Jack D. Forbes –
We are frequently told that the United States possesses three branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial. In point of fact, however, that demarcation seems designed to ignore or diminish the necessary role of the electorate, i.e., the voters.
The United States Constitution clearly makes the voters a fourth branch of governance, by giving them crucially important functions, including the election of the members of the House of Representatives, the selection of electors for the Electoral College, and, after amendment, the election of the members of the United States Senate. In addition, the Constitution extends many functions to the electorate including the right to exercise powers not enumerated in the Constitution.
The guarantee of free speech to the citizenry is an example of a right, and power, not to be trifled with. This right of free speech relates in crucial ways to the electorates’ task of selecting members of Congress as well as voting in presidential primaries and elections.
Equally important is the implied right to be informed, since it is quite clear that voters may not vote wisely or meaningfully without adequate information. Let us be even clearer: only a fool would argue that the selection of a president or of congress could be carried out in a satisfactory manner if crucially important information were being withheld from the voters and from the press (which provides much of the information about governmental behavior and issues to the said voters).
In short, unless we make a mockery of the Constitution we must agree that the electorate constitutes a fourth “house” of governance (government) and that the electorate must have access to genuine, real, and meaningful information on which to exercise its key role as collective judges of performance and policies. In short, while the Supreme Court consists in judges appointed by the President with the approval of Congress, it is the voters who act as judges over both the President and Congress. Even as justices of the Supreme Court must have access to all pertinent information, so to with the electoral judges, the voters.
We are asked, as voters, to judge whether a given individual or group (party or faction) is to be vested with tremendous power over our collective lives, and indeed, over the lives of the entire world it would seem. We are asked to give them control over our pocketbooks, our savings, our income, our livelihood, and the very safety of our homes, bodies, and freedoms. Given this crucially important challenge to us as electors do we not possess a constitutional right to be informed?
All of this may seem obvious, but it is not obvious any longer to those who would pretend to rule over us. In fact, we now face the greatest danger in many decades to our ability to know what our government is doing. Hired employees of the government, working in the Justice Department as well as elsewhere in the Executive Branch, have sought to create virtually an “imperial presidency” with immense powers (all unconstitutional) to withhold information from us. The Executive Branch has been gradually asserting the right to hold “state secrets” which we voters are not supposed to know. They also have been asserting “executive privilege” in order to prevent us from being able to know the actual inner workings (secret decisions) of the government.
We all know that many totalitarian and authoritarian governments have traditionally kept secrets from the people along with locking those they feared in secret dungeons! Sadly, our current Executive Branch leaders, supported by their men on the Supreme Court, and often by compliant members of Congress, have chosen to travel down the path of secret government, without being able to cite any power to do so found in the Constitution.
The President as Commander in Chief in time of war may exercise “inherent powers” relating to strictly military and battlefield matters. But I suggest that that power may not extend to “secrets” and behavior that would prove decisive to a voter in the exercise of the electoral function. For example, if in 2004 the voters had known that the administration had decided to violate the Geneva Convention by authorizing torture many voters who voted for the incumbent would have very likely voted otherwise.
Similarly, if the voters had had clear evidence relating to why the U.S. Air Force did not intercept any of the hijacked passenger airliners on 9-11 they might well have voted against the incumbent. Such a failure by the North American Air Defense would be of vital importance to voter decision-making. Clearly the release of government documents would in no way pose a threat to “national security” since the security had already been breached.
No freedom remains when bureaucrats may simply declare an item to be a secret. Embarrassment of officials is an absurd defense of “classified.”
Voters should have open access to all non-military decision-making IF THEY ARE TO JUDGE THE GOVERNMENT AT ELECTION TIME, AS IS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.
Professor Forbes has recently authored the revised edition of COLUMBUS AND OTHER CANNIBALS, a basic primer for those who seek to support ethical behavior
Thanks for posting this article by Prof. Forbes. We need to consider how to address the issue he writes about….effectively, without getting ourselves into one of those secret prisons he mentions. This, in addition to all the other crises we must address is practically overwhelming.
You never mention the media’s responsibility to keep us properly informed. It used to be that the news media would keep us abreast of what was happening to some extent. Now what we get for news is nothing but what should be on the editorial page. Lately the attempt of the news media to make it look as if we are coming out of the recession, so that Obama won’t look like the dufus he is, is laughable. It positively flys in the face of reality. The news media has no credibility these days, including the Davis Emptyprise, which tends to editorialize on the regular news pages, to support the establishment.
I’m sick to death of arm-chair general professors second guessing the govt. and military, when they don’t have to come face to face with the enemy. I wish I could drag Mr. Forbes into the room where News reporters like Nichlolas berg was beheaded and see the face of evil for himself. I wish he could have been there to see Al-Zarqawi torture people to death.
The Geneva convention was established in 1949, and doesn’t discuss how to deal with terrorist organizations.
“In fact, we now face the greatest danger in many decades to our ability to know what our government is doing.”
Yes, and no. The greatest danger as I see it is proliferation of nike weapons from Rogue Nations like Iran and North Korea.
The second comes in the form of “Cyber Warfare,” other nations trying to shut down government computers and bring our military off line.
“Hired employees of the government, working in the Justice Department as well as elsewhere in the Executive Branch, have sought to create virtually an “imperial presidency” with immense powers (all unconstitutional) to withhold information from us.”
“imperial presidency,” that sounds cute. You don’t seem to understand the difference between a nation at war, and a nation at peace. If you don’t believe we are at war with terrorists, then I can’t help you. Times have changed. We are a nation of high speed internet, cell phones, multiple means of communication. If a terrorist wants to direct another one to blow something up, all he has to do is send an e-mail or text message. Therefore, our govnerment needs new tools and resources to keep up with the traffic, such as general monitoring of internet.
Terrorists are the most dangerous type of enemy. They do not hold allegiance to one person. They will murder innocent civilians without thought. They are not soldiers in uniform.
“The Executive Branch has been gradually asserting the right to hold “state secrets” which we voters are not supposed to know. They also have been asserting “executive privilege” in order to prevent us from being able to know the actual inner workings (secret decisions) of the government.
Yes. This is true. We are at war with terror. If you don’t believe terrorism is dangerous well then, you probably don’t see value in solid intelligence gathering over a “boogeyman” enemy.
Sadly, our current Executive Branch leaders, supported by their men on the Supreme Court, and often by compliant members of Congress, have chosen to travel down the path of secret government, without being able to cite any power to do so found in the Constitution.
define “secret govt”
if in 2004 the voters had known that the administration had decided to violate the Geneva Convention by authorizing torture many voters who voted for the incumbent would have very likely voted otherwise.
Waterboarding is legal. Second, we were allowed to hang prisoners of war if they were not in uniform during the civil war. Terrorists don’t wear uniforms. Furthermore, our enemy has waged an undeclared war against the united states. The enemy is fighting an illegal war. The Geneva convention was written before terrorism was discussed.
The President as Commander in Chief in time of war may exercise “inherent powers” relating to strictly military and battlefield matters. Exactly. And terrorists that send communications to the US to coordinate attacks over the internet arguably deals with battlefield matters.
But I suggest that that power may not extend to “secrets” and behavior that would prove decisive to a voter in the exercise of the electoral function. For example, if in 2004 the voters had known that the administration had decided to violate the Geneva Convention by authorizing torture many voters who voted for the incumbent would have very likely voted otherwise.
Dream on. If you want to argue Bush v. Kerry, then that is like saying if more people would have known about Obama, they would have voted for McCain.
Similarly, if the voters had had clear evidence relating to why the U.S. Air Force did not intercept any of the hijacked passenger airliners on 9-11 they might well have voted against the incumbent.
This is conspiratorial, and I won’t even dignify it with a response.
Such a failure by the North American Air Defense would be of vital importance to voter decision-making. Clearly the release of government documents would in no way pose a threat to “national security” since the security had already been breached.
No, but it will put out the fire you are trying to start. Once you get those documents public, you will nitpick it to death, trying to sow the seeds of anti-american “dissent.” If the documents themselves are thick, then anyone can go in there and find something to beat up Bush and company up with.
No freedom remains when bureaucrats may simply declare an item to be a secret. Embarrassment of officials is an absurd defense of “classified.”
Ah, the real agenda. Basically your position is the US govt shouldn’t have classified information. You don’t think we should have any secrets. Which is all the more reason to have secrets from people like you. If you had your way, you would hand over the map of all troop locations in the US, Iraq and elsewhere.
Voters should have open access to all non-military decision-making IF THEY ARE TO JUDGE THE GOVERNMENT AT ELECTION TIME, AS IS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.
Non-military decision making as defined by you.
Professor Forbes has recently authored the revised edition of COLUMBUS AND OTHER CANNIBALS, a basic primer for those who seek to support ethical behavior
I have no interest in a book by a lunatic fringe professor. He makes grand judgments based on talking points from the ACLU, moveon.org, NYTimes, not based on what he sees on the battlefield.
Quite frankly, I’m sick to death of these people who use their unlimited forums, while our troops on the front lines never get the say they deserve. They have to deal with the problem, and so did Bush not Mr. Forbes.
Now Obama has his turn. From what I have seen, he is fouling up. North Korea just test-fired an ICBM, not long after Obama delivered his “mutual respect” to Iran, a clear indicator Obama is being tested. Somali Pirates are springing up.
I am observing this discussion and one thing I think is worth pointing out in this discussion is that Bush failed because he allowed his political rivals to define the issues.
People like Mr. Forbes appear to have dictated the terms as to when the US goes to war: they are as follows:
1. the US shall get permission from the UN and other nations ahead of time.
2. Saddam Hussein needs to be proved to have had weapons of mass destruction or to have been a significant threat beyond a reasonable doubt before an armed invasion of the country can go forth.
3. All POW’s shall be treated as subject to Geneva convention. This is described as “international law”
4. The war on terrorism doesn’t exist. The terrorists are not the #1 problem the US govt faces.
5. The greatest civil rights threat we faced during Bush’s term was government intrusion into private lives (i.e. wiretapping)
Given time, I think I could come up with more based on what I have heard from most people.
Here are my terms:
1. Bush did not need to prove our Enemy was a problem. He took a lot of time and energy making a case that did not need to be made.
why?
1 Leaving Hussein in power was a mistake to begin with from the Gulf War. Hussein had invaded an ally of ours for its oil, putting Hussein at the top of the list for #1 danger.
2. If you didn’t agree with the war, then I’m not really interested in your beliefs about treatment of prisoners because you don’t think they should even be in prison in the first place.
3. Terrorists should not get the same treatment as Solders would. They do not wear the uniform, and often the enemy we face wages war on innocent civilians.
4. It appears that many of Bush’s opponents don’t really care about the number and quantity of civilians Al Qaeda wages war on. While they gripe about every mistake the US does, they don’t appear to be that concerned about civil rights violations by Al-Qaeda.j
5. the greatest threat to civil rights is terrorism. 3000 Americans had their civil rights/liberties stripped from them in one blast.
6. The US doesn’t need the UN’s permission to determine if and when it goes to battle. Neither does Berkely CA
Let me repeat what I have said. GWB allowed his opponents to define the issues including when we go to war when we don’t go to war, under what terms, how we will treat prisoners and how we will not, whether the US will imploy enhanced interrogation or whether they will not employ enhanced interrogation, how the federal government can go about wiretapping, etc. These people owned the floor on this and ran their mouths all day long, while GWB stayed silent.