DH> RT> Although the Clintons apparently do not agree on the legality
DH> RT> of recess appointments, Mr. Bode noted, "We know they are
DH> RT> constitutional," thanks to the first lady's lawsuit.
DH> RT> Any comments?????
DH> Whether or not a given action is constitutional depends, in the eyes of 
the
DH> Clintons, on which side of the discussion the action supports. In the
DH> case of the Reagan action, the action was clearly unconstitutional,
DH> since the action(supposedly) advanced the conservative agenda. OTOH, in
DH> the case of Mr Lee, the appointment was constitutional, since such
DH> action advanced the LIbEral agenda.
DH> See how easy this is?
Yep.  Here are a couple of other examples.
Right after the '94 Republican victories, Mr Gingrich put forward
a proposal, written apparently by the religious right, though I can't
recall its formal name.  This proposal would have forcibly taken away
the children of Welfare mothers, and put those kids into "orphanages"
to be run by the religious right.  IOW, this proposed legislation
would have used Federal power to take children away from their mothers.
I like to think that Mr Gingrich was smart enough to know that this
proposal had about an ice cube's chance in hell, and was doing it
only to secure campaign money.  Yet somebody wrote it, and a supposed
opponent of Federal imposition on Americans floated it.
And here's a local example.  Recently, developers here in NM have
been trying to extend a major expressway right through the middle
of the Petroglyph National Monument, which is considered a sacred
site by local Indians.  Opposition is not limited to people you might
call tree-huggers, but also moderates like me who think development
is OK but that this is going too far.  Now, Republican Senator
Pete Domenici has introduced proposed legislation into Congress
which would make this a Federal issue that would override local
opposition and force the road through.  Correct me if I'm wrong,
but from reading this echo I've gained the impression that
conservatives despise, on general principles, the imposition
of Federal power upon local government and public opinion.
Now if I generalize from your above example, and from mine,
I would say that
1) We all secretly think the imposition of Federal power is
   really cool when it advances our own value system, or that
   of the people who finance our election;
2) When the opposition (Those Who Are Wrong) do exactly the
   same thing, we scream bloody murder and call it unethical,
   immoral, or unconstitutional.
 * SLMR 2.1a *   Don't just believe in miracles -- rely on them.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------