|
January 19, 2006
A review in the Washington Post of some books on the US as a superpower that seeks to sidestep restraints on its sovereignty in the post 9/11 landscape. None of the books appear to speak of empire, the grab for executive power by the Bush administration, or the imperial presidency's extensive use of torture and surveillance in the war against terrorism.
This is more interesting----political view of the rule of law as arising from a balance of power between and within the legislative and judicial branches. But no concern is shown for the tense relationship between the state of exception in which we live and the rule of law by the national security state. There appears to be little interest in exploring the foundation and authority to suspend the law.
Who guards the constitution then?
It's as if authority has disappeared from the modern world. It would appear that liberalism opposes authority to freedom and authority to democracy, as it tacitly equates authority with dictatorship. Does not the Senate have authority? An authority grounded on the people? Does not this highlight an empty centre in liberalism?
It is becoming ever more obvious that authority under the Bush administration is increasingly being located within, or as inhering in, the riving person of the President as pater or princeps and not in Congress. This suggests that the authority of the President can never be derivative: it is always originary as it springs from his person and not from a pre-existing legal order. That authority in the state of exception in which we live is founded on the supension, or neutralization of, the juridical order of a liberal polity.
|
