Published: Friday, Aug. 22 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
"Dershowitz calls the two felony indictments brought against Texas Gov. Rick
Perry as “un-American” and part of an “extremely dangerous
trend,”"I have to agree with Dershowitz. And,
in general the Republicans will join with Dershowitz and yell
"un-American" and "extremely dangerous" and the Democrats will
defend this and list why this is substantive.And then we take the
talk of impeachment of Obama and the actual law suit filed against him. This is
also "un-American" and a "Dangerous trend". And the partisans
will switch roles.And, I have little doubt the people on both sides
will comment on how one is completely justified and the other is bogus.In the end, they are both partisan, political maneuvers, plain and simple.
Boy, the world seems to have turned upside down. The Deseret News is quoting
the likes of Alan Dershowitz, the Washington Post and David Plouffe to support
their editorial position. Certainly the indictment against Governor Perry seems
a bit over the top. But as you state so clearly "[b]y the weird logic of
the indictment, Mr. Perry would have been in the clear if he had simply vetoed
the funding without threatening to do so first." Too bad the governor
wasn't smart enough to understand that.I also find it ironic
that the DN calls this indictment, which has a political motive attached to it -
from both sides - has ignored the House of Representatives attempt at
"dragging a constitutional ...decision into the courtroom solely on the
basis of a partisan disagreement" in their lawsuit against President Obama.
Perhaps the DN would care to explain the difference. Or is it just that Alan
Dershowitz hasn't yet spoken out about it?
Well, it's pretty simple to look ahead and see what track this thing is on.
Beginning in January 2015 it is possible that President Obama will need to use
the veto power quite a lot, as there could well be a Republican Congress that
will be sending him a lot of legislation that he doesn't want to to sign.
Imagine if the precedent of indicting a chief executive for using veto power was
to become legal and fashionable.
I never thought I'd say this but Alan Dershowitz is right. Actually I
thought he was right a couple of other times, but his efforts to remove God
completely from public discourse has made me a little cross with him.
Nevertheless, bringing charges against political figures for doing their job
according to the rules is more than chilling - no matter how much we disagree
with the specific ways they do their job. The liberals support him here because
they know if this can be done to Perry, it can also be done to any of the
liberal politicians for doing their job in unpopular ways, even if they have the
legal right to do so. Hopefully these charges will be thrown out without wasting
a lot of time and money on something so frivolous and vindictive. Simply put and
in agreement with this editorial, "If you don't like what an elected
official does, vote them out of office."
As a Texan, I have admired Gov. Perry for many years. I agree with the author
that these charges against him are bogus and dangerous to our political system.
I would be aghast if he didn't have the chance to run for
President because of these spiteful indictments. He isn't perfect, but
he's a better candidate than any others that have been identified so
far.If he is nominated as a Presidential candidate, I hope the
people of Louisiana will remember his compassion for the refugees that Texas
took in during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Other states helped, but Texas
received the majority due to Gov. Perry's leadership.
Do you think?
This analysis is without depth. For an example of trying to make a political
vendetta out of this I would pose the following questions to the writer or to
any apologist for the Deseret News.What party appointed the judge to
oversee the indictment? What are the political affiliations of the District
Attorney who pursued the indictment? Where was the indictment rendered (what is
the make-up of the county in that part of the state)? HIs veto aside, what are
the other grounds for the indictment (it was not just about a veto)? Do any
subsequent actions of the governor show a malicious intent? And finally, what
law and precedent in Texas state law might determine the validity of the
indictment?It must be fun to throw brickbats at the opponents of
seemingly popular Republican/Tea Party governor's critics. However, it is
facile in the extreme.
There has been very little in the media about the legal theories underlying the
indictments. On the surface, I might agree, but there is more to the story.
I'll leave it up to the court to sort it out rather than try to spin this
for a partisan purpose or a pseudo-concern about the Constitution, blah, blah,
blah. JoeBlow makes a good point that some will decry the Perry indictment and
then take the opposite position when it comes to the President of the United
States. This hypocrisy is sickening.
"Politicians who make decisions people don’t like ought to be voted
out of office..."Couldn't this also apply to Gov.
Perry's attempt to induce the DA to resign?I actually have no
opinion on the charges. I've seen this before in Texas - from both sides -
and have learned to remain skeptical. But I'm annoyed with the argument
put forth in this editorial. Its primary foundation seems to be, "Even
people we normally disagree with see it as we do!" Well, then it must be
true!It also left out not insignificant details found in an op-ed
also appearing today. Author Catherine Rampell notes:"Problem
is, that Public Integrity Unit was investigating a cancer research institute
that was one of Perry's pet projects. (One of its former high-ranking
officials now faces a felony corruption charge.) If the district attorney had
stepped down before she was up for re-election, Perry would have picked her
replacement, who could then presumably have quashed the investigation."As for such actions being totalitarian in nature, if this is true then
I've been living in a totalitarian state for decades now.
Political?Maybe.But sometimes, when a politician has
become powerful and entrenched in his office, it may be necessary for people who
are not part of his political machine to stand up against the tide and try to
see that what's right is done.Remember our own Shurtlef /
Swallow mess?One side wanted to sweep it under the rug and keep it
there.The other wouldn't allow it.Remember all the
political posturing by the GOP before the Tribune brought it all out into the
open?It's in court now. Let the courts do their job.
They do everything BIG in Texas, including slimy, mud-slinging politics. What
goes round, comes round.
This type of thing is in the Democrat play book page one.Some have
alluded to the Republican lawsuit against the president. If Obama would
actually follow the law instead of making it up as he goes along, the House
wouldn't have to sue him. That said, the House Lawsuit is extremely dumb.
If Obama has broken the law then there is a Constitutional remedy already in
The vetoed funding for the state's Integrity Unit had been designated to
investigate the actions of the governor and his friends who had directed money
set aside for cancer research to instead fund businesses contributing to his
campaign funds. The drunk driving incident is unacceptable and drunk drivers
need to be punished for endangering our lives, but Mr. Perry saw this as an
opportunity to put a stop to an investigation that he didn't like. There
are three reasons why many of us Texans don't want him to run for
president: 1. He is an embarrassment to the state of Texas, 2. He does not work
well with anyone who disagrees with him (which is great if you like government
shutdowns), and 3.... um.... 3... um... oops, I forgot the third one.
Perry’s use of the veto to force a resignation rather than out of
objection to the appropriation itself was an abuse of power. Whether he broke
the law will be up to the courts to decide. How Mr. Dershowitz reasons that this
particular use of legal redress to resolve a dispute is un-American is the most
curious statement I’ve ever heard the learned law professor make.
@JoeBlow,I agree with Dershowitz too. This is an extremely dangerous
trend.I also agree that both sides have overreached when they do
this.I have to point out one point of disagreement. You equated
this and Republicans suing President Obama. I agree they are basically the
same thing, but there are some critical (Constitutional) differences you deftly
avoided when equating them.... The Governor clearly has the
Constitutional authority to Veto legislation (it's right there in their
Constitution). The President also has the authority to veto legislation, but he
does NOT have the right to ignore laws he didn't veto and allowed to go on
the books, or to pass his own laws if the Legislature will not pass the laws he
wants, or to nullify the Legislative Branch's oversight of his power and
actions by "Going it alone". THAT... is NOWHERE in the
Constitution.One is authority clearly given in the Constitution...
The other is not.So there's a difference. But in the end the
result is the same... because the other side feels injured and wants to
retaliate... and they do... and we get this dangerous trend...
DUI is a serious offense.Rather than choosing whether or not to
resign, how about we enact federal and state laws that automatically removes
anyone who pleads guilty to or is convicted of a serious crime.Heck,
that may even solve the term limit issue.
You can always tell who the Democrats fear, and who rising Republican candidates
are. The Chicago playbook and Alinsky's Rules for Radicals demand that you
personalize your opponent and destroy them by whatever means. Gov.
Sarah Palin was hounded out of office by endless, baseless lawsuits. Gov Scott
Walker was harassed by numerous lawsuits and a recall drive, all of which
failed, but probably damaged him as a candidate. Gov. Chris Christy has been
attacked by frivolous allegations about "bridgegate".Now,
Gov Perry is the latest target.Meanwhile, Obama's actual
violations of laws go unchallenged.
Hey one old man – “'Political.' Maybe"No,
not really. A recognition of Perry’s criminality is NOT just political.
Perry's criminal abuse of his authority should be transparently obvious to
everyone.According to the Republican narrative, the DA had been
found guilty of a DUI, and that meant that Perry had the right and the duty to
pressure her to resign by threatening a veto.OK . . If it’s
good for the goose . . . Then President Obama has the right to pressure
Republican Senator Mike Crapo to resign through by threatening a veto,
doesn’t he?As you may recall, Idaho’s Mormon Republican
Senator Mike Crapo was convicted of a DUI just outside the DC beltway in
2012.Do Perry supporters think it would be OK if Obama threatened
to veto a funding bill in order to get this convicted Republican lawbreaker to
resign from the Senate?If not . . . Why not?
@DN SunscriberWhere there's smoke there's fire. Perry is walking
the very edge of legality here, and indictments are NOT like simple accusations.
They don't fall out of the sky.I see no indictments of our esteemed
President anywhere on the horizon.The GOP better wise up, and fast.
They continue to send unsavory nominees for president, and they keep getting
shot down.The GOP is it's own worst enemy.I see a
democratic president again, and very likely for 2 terms. What a nice
change it would be to see a worthy candidate form them...but alas....
Yeah, this whole fiasco reminds me of Boehner threatening to sue Obama. When
will we read the op-ed on that?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments