Ken Gormley

Over the last year or so I've become really interested in reading books about how presidencies and elections have morphed over the centuries. I also have a love of reading about constitutional interpretation and the way SCOTUS operates. So, needless to say, this was all the way up my alley, and it didn't disappoint.

The book is essentially a collection of essays on each POTUS written by various authors but edited with an eye of making a cohesive whole. The editors did an amazing job making sure everything melded together nicely; there are only a few spots where I could spot a different voice bleeding through. My only problem was with a few of the essays seeming to go into issues that didn't feel strictly speaking "constitutional", as well as skipping over the majority of the amendments. But that aside, the writing was superb.

I won't go into all of my thoughts on the various presidents and their interfacing with the constitution, but I will say that I learned a few things.

- I had always thought the realm of the president was more... Concrete than it actually is. It's a much more nebulous idea that is constantly evolving as each new POTUS comes into office and makes their mark.
- The separation of powers is a huge theme from the beginning to now, as well as the provence of federalism and states rights. This should really go without saying, but reading about these terms of office back to back, it's easier to see how important these questions are to our government working "properly".
- The presidents power to appoint federal officials has been under contest for just as long. This one was a bit more of a surprise to me, as I hadn't realized how many damn cases had gotten to SCOTUS about it. Like, damn. Just let the man appoint some people.
- My last takeaway was the most unexpected: Gerald Ford was pretty amazing. At least in how he handled the immediate post-Nixon presidency, and managing to not let Congress run roughshod in taking away executive powers. He's the next bio I want to read. Didn't see that coming.

I definitely enjoyed this book, although be warned that it is loooong. If you are really interested in the POTUS, SCOTUS, and the way the constitution has been viewed and interpreted over the years in a board perspective, then this is a good book to pick up. It's well written and not dry like some histories can be which makes it all the more enjoyable.

Copy courtesy of NYU Press, via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.… (altro)

Quite an amazing book. Long, thorough, scholarly, very interesting. A look at how each of our American Presidents has viewed the Constitution and how it can be used to expand Presidential power. How the Congress and the Courts have viewed a President's interpretations, and how they pushed back when they felt a President was over-reaching. And, sometimes, how a President watched as the Congress and the Courts have curbed his powers.
It was interesting to read how all the Presidents have tested the Constitution against their interpretations. It's not just a modern thing, it's been all through our history.
I found the latest (since 1960) several President's interpretations the most interesting, as that is the period that I have lived in myself.
I will be closely following this years Presidential election with an eye towards how each of the candidates reveals him/herself as to their opinions on the Presidential powers.… (altro)

In a country more prone to hit the self-destruct button than to come to terms with rabid partisan quarrels it's hard to give a balanced verdict of this book.

On the one hand Gormley lets almost everyone speak their minds, right or wrong, partisan account or balanced judgment.
On the other hand there's Gormley interpreting these accounts.

Gormley's basic assumption is that all parties were wrongly vilified, because basically they had the best of intentions save for an occasional outside juggernaut.
Is that really the case? Careful reading of all the statements from the varying participants seems to lead me to a different conclusion.

Basically Clinton remains a man with questionable sex ethics, short of hormone treatment to ease his stupid sex urges. And Starr and his ilk remain the largely partisan folks out to "get" Clinton personally and derail his administration in the process as well.

It might be the result of appeasing all parties to get them to talk to Gormley in the first place.

Linda Tripp claims she did it all for the best of everyone, but fails to explain why. All we learn is that she uses paranoia as an excuse to frame Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton in a partly illegal undertaking.

Most adversaries of Bill and Hillary Clinton get their actions explained in ridiculous wordings. "I thought Clinton was sick and depraved, but I swear I respected him"; "I thought Clinton was a low life liberal scum, but I swear it's wasn't politics that drove me"; "I joined forces with Starr because I was anti-Clinton all my life, but there were no politics involved in my decision." "When we found a way to use our digging into the personal sex life of Clinton to make him pay, and made high fives to celebrate the fact, it was all because we were only seeking out the truth."

When Paula Jones claims Clinton had to pay because The American Spectator smeared her name, Clinton wonders why she was out to get him and not the AS instead. Why did she go in cahoots with the very magazine that smeared her name? Why didn't Gormley ask her the obvious question?

All in all the book does little to change the image of a partisan mud fight, a continuing struggle for power with all means available. It does not explain why the Starr operation was a neutral search for truth instead of a derailed partisan quest. It doesn't even enlighten us why Clinton was such a stupid person to have a sexual relation in the White House while fighting a court case around a sexual relation in his his gubernatorial period. Weird.

Maybe Gormley chose the best solution after all. Write down what they all told him and let history judge. But maybe he did so afraid of being accused of partisanship in the current festering US political landscape.
If that's the case it's a pity. I don't buy such books to rehash the clippings from the legal proceedings, the papers and the Drudge report, but because I want a perspective as objective as possible, to come to a sensible discussion of the way democratic governments and their opponents function. And in the end, what we can learn from their mistakes.… (altro)