Hogwash. Sure, a five year old view of sovereignty might consider that I was violating the principle, though even then, narrowly, since my exception would apply to very few regimes, but a more mature understanding would realize that I am honoring the principle in all cases. After all, sovereignty resides in the people. Consent of the governed is best tested by election, but may be broadly inferred by the ability of the regime to command respect without resorting to police state tactics. Thus, I stipulated "brutal dictatorships" as illegitimate. Do you think the sovereignty of all regimes deserves respect, regardless of criminality?
Similarly with other matter. It is a mere platitude to invoke Jefferson's views on the Executive, as if he were an oracle. I respect Jefferson, but I do not agree with him in all matters, and one must therefore do the work of arguing the case. Even DeToqueville, in the 1830s, noted that foreign relations and security were the areas where the President had broad discretion, and that it was only the isolation of the United States that prevented the office from increasing power. It goes with the territory, because diplomacy and war both require a degree of secrecy and the ability to make decisions without delay.
If you ever want to have a mature discussion of the complexities of these matters, let me know......... |
