I received a couple reader reactions to my post yesterday re: David Brooks’ optimism column, and a follow-on reaction to a subject we raised last week (twice) — namely, warrantless surveillance.
Both of the reader reactions to Brooks’ column were in the “bah humbug” or “optimism schmoptimism” category. From regular reader DLS …
Just wait until later this decade or 2020 onward at most — fiscal crunches and even crises in Washington (never mind what may happen in some states), hardship with many facing retirement, drags of all kinds on the economy — I certainly wouldn’t write off a decline then [among those who believe we’re headed in the right direction].
And from a reader whose email ID’d her as “Mary Marshall” …
I can’t believe much of what he says. For instance, American workers are 10 times more efficient than China. Yep that is true however only 5 of ten have jobs that will pay the rent. And lets just think about education. Given the economy most of our public grammar schools and high schools will be forced to reduce teachers cirriculum and hours of instruction. So how are we going to get those well paying technical jobs????
And how about a two front war and reparations to 2 countries for what we have done to them? After we pay for that not much is left to create jobs and support education.
Happy I’m Old
Only “5 of ten have jobs that will pay the rent”? Really, Mary? I’d like to see the source for that claim.
On the waranteless surveillance issue, regular reader “Green Dreams” took issue with Jason Arvak’s suggestion that the recent court ruling would not stand on appeal because it failed to meet the required legal standard. GD wrote …
I don’t see a problem with a summary judgment in this case. The FISA law was passed specifically to constrain the executive branch from doing what Nixon did, warrantless surveillance. Your argument seems to be that Congress can’t pass a law that applies to the executive. That would turn balance of power on its head, asserting that the president is essentially a monarch, beyond the reach of Acts of Congress.
How could it be that a court would rule that Congress can’t pass laws that compel or constrain the executive? Indeed, nearly every single law passed by Congress either empowers or limits actions by federal agencies, ie. the executive branch.
Indeed, FISA specifically reduced the “burden” as your commenter put it, of obtaining a warrant, by establishing an alternative to the regular courts, so the executive could obtain a quicker warrant without releasing “national security” secrets. Perhaps you are suggesting that the entire FISA law is unconstitutional, but the courts have not so held.
—————
Do you have a reaction or related information to share? Email me at [email protected]. Please write “TMV Comment” in the subject line, and please include a link back to this post in the text of your message. I won’t respond to all emails, but I will occasionally publish follow-up posts, featuring the reader feedback that I find the most germane, compelling and/or persuasive.