitutional'... an untenable and
contradictory position. The controversies surrounding the adoption of the Bill
of Rights belie Originalism's claims. Originalism can only produce refining or
affirming amendments. They can't actually develop anything new which is clearly
contrary to the original aims of the Constitution. Article V's temporary
restrictions and the nature of ratification indicate the document was never
meant to be understood as absolute or permanent.
All that said, attorney Scott Horton recently noted (and rightly)
that Scalia's Originalism operated more like a Medieval 'Throne and Altar' type
concept of society. Throne and Altar refers to Maistre's theories of state and
social authority. Originalism is really about providing a narrative for
ultra-conservative authoritarian government... something the Founders would be
patently opposed to. In fact the US Constitution was framed explicitly to
prevent that type of arrangement.
Echoing Maistre, Bork's paradigm is a cloak for the type of
system that closely parallels Francoist Spain and this is the most probable connection
between conservative Roman Catholicism and Originalism. Dominion Theology which
now dominates American Evangelicals has swept many Protestants down the same
path. By restricting semantics to the 18th century they can attempt
to destroy many aspects of classical liberalism and the rights it engendered.
Originalism is reactionary in the sense that it wishes to undo many social and
legal aspects of Enlightenment thought.
There is a great deal of confusion and contradiction on these
points because of narratives, counter-narratives and internal contradictions
embraced by the various contending factions. In addition Originalists do
actually support some aspects of
classical liberalism. And yet, it can be argued even these aspects, such as the
'free markets' are in the end subjugated to establishment and national
interests. Not a few on the Left and within Libertarian circles would be more
than happy to labour this point.
While there were differences between the French and American
Revolutions they were close enough ideological cousins to make ultra-conservatives
squirm. Do not make the mistake of confusing the Reign of Terror with the
original aims and goals of the 1789 Revolution.
Buried in both Ultramontanist and Dominionist concepts of the
state is a deep loathing of democracy. Their professed love and patriotic
regard for the United States and its declared values is actually subversive and
revolutionary. In terms of Modernity they are conservatives and traditionalists.
In terms of the framework of the United States they are extreme reactionaries
and actually represent what can only be identified as a Counter-Revolutionary
position, something the Founders would view as less than patriotic. This does
not mean they desire a return to Hanoverian rule but rather the Ancien Regime in general.
The American position in general on the Constitution is
worthy of critique and reconsideration. The Americans celebrate the longevity
of their Constitution and yet this too is somewhat fictitious. Many countries
tear up their Constitutions every so often and revise them. A way to avoid this
seemingly instability is to openly embrace the 'living' concept as some nations
have done.
The US narrative disallows this practice of revision and re-constitution
and yet effectively the country through amendments, policies and a hodge-podge
of laws has done this on several occasions. The American legal system is a
mess. Originalism creates a framework and narrative for the Right-wing to gain
the mastery of it. Scalia, Thomas and now Alito are its chief proponents on the
Supreme Court.
The US Senate recognised that Reagan was seeking to
fundamentally change the nature of the court. His administration was the
fruition of many forces coming together in the 1970s attempting to turn the
tide of American society, undo the 1960s and return to the pre-FDR era. They
also wanted to arrest the attempt by Congress to dismantle the Unitary
Executive. The Rightward shift on the court under Reagan helped to judicially
seal and ratify the many moves by the Executive to reassert that power and laid
the groundwork for the massive power-grab undertaken by Bush and the
Neoconservatives after 2001.
Scalia was appointed to the court in 1986 but the Senate led
by Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy actively rejected the appointment of Robert Bork
in 1987. Bork was a step too far and Congress realised what his appointment
would mean. Anthony Kennedy the eventual replacement nominee for Bork has
proven to be of a more 'Libertarian' stripe and thus on some issues he's quite
conservative while at other times he deeply angers conservatives by strictly
adhering to the concepts laid out in the Bill of Rights.
Meese's comments strike me as dishonest and fraudulent. Considering
the source many of his statements and concerns regarding the Constitution are
nothing less than outrageous. The fact that Issues Etc. would regularly invite
him on the show as a guest is a source of shame and demonstrates their lack of
integrity and/or naiveté. Either way Meese's appearance destroys LPR's
integrity. This softball interview which failed to raise a single point of
challenge or even raise the possibility of questioning his analysis
demonstrates the programme's purpose was not to challenge its listeners to
think or learn but to obey and embrace the narrative.
Figures like Meese (and there are many like him), are a badge
of shame to the Christians that have bought into their erroneous and heretical ideas
and have both morally and financially supported them. Meese represents a
heretical form of Christianity that is riddled with idols and what can only be
described as evil ethics.
Even from a secular perspective Meese can rightly be reckoned
a criminal and an enemy to the ideals that America (supposedly) stands for. At
the same time he's but another agent of the long-running lie that is the
American Empire. Either way he must be reckoned at the very least a miscreant
but in reality is little more than a rascal.
Finally many readers who make it this far will decry my
opinions as 'liberal' and Leftist. Meese and Scalia have also played a part in
creating the false dichotomy that dominates the US political narrative. I can
criticise figures like Meese and Scalia while at the same time reject the
agenda of the Left wing. As Christians we ought to be able to step back and
look at the issues in a different light.
Rejecting Meese and Scalia is in no way an endorsement of
abortion or Sodomy. We are committed to doctrinal truth, historical veracity
and Christian antithesis. It is the sub-Christian lust for political power that
has led so many down this path that attempts to build the Kingdom of God
through subterfuge, manipulation and violence. It is the worship of mammon and
power that drives them to live by Consequentialist ethics. They think we can
engage in evil and bring about good.
The end result is not the Kingdom of God but the Tower of Babel
crowned by a cheap cross.
On the one hand as a Biblically minded Christian I don't care
about the legitimate heritage of the American Babylon. I don't venerate the
Founding Fathers or democracy for that matter. I don't make an idol out of the
Constitution or treat it as some kind of deutero-canonical or semi-inspired
authority.
But even for the sake of argument if I put myself in the
shoes of those that do, then Meese and Scalia are still corrupters and enemies.
As a Christian I repudiate the whole American project and
both the Left and Right of the political spectrum. But Meese and Scalia are
worthy of special condemnation. They profess to be Christians and like it or
not their ideas and influence have greatly affected the American Church.
Scalia was an evil man and Meese continues to be so. They
have earned the praise and esteem of many and yet they are abomination in the
sight of God.
finis
Here's the link to the actual interview. The first segment is
largely fluff. I take issue with virtually everything said but especially
during the latter and more substantial part of the interview. This article
obviously elaborates many of these points and goes beyond the scope of what is
actually said.
http://issuesetc.org/2016/02/15/1-the-legacy-of-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-ed-meese-21516/
Further Reading:
This recent example demonstrates the complexity of law and
the nature of context and precedent and it can be also argued that such an
example demonstrates some of the flaws of the Originalist mindset.
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/02/19/467299024/can-a-1789-law-apply-to-an-iphone
And here's a brief sample of many available articles pointing
to Meese's role in Iran-Contra.