Constitutional Crisis

Saw this by sorta-reasonable-for-a-conservative conservative Daniel Larison at Balloon Juice.

I cannot object to the statement that the “federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.” This is true. However, I have no idea why the organizers of this gathering think that anyone will believe their professions of constitutionalism after enabling or acquiescing in some of the most grotesque violations of constitutional republican government in the last forty years. If constitutional conservatism means anything, it has to mean that the executive branch does not have wide, sweeping, inherent powers derived from the President’s (temporary) military role. It has to mean that all these conservatives will start arguing that the President cannot wage wars on his own authority, and they will have to argue this no matter who occupies the Oval Office. It has to mean unwavering conservative hostility to the mistreatment of detainees, and it has to mean that conservatives cannot accept the detention of suspects without charge, access to counsel or recourse to some form of judicial oversight. Obviously, constitutional conservatives could in no way tolerate or overlook policies of indefinite detention or the abuse of detainees. They would have to drive out the authoritarians among them, and rediscover a long-lost, healthy suspicion of concentrated power, especially power concentrated in the hands of the executive.

Being somewhat late to comment (We despise the Eastern elitists who have been awake & functioning for eight or so hrs. by the time we stir.) & not wanting to read all the silly crap in the comments to see if our point had been made, we'll make it here:

All well & good, but when the brighter (or just louder) lights of the dimbulb movement continually (Poot Gingrich being only the latest, w/ his "But Richard "Shoebomber" Reid was an American citizen!" lie on "The Daily Show.") take the approach/attitude that Constitutional rights apply only to American citizens (& the subtext that, somehow, they should apply to Yankee pig-dogs everywhere) rather than to any person on American soil or under U.S. jurisdiction, what the fuck do you expect?