I'm sorry to say that your sense of time is skewed.
The book is "America's Constitution - A Biography". This appears to be a first printing. it certainly doesn't say it's a second. Its a hardcover (and I can't imagine a book on the constitution coming out in hardcover twice), and its copyright notice is 2005.
The reason that I ask is that he has a section on impeachment, with a subsection on presidential impeachment. On page 200, it includes the text "A president who ran off on a frolic in the middle of a national crisis demanding his urgent attention might break no criminal law, yet such gross dereliction of duty might well rise to the level disqualifying misconduct."
At first I thought that he was making a case against Bush. Then I checked when it was published. Then I thought not, but I wanted to check.
Oh, and there's a bit about "Madison contended that if a president abused his removal powers by 'wanton removal of meritorious officers' he would be 'impeachable. . . for such an act of maladministration'". The US attorney firings definitely hadn't happened yet.
It sounds like you're saying that, unless Mr. Amar was watching the news, said to himself "Aha! I must revise the section on impeachment! Oh, and late next year he'll probably fire some perfectly good attorneys.", typed furiously, and sent it to his publisher who put a rush order on it, getting it done in late December, he is not making a case against Bush.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-04-16 06:43 pm (UTC)The book is "America's Constitution - A Biography". This appears to be a first printing. it certainly doesn't say it's a second. Its a hardcover (and I can't imagine a book on the constitution coming out in hardcover twice), and its copyright notice is 2005.
The reason that I ask is that he has a section on impeachment, with a subsection on presidential impeachment. On page 200, it includes the text "A president who ran off on a frolic in the middle of a national crisis demanding his urgent attention might break no criminal law, yet such gross dereliction of duty might well rise to the level disqualifying misconduct."
At first I thought that he was making a case against Bush. Then I checked when it was published. Then I thought not, but I wanted to check.
Oh, and there's a bit about "Madison contended that if a president abused his removal powers by 'wanton removal of meritorious officers' he would be 'impeachable. . . for such an act of maladministration'". The US attorney firings definitely hadn't happened yet.
It sounds like you're saying that, unless Mr. Amar was watching the news, said to himself "Aha! I must revise the section on impeachment! Oh, and late next year he'll probably fire some perfectly good attorneys.", typed furiously, and sent it to his publisher who put a rush order on it, getting it done in late December, he is not making a case against Bush.
Thank you for the info.