teach a course at Harvard with philosopher Robert Nozick and lawyer Alan Dershowitz. We take major issues engaged by each of our professions—from abortion to racism to right-to-die—and we try to explore and integrate our various approaches. We raise many questions and reach no solutions.

This paper combines methods of argumentation theory and artificial intelligence to extend existing work on the dialectical structure of crossexamination. The existing method used conflict diagrams to search for inconsistent statements in the testimony of a witness. This paper extends the method by using the inconsistency of commitments to draw an inference by the ad hominem argumentation scheme to the conclusion that the testimony is unreliable because of the bad ethical character for veracity of the witness.

The impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff in 2016 was the result of a coup of the economically dominant conservative oligarchy against the leftist Partido dos Trabalhadores, in power since 2003. The right wing Brazilian media played a crucial role in this coup by manipulating public opinion as well as the politicians who voted against Dilma. In particular, the media of the powerful Globo Corporation, such as O Globo newspaper, and especially Globo’s Jornal Nacional, the pervasive TV news program, (...) systematically demonized and delegitimized Dilma, as well as ex-President Lula and the PT, in their news reports and editorials by selectively associating them with pervasive corruption and attributing the serious economic recession to them. After a summary of this sociopolitical context, and a brief theoretical definition of manipulation, this article examines some of the manipulative strategies of O Globo’s editorials during March and April 2016. (shrink)

America frequently talks about impeaching a president, but the impeachment provisions of the American constitution are widely misunderstood. In High Crimes and Misdemeanors, constitutional scholar Frank O. Bowman, III offers unprecedented clarity to the question of impeachment, tracing its roots to medieval England through its adoption in the Constitution and 250 years of American experience. By examining the human and political history of those who have faced impeachment, Bowman demonstrates that the Framers intended impeachment to be (...) a flexible tool, adaptable to the needs of any age. Written in a lively, engaging style, the book combines a deep historical and constitutional analysis of the impeachment clauses, a coherent theory of when impeachment should be used to protect constitutional order against presidential misconduct, and a comprehensive presentation of the case for and against impeachment of President Trump. It is an indispensable work for the present moment. (shrink)

It is important that from a wider scientific perspective the basics of the conceptual comprehension of impeachment entrenched in the 1992 Lithuanian Constitution be related not only to (a) the nine explicit provisions whereby impeachment relations are regulated directly (Item 5 of Article 63, Article 74, Paragraph 2 of Article 86, Item 5 of Article 88, the first sentence of Paragraph 1 of Article 89, Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105, Paragraph 3 of Article 107, Item (...) 5 of Article 108, Article 116), but also to (b) the general constitutional principles (especially, the principle of protection of the rights and freedoms of a person), as well as to (c) the precedents of preparation, arrangement, suspension or continuation of impeachment proceedings (in cases of A. Butkevičius, R. Paksas or L. Karalius) and to (d) comparative international aspects, which are perceived not only in the US Constitution, but also in the European Convention on Human Rights which is no longer compatible (and clashing as regards the issue of consequences of impeachment) with the former. According to the European Court of Human Rights (judgment of 6 January 2011 in the case Paksas v. Lithuania), the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits irreversible (termless) limitation (grounded on impeachment) of the passive electoral right to be a Member of Parliament. It is also important to perceive (three) abstract procedural grounds of application of this institute to a certain official—a gross violation of the Constitution, breach of the oath and in case it transpires that a crime has been committed (Article 74 of the Constitution), and the factual (“concrete actions”—see Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105) grounds qualified according to the former, while due to the factual grounds the “impeachment case” is instituted. The notion “impeachment case” used in Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution deserves special scientific attention. This notion indirectly means that: (a) prior to the application to the Constitutional Court by the Seimas, an impeachment case is (must be) instituted, which in itself means that impeachment and initiation and consideration thereof are distinguished by peculiarity in substantive procedure; (b) the Constitutional Court neither institutes this case nor “takes it over” (considers it), but in “its own” case of constitutional justice verifies those factual and procedural grounds, which are necessary in “the other” (impeachment) case instituted in the Seimas. The essence of the institute of impeachment cannot be properly perceived in the constitutional notions of “impeachment”, “case”, “proceedings“, if these notions are assessed only in the explicit provisions of Article 74 of the Constitution, i.e. they are not related to the logic of substantive and procedural arrangement and “intertwining” of the three provisions of the Constitution (Article 74, Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105 and Paragraph 3 of Article 107) as well as to the purpose of these provisions. On the grounds of the said three provisions of the Constitution, it is possible to assume that the essence of the institute of impeachment lies in a specific official accusation (of violations of special law) against the officials who have acquired (or who hold) certain constitutional powers and of bringing such officials to constitutional liability under the procedure for specific parliamentary impeachment proceedings and constitutional justice proceedings, i.e. deprivation (discontinuation) of constitutional powers under multi-level procedure for conditionally dual proceedings, in which the parliamentary proceedings and the constitutional justice proceedings are inter-connected and supplementeach other. (shrink)

Historians have recently used the Internet to circulate political statements about law. This paper explores the statements they issued against President Clinton's impeachment and President Bush's inauguration. It pays special attention to impeachment, comparing the position taken by historians with that taken by the law professors. While concluding that such statements can be useful, the author advises historians lacking the expertise to evaluate the positions taken in a statement to proceed carefully in signing it. She suggests that historians (...) sign only such documents whose scholarship they have made a preliminary assessment that they could individually defend publicly. She also urges historians to craft statements that give the public a sense of the methods they use in interpreting the past. (shrink)

(2001). Just Being a Lawyer: Reflections on the Legal Ethics of a President under Impeachment A review of “An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment and Trial of President Clinton,” by Richard A. Posner. Legal Ethics: Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 155-171.

This volume continues the story of Burke and the affairs of the East India Company which was begun in Volume V. By 1786, Burke had fixed on Warren Hastings as the main culprit for the abuses that seemed to him so glaring. He greeted Hastings's return to Britain with a parliamentary attack which culminated in a trial by impeachment in the House of Lords. This was to be one of Burke's major preoccupations for the rest of his life. The (...) material presented in this volume covers two years of proceedings in the House of Commons and the first session of the trial in the Lords. Its highlights are two great set-piece speeches delivered to the Commons, which can be reconstructed from manuscript material as well as from contemporary reports; and the four-day oration with which Burke opened the prosecution before the Lords: for this a complete verbatim shorthand record exists. The material in these and other speeches is not only central to an understanding of Burke and India, but to his moral and political thought as a whole in the years immediately before the outbreak of the French Revolution. (shrink)

Under Article 74 of the Constitution, for gross violation of the Constitution or breach of oath, or if it transpires that a crime has been committed, the President of the Republic may be removed from office under procedure for impeachment proceedings. In the article the content of the constitutional delict is analysed. The President of the Republic may be brought to constitutional responsibility only for the actions which he committed while in office of the President of the Republic. The (...) President of the Republic may be removed from office not for any violation of the Constitution, but only for gross violation thereof. While implementing the powers established to him in the Constitution and laws, the President of the Republic may not breach the oath. Under Article 74 of the Constitution, the President of the Republic may be removed from office “if it transpires that a crime has been committed” – this provision means that the Constitution provides for the right of the Seimas to remove the President of the Republic from office in the absence of a court judgement recognising that the President of the Republic is guilty of commission of a crime. The Constitution commissions only the Constitutional Court to establish the fact of violation of the Constitution – whether there has been a gross violation of the Constitution and breach of oath by actions of the person. The Seimas may not change or question the conclusion of the Constitutional Court. On the grounds of the conclusion of the Constitutional Court that the actions of the President of the Republic are in conflict with the Constitution, it is only the Seimas that decides whether to remove the President of the Republic from office. The removal of the President of the Republic from office under procedure of impeachment proceedings due to a suspicion that the crime has been committed is not binding upon a court of general jurisdiction which considers the criminal case. (shrink)

Brazilian society has frequently been described as polarized during the country’s recent political and economic crisis. In 2018, a wave of opposition to the centre-left Workers’ Party culminated in the election of Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing populist who portrays the political left as a malevolent force in Brazilian society. In this paper I explore this polarization through drawing on ethnographic research with the Homeless Workers’ Movement (Movimento de Trablhadores Sem-Teto, MTST), a large urban social movement that develops settlements on underutilized (...) land in the city, and a prominent civil society opponent of Bolsonaro. More specifically, I examine a key site of socio-spatial tension in São Paulo, Paulista Avenue, as a new political right came to predominate on the city’s main thoroughfare during the campaign to impeach the Workers’ Party President, Dilma Rousseff. I show how the perceived intolerance of the mobilized right helped to establish new normative codes that regulated the political symbolism which could be displayed in public spaces. Lastly, I consider how the vilification of the MTST in particular and the political left in general by the new right is embedded in broader structures of stigmatization. (shrink)

Various philosophers have long since been attracted to the doctrine that future contingent propositions systematically fail to be true—what is sometimes called the doctrine of the open future. However, open futurists have always struggled to articulate how their view interacts with standard principles of classical logic—most notably, with the Law of Excluded Middle. For consider the following two claims: Trump will be impeached tomorrow; Trump will not be impeached tomorrow. According to the kind of open futurist at issue, both of (...) these claims may well fail to be true. According to many, however, the disjunction of these claims can be represented as p ∨ ~p—that is, as an instance of LEM. In this essay, however, I wish to defend the view that the disjunction these claims cannot be represented as an instance of p ∨ ~p. And this is for the following reason: the latter claim is not, in fact, the strict negation of the former. More particularly, there is an important semantic distinction between the strict negation of the first claim [~] and the latter claim. However, the viability of this approach has been denied by Thomason, and more recently by MacFarlane and Cariani and Santorio, the latter of whom call the denial of the given semantic distinction “scopelessness”. According to these authors, that is, will is “scopeless” with respect to negation; whereas there is perhaps a syntactic distinction between ‘~Will p’ and ‘Will ~p’, there is no corresponding semantic distinction. And if this is so, the approach in question fails. In this paper, then, I criticize the claim that will is “scopeless” with respect to negation. I argue that will is a so-called “neg-raising” predicate—and that, in this light, we can see that the requisite scope distinctions aren’t missing, but are simply being masked. The result: a under-appreciated solution to the problem of future contingents that sees and as contraries, not contradictories. (shrink)

Legal scholarship exploring the nature of evidence and the process of juridical proof has had a complex relationship with formal modeling. As evident in so many fields of knowledge, algorithmic approaches to evidence have the theoretical potential to increase the accuracy of fact finding, a tremendously important goal of the legal system. The hope that knowledge could be formalized within the evidentiary realm generated a spate of articles attempting to put probability theory to this purpose. This literature was both insightful (...) and frustrating. Much light was shed on the legal system, but it also quickly became evident that the tools of probability theory were in many ways ill-constructed for the task. Fundamental incompatibilities between the structure of legal decision making and the extant formal tools were identified, and it became evident that many of the purported explanations of legal phenomena were internally inconsistent. As a consequence, interest in this type of formal modeling declined, and attention was directed toward different kinds of explanations of the phenomena. Perhaps under the influence of a recent trend toward various types of formal modeling in legal scholarship, a recent burst of articles, rather than attempting to explain the macro structure of trials, which was the previous object of interest, attempts to quantify the probative value of various items of evidence in ways consistent with the formal features of various probability theories, and then to study decision making from that perspective. For example, the value of evidence is often purported to be its likelihood ratio, that is, the probability of discovering or receiving the evidence given a hypothesis (e.g., the defendant did it) divided by the probability of discovering or receiving the evidence given the negation of the hypothesis (the defendant didn't do it). Alternatively, the value of evidence is purported (more contextually) to be the information gain it provides, defined as the increase in probability it provides for a hypothesis above the probability of the hypothesis based on the other available evidence. Both conceptions then assume that all of the various probability assessments conform or ought to conform to the dictates of Bayes' theorem (that maintains consistency among such assessments); empirical studies are then done testing the extent to which this is so and proposing how the law can increase the probability that it is so. The general criticisms of using Bayes' theorem as a formal model of juridical proof are well known and were integral to the last wave of interest in formal modeling of the evidentiary process. This paper thus for the most part puts aside that more general issue, and focuses specifically on mathematical modeling of the value of particular items of evidence. The paper demonstrates that formal modeling has only limited value in explaining the value of legal evidence, much more limited than those constructing and discussing the models assume, and thus that the conclusions they draw about the value of evidence are unwarranted. This is done through a discussion of four recent examples that attempt to quantify evidence relating to, respectively, carpet fibers, infidelity, DNA random-match evidence, and character evidence used to impeach a witness. This article thus makes two contributions. First, and most importantly, it is another demonstration of the complex relationship between algorithmic tools and legal decision making. Second, at a minimum it points out serious pitfalls for analytical or empirical studies of juridical proof. (shrink)

There is a claim that the natural capacity for knowledge of God is presupposed by the acceptance of any revelation. We inquire into whether this restriction is satisfactory. There is a stronger claim that natural knowledge has to be exercised for someone to welcome revelation. There is an additional claim that natural knowledge of the preambles to the articles of faith may not obtain. We try to make sense of this doctrine of impeached preambles to faith, by considering its phrasing (...) not only in the first person singular, nor in the third person, but in the first plural person, where it may suggest a kind of social division of tasks among believers. (shrink)

Kant's views on revolution have been widely discussed, and commentators have long been astounded that the philosopher who made famous the principle that persons are ends in themselves could reach such abhorent conclusions as that citizens owe unqualified obedience to their supreme ruler. I address an important and ignored sub-issue of this topic: the relations between Kant's doctrine of the division of governmental powers and his doctrine of absolute obedience. I argue that these two doctrines are not compatible; Kant's defense (...) of absolute obedience undermines his own division of powers. Examining exactly why this is the case leads to several further results. First, a constitutional court is crucial to a republic. Second, Kant is closer to a consistent view of government and obedience than first appears. Third, Kant's account of the division of powers was theoretically behind his times. Fourth, there is a crucial distinction between the separation of governmental powers and a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. Fifth, Kant did grasp the relevant principles governing impeachment - a far more drastic measure than a constitutional court. Finally, most of the principles needed to revise Kant's constitutional theory are already contained in his published writings. Kants Thesen zur Revolution sind viel diskutiert worden, und lange Zeit waren Kommentatoren darüber verwundert, daß der Philosoph, der das Prinzip berühmt gemacht hat, wonach Personen Zwecke an sich selbst sind, insbesondere zu der abschreckenden Schlußfolgerung kommen konnte, die Bürger eines Staates hätten dem Herrscher unbedingten Gehorsam zu leisten. Ich befasse mich mit einem wichtigen und regelmäßig übersehenen Aspekt dieses Problemfeldes: Dem Verhältnis zwischen Kants Lehre von der Gewaltenteilung und seiner These vom absoluten Gehorsam des Staatsbürgers. Ich behaupte, daß diese beiden Lehren nicht miteinander vereinbar sind; Kants Verteidigung des absoluten Gehorsams unterminiert seine Gewaltenteilungsthese. Eine genaue Untersuchung der Frage, warum das so ist, führt zu weiteren Resultaten: Erstens ist ein Verfassungsgericht wesentlich für eine Republik. Zweitens ist Kant näher an einer konsistenten Auffassung von Staat und Gehorsam als dies auf den ersten Blick zu sein scheint. Drittens bleibt Kants Auffassung zur Gewaltenteilung hinter der Entwicklung seiner Zeit zurück. Viertens besteht ein wesentlicher Unterschied zwischen der Trennung der Staatsgewalten einerseits und einem System von "checks and balances" der drei Zweige der Staatslenkung andererseits. Fünftens hat Kant durchaus die relevanten Prinzipien eines "impeachment" erkannt - eine wesentlich drastischere Einrichtung als die eines Verfassungsgerichts. Schließlich sind die meisten der Prinzipien, die für eine Revision von Kants Verfassungstheorie notwendig sind, bereits in seinen eigenen Werken enthalten. (shrink)

The paper argues that there is good reason to doubt that virtue-based approaches to the question of justice can adequately come to grips with sophistic uses of the political lie – especially when sophistic thinking is stretched to the point of thoroughgoing moral skepticism, or well beyond that to outright moral nihilism and its cynical uses. To counter such uses, I turn to Kant’s most influential discussion of lying, which is found in his 1797article entitled “Of a Supposed Right to (...) Lie from Philanthropy.” Although I maintain that Kant’s particular moral argument against Constant is flawed, I argue that the specifically political position that Kant’s general juridical argument supports is sound. I thereby show how Kant’s account of the conditions for the possible conformity of politics with principles of right does effectively establish that an impeachable act of lying categorically requires impeachment and prosecution for wrongdoing. KEY WORDS – Kant. Moral philosophy. Fhilosophy of right. Political lie. (shrink)

“I hate war,” de Fontenelle confessed, “for it spoils conversation.” And does it spoil philosophy too, which is always a kind of conversation? Or can philosophers write about war, as now we surely must, in a way that keeps the conversation going without belligerence? Only so, perhaps, can philosophy shed light on this dark field; but how to do it is itself obscured by the passions that wars evoke. Ted Honderich advocates advocacy, “an advocacy of arguments and judgements. A decent (...) philosopher dealing with moral and political questions … is in a line of life higher than that of a trial lawyer, but not out of sight of that line of life. If there is what can be called moral truth, it is not ordinary truth. Desire sits onto it” . Honderich's book may be viewed in this light as a sustained speech for the prosecution in the impeachment of Tony Blair and George W. Bush for waging terrorist war and supporting the terrorist wars of others. It is, then, a polemical work, but, unlike a lawyer's, founded on Honderich's own convictions, which are themselves rooted in philosophical belief. (shrink)

Prior generations’ electoral crises (e.g., gerrymandering) have dealt mainly with political maneuverings around geographical shifts. We analyze four recent (1998–2003) American electoral crises: the Clinton impeachment controversy, the 2000 Florida presidential election, the Texas legislators’ flight to Oklahoma and New Mexico, and the California gubernatorial recall. We show that in each case temporal manipulation was at least as important as geographical. We highlight emergent electoral practices surrounding the manipulation of time, which we dub “temporal gerrymandering.” We suggest a theory (...) of postmodern electoral crises, in which the rules of time and space are simultaneously in flux. These crises expose concerns with early American democratic theory, which was based on an understanding of “the people” as geographically and temporally unidimensional. Representative systems, therefore, were designed largely without reference to geographic and temporal complexity. (shrink)

The article focuses on Burke’s engagement with India and the Impeachment of Warren Hastings. It attempts to trace the way in which Burke, in his rhetoric on India, uses the sentimentalist vocabulary of the Scottish Enlightenment and, more particularly, the concept of sympathy. Burke, it is suggested, passes from a Humean to a Smithian understanding of sympathy, giving however, at every stage of this development, his own turn and character to the concept. Overall, Burke’s writings on India reveal quite (...) advanced for his time political reflexes and oblige us to reconsider the stereotypic image of Burke as an icon of conservatism. (shrink)

RESUMO O artigo propõe uma releitura cruzada dos conceitos de acidente, desenvolvido por Landowski no âmbito de sua teoria sociossemiótica da interação, e explosão, elaborado por Lotman em seus últimos escritos de semiótica da cultura. Longe de ser um fim em si mesmo, este confronto almeja esboçar uma síntese teórico-epistemológica que possa contribuir à análise dos processos comunicacionais-discursivos que regem o devir dos sistemas socioculturais, bem como ao seu enquadramento conceitual. A minha hipótese é que a cifra desta articulação resida (...) no vínculo entre a indeterminação destacada por ambos os autores e a carga estésica, isto é, o núcleo de tensões sensíveis que, conforme vislumbra Landowski, os acontecimentos acidentais/explosivos são capazes de mobilizar. Para procurar demonstrar sua pertinência e relevância, partirei de um caso concreto: as jornadas de junho de 2013 e seu impacto no processo que levou, em 2016, ao impeachment de Dilma Rousseff e, em 2018, à eleição de Jair Bolsonaro. ABSTRACT The article proposes a comparison between the concepts of accident, developed by Landowski in his sociosemiotic theory of interaction, and explosion, elaborated by Lotman in his last writings on the semiotics of culture. Far from being an end in itself, this confrontation aims to sketch a theoretical-epistemological synthesis that can contribute to the analysis of the communicational-discursive processes that trigger the historical flow of sociocultural systems, as well as to their conceptual categorisation. My hypothesis is that the basis of this articulation lies in the link between the indeterminacy highlighted by both authors, and the aesthesic value, that is, the core of sensible tensions that, as shown by Landowski, the accidental/explosive events could mobilise. In order to demonstrate its pertinence and relevance, I will focus on a specific case study: the 2013 protests in Brazil and their impact on the process that led to the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff in 2016 and the election of Jair Bolsonaro in 2018. (shrink)

Athenian ostracism has long captured democratic imaginations because it seems to present clear evidence of a people (demos) routinely asserting collective power over tyrannical elites. In recent times, ostracism has been particularly alluring to militant democrats, who see the institution as an ancient precursor to modern militant democratic mechanisms such as social media bans, impeachment measures, and lustration procedures, which serve to protect democratic constitutions from anti-democratic threats. Such a way of conceptualizing ostracism ultimately stems from Aristotle’s “rule of (...) proportion,” or the removal of “outstanding” individuals in a polity who threaten to disturb the achievement of communal eudaimonia (Aris. Pol. 1284a). However, this way of interpreting the institution only presents a truncated view, one which is overly centered on the ultimate expulsion of an individual from the polity, rather than on its broader contextual telos—the transformation of the ostracized individual and of the community. To move past this simplified view, this paper considers all elements of ostracism with equal force, and argues that ostracism offered a shared opportunity and shared space for all members of the polis—citizens, non-citizens, and elite members alike—to reform the character of the subject individual and to instill and reaffirm democratic values in the community. (shrink)

This essay examines how Brazilian literature has broached changes in the country’s political and social scenario since 2013. Literary production has not only considered socio-political upheavals such as the 2013 protests, the 2016 impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff, and, more recently, the assassination of Rio city council member Marielle Franco as well as the 2020-21 COVID-19 pandemic. Literature has also expanded the signification of “democracy,” broadening the democratic lexicon by employing a language of both demands and entitlements and dispute. (...) By creating a democratic imaginary that oscillates between vindication and exigency, contemporary Brazilian literature delineates the tensions inherent to present-day democratic culture, poised between expanding rights and what scholars have called a "democratic erosion."Keywords: Democracy. Democratic Erosion. Literature. Poetry. ResumoEste ensaio examina como a literatura brasileira tem abordado mudanças no cenário político e social do país desde 2013. A produção literária não aborda apenas levantes sociopolíticos como os protestos de 2013, o impeachment da presidente Dilma Rousseff em 2016 e, mais recentemente, o assassinato da vereadora Marielle Franco e a pandemia COVID-19. A literatura também tem expandido o significado de “democracia”, ampliando o léxico democrático ao empregar uma linguagem de demandas, direitos e disputa. Ao criar um imaginário democrático que oscila entre a reivindicação e a denúncia, a literatura brasileira contemporânea delineia as tensões inerentes à cultura democrática atual, equilibrada entre a expansão de direitos e o que os estudiosos chamam de "erosão democrática".Palavras-chave: Democracia. Erosão Democrática. Literatura. Poesia. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Remembering ApartheidMark Sanders (bio)What was apartheid? How is it being remembered? Two questions. The first of them, almost at once, encourages a third: what is apartheid? An answer to the first question will be an answer to the third. Knowing what apartheid was, it is implied, we will know what apartheid is. We will know what it is in essence. But if the answer supplied to the first question (...) is the same as that to the second, the question has been begged. This answer and begged question affect not only what we understand apartheid to have been. The essence of what apartheid is has been derived from an activity of remembering that is historically contingent. Is there a way out of this circle? A path to a place where essence will in no way be trammeled by any historical excrescence—where apartheid, stamped with -heid, the Afrikaans suffix for -ness, stands forth intact, unique—where, in a final victory, apartheid's phantasy of separateness will have perfected itself in truth? Supposing that responsibility involves the unstable articulation of essence and contingency, and consequent decision in the "night of non-knowledge," would it be responsible to seek such a way out? Is it possible, on the other hand, not to embark upon, or want to embark upon, such a search?The title "Remembering Apartheid" is to be understood as shorthand for this aporia of certain knowing. It refers in the first place to ways of remembering bound up, in South Africa, with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. These have involved not only the collection of facts anchored in recollection, a classically forensic project, but also the admission of acts of grieving and the invitation for others to participate in these acts—a participation to which I will refer, employing the word in the general sense of a mourning-with, as condolence. The word remembrance (echoing the German Gedächtnis, with its folding in of Denken) might more closely approach the inextricable interlinking, before the Commission, of epistemic and mournful practice. Yet, in traversing the aporia provisionally without eliminating it, the title of my essay lays claim to knowledge. It announces: this is apartheid, for this is what apartheid was. It thereby also seeks to acknowledge that, just as forensic evidence assembled by the Commission may be bound up with the grieving of witnesses, no claim about the nature of apartheid can be untouched by the affective demands of those who bear the burden of remembering. The legacy of apartheid of which they speak is of undiscovered bodies, of bodies denied a proper burial. They seek the help of the Commission in rectifying this state of affairs. What we hear when we listen to those witnesses is this: apartheid was a proscription on mourning, specifically of the other. Can we then not say: apartheid is, at least for those who remember the worst deeds committed under it, and who attach to them a particular affect, a proscription on mourning the other? Viewed from a purely forensic point of view, it is far from clear that we possess evidence to impeach this testimony. [End Page 60]Apartheid was/is, in the most general terms, an interdict against the development of a social formation. Although Afrikaner-nationalist politicians and intellectuals sometimes frightened the volk with images of being swamped by the vast black African mass or of being ploughed under as a people [see Louw 1: 505], the nature of that social formation was never outlined in precise terms. Versions of racial degeneration and bastardy were proffered by apartheid theorists, but what the ideology of race purity and the power that hid behind it really entailed was a foreclosure of the other, and thus of any historical possibility of another social formation—of what Breyten Breytenbach, alluding in Dog Heart [69] to the novelist Jan Rabie, calls "other-making" (andersmaak).In Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921), Sigmund Freud offers an account of the social formation that, although standing on the shoulders of conservative nineteenth-century writers such as Gustave le Bon, does not depend upon racial, cultural, linguistic, or other characteristics that, singularly or together, formed the core... (shrink)

Chama-nos a atenção a relação político-religiosa desenvolvida por cristãos no ambiente laico da política brasileira. O portal de notícias Último Segundo destacou que o nome de Deus foi citado 59 vezes, quase a mesma quantidade de vezes que o termo “corrupção”, na votação do impeachment da presidente Dilma Rousseff na Câmara dos Deputados. Será que as experiências de fé destes políticos os impulsionam para estes tipos de declarações – ou seu Deus assim os exige? Ou então, será que os (...) ensinamentos doutrinários destes cristãos os levam a tais pronunciamentos político-religiosos? É objetivo da presente pesquisa propor um caminho para o cristão brasileiro desenvolver sua vida política em harmonia com sua experiência de Deus e em harmonia com a realidade laica do Estado Democrático de Direito. O livro de Ester, presente no cânon católico e protestante, cujo assunto predominante é a relação política entre as personagens da história, nos fornece princípios que nos ajudam neste tipo de relação. Além disto, Joseph Ratzinger nos ajuda a aprofundar a relação entre política e religião e João Calvino colabora para a amplitude do significado da experiência de Deus relatada no livro de Ester. Estes princípios de Ester somados às opiniões dos teólogos com que dialogamos colaboram para que este cristão contemporâneo possa reger sua vida política de forma coerente com sua experiência de Deus e de forma coerente com o ambiente político brasileiro. (shrink)

For forty years, Harvey Mansfield has been worth reading. Whether plumbing the depths of MachiavelliOs Discourses or explaining what was at stake in Bill ClintonOs impeachment, MansfieldOs work in political philosophy and political science has set the standard. In Educating the Prince, twenty-one of his students, themselves distinguished scholars, try to live up to that standard. Their essays offer penetrating analyses of Machiavellianism, liberalism, and America., all of them informed by MansfieldOs own work. The volume also includes a bibliography (...) of MansfieldOs writings. (shrink)

This article gives new information on the so-called Letter-book of John, Viscount Mordaunt beyond that in RHS Camden Series LXIX, identifies the likely scribe, and dates the transcription to late 1660. It shows how the large format book was created to record the heroic role played by Mordaunt and his wife Elizabeth in the achievement of Restoration, and how the unfinished state of the textual project adds to our knowledge of the social and political difficulties experienced by Mordaunt, a client (...) of Clarendon. Beyond its historiographical value for understanding the activities of the plenipotentiary, the book helps to tell the story of Mordaunt’s headlong career from his treason trial in 1658 to his impeachment in 1667, the extraordinary supportive agency of Elizabeth, including managing secret correspondence in 1659, the complexities of the Mordaunts’ friendship with John Evelyn, and their loyalty to their fallen patron Clarendon extending to exile in Montpellier in 1668. (shrink)

The confirmation process and the virtues of duplicity -- How to be aggressive and passive ... and great -- Recusal and the vices of impartiality -- The use and misuse of the politics of personality -- Fortuna : the role of chance in choosing cases -- When and why to avoid a case -- Carpe diem : when to embrace a case -- Tactical tools : using procedure to one's advantage -- Oral arguments : what to say and how -- (...) When to lose a case and win a cause -- In defense of unprincipled decision making -- How to manipulate the rule of law -- When precedents are to be honored (if only formally) -- When to take command and make demands -- The boldest moves : when and how to make them -- On writing : when style should trump substance -- When it is wise to write a separate opinion -- Law clerks : when and how to use them -- How to play to the media -- Cameras in the courtroom : seizing the future -- On television : the medium is not the message -- On publishing books : when and of what kind -- The threat of impeachment and how best to avoid it -- When it is best to retire -- Directing history : a justice's working papers and what to do with them -- How to best secure an enduring legacy. (shrink)

For forty years, Harvey Mansfield has been worth reading. Whether plumbing the depths of MachiavelliOs Discourses or explaining what was at stake in Bill ClintonOs impeachment, MansfieldOs work in political philosophy and political science has set the standard. In Educating the Prince, twenty-one of his students, themselves distinguished scholars, try to live up to that standard. Their essays offer penetrating analyses of Machiavellianism, liberalism, and America., all of them informed by MansfieldOs own work. The volume also includes a bibliography (...) of MansfieldOs writings. (shrink)

I am pleased to offer for your insight the latest issue of Education and Culture. As I write this editor's note, citizens across the United States and many people across the world are coming to understand the motivations of a mob that stormed the Capitol building in an act of insurrection on January 6, 2021, coming to terms with the futility of former President Trump's second impeachment trial, and watching closely as President Biden's administration attempts to restore and renew (...) democracy within our governing bodies. But for the progressively minded among us, there are already signs that Biden will likely not be able to deliver what many deem necessary to right the wrongs of past and present. The moment is defined... (shrink)

Two persons have been proposed as the author of the Summa Lamberti, a thireenth-century treatise on logic. Franco Alessio takes him to be the Auxerre Dominican Lambert of Ligny-le-Châtel, and he basis his claim on Dominican sources from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Recently, Alain de Libera has presented a counter-proposal: the author was Lambert of Lagny, a secular cleric at the time of the composition, who afterwards became a Dominican. This claim is based on the acta of the (...) counts of Champagne and a document of Pope Urban IV. I conclude that, given the present evidence, de Libera’s case rests on more historically sound data, but that to arrive at this conclusion one must impeach the Dominican sources (not done by de Libera) and take into consideration additional data from the research of Michèle Mulchahey on the introduction of logic into the Dominican curriculum. (shrink)

"In May 1621 Francis Bacon's political career came to an abrupt end as a consequence of his being impeached from the office of Lord Chancellor of England. Later in the same year he composed his most imaginative political testament, the History of the Reign of King Henry VII. These two events were by no means coincidental. Of his several vocations, politics was the one that mattered most to Bacon, and he did not go willingly into retirement. The History, like so (...) many of his writings, was intended to persuade James I of his redoubtable abilities as a counselor of kings. [The author] fits the story of that year into the pattern of Bacon's life, beginning with a narrative account of the impeachment, an episode testifying to weaknesses both in Bacon's political position as well as in his personal character. [The author] examines Bacon's political career during the preceding years for what they tell us about Bacon's mind. To understand Bacon in politics, [the author] believes, it must be realized how distinctive habits of intellect and sensibility permeate everything he wrote and that virtually everything he wrote was intended to serve his political ambition. Finally, [the author] analyzes the History to show that it must be read not only as a summary portrait of Bacon's civil career but as a justification of his ideas and himself. Setting the History into Bacon's life makes apparent how much of his achievement sprang from his skills as a rhetorician. Words were his greatest gift and one that he always exploited. [The author]'s study demonstrates the extent to which Bacon was also a prisoner of his talent"--. (shrink)

Mitchell Franklin completed fifty years of scholarship in law and philosophy, having written more than seventy-five major articles since 1932. In spite of his international prominence as a legal scholar, there has not yet been an in-depth study of his work. The difficulty of such an enterprise is due in part to his highly original approach to Roman law, the French Encyclopedist influences on American thought, and Marxist themes in law. In his work on the U.S. Constitution, Franklin has left (...) a corpus of writings dealing with the first, titth, eighth, ninth and fourteenth amendments, the sections of the Constitution dealing with judicial review, impeachment, the guarantee clause, and the historical influences on the framers of the Constitution. (shrink)

Although it is clear that the Chief Executive may be impeached while in office, it is generally thought that a sitting President cannot suffer criminal indictment while in office. There are two general arguments in support of this position. The first argument notes that criminal indictment of the President would so interfere with the duties of the office as to constitute a violation of the Constitution. The second argument simply refers to the express language of the Constitution providing that the (...) remedy for intolerable occupation of the office is impeachment and conviction. While the Constitution does not expressly preclude indictment and prosecution, it is argued that the Constitution only so allows upon impeachment and conviction. This essay aspires to more fully explore the two alleged constitutional prohibitions against the criminal indictment of the occupant of the Office of the President and to argue that each suffers sufficiently to render each doubtful as a ground for guaranteeing Presidential immunity. (shrink)

With the House of Representatives set to decide next week whether to open an impeachment inquiry, President Clinton's fate may ultimately depend on his theories of language. In his grand jury testimony, Mr. Clinton expounded on the semantics of the present tense (''It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is'') and of the words ''alone,'' ''cause'' and, most notoriously, ''sex.''.

This is the second and concluding volume of a biography of Edmund Burke, a key figure in eighteenth-century British and Irish politics and intellectual life. Covering the most interesting years of his life, its leading themes are India and the French Revolution. Burke was largely responsible for the impeachment of Warren Hastings, former Governor-General of Bengal. The lengthy trial of Hastings is recognized as a landmark episode in the history of Britain's relationship with India. Lock provides the first day-by-day (...) account of the entire trial, highlighting some of the many disputes about evidence as well as the great set speeches by Burke and others. In 1790, Burke published Reflections on the Revolution in France, the earliest sustained attack on the principles of the Revolution. Continuously in print ever since, the Reflections remains the most widely read and quoted book about the Revolution. The Reflections was followed by a series of anti-revolutionary writings, as Burke maintained his crusade against the Revolution to the end of his life. In addition to these leading themes, the biography examines many other topics in its coverage of Burke's busy and varied life: his parliamentary career; his family, friendships, and philanthropy; and his often difficult and obsessive personality. There are more than thirty illustrations, including many contemporary caricatures that convey how Burke was perceived by an often hostile and uncomprehending public. Controversial in his time, Burke is now regarded as one of the greatest of orators in the English language, as well as one of the most influential political philosophers in the Western tradition. (shrink)

Skepticism and its Legacy (first 1 1/2 weeks) i) Skepticism about the external world: Skepticism in some form or another is a philosophical perennial, but even so it is not unreasonable to suggest that with Descartes, skepticism of an entirely new form made its first appearance on stage. Descartes deployed a radical doubt about the external world, with methodical ambitions, and in doing so he might be taken to have raised the stakes for epistemology. What if the Cartesian response to (...) Skepticism fails? Is our ordinary knowledge of the world impeached if we cannot refute the hypothesis that we are dreaming, or that we are the playthings of a malign demon? There is also a historical question: is Cartesian skepticism interestingly different from the Pyrrhonian and academic skepticism that was "in play" long before Descartes? (shrink)

To his credit, Chomsky puts them all on his website, whether it’s The New Yorker describing him as “the devil’s accountant†and “one of the greatest minds of the 20th centuryâ€, or The Nation, which lampooned him as “a very familiar kind of academic hack†whose career has been “the product of a combination of self-promotion, abuse of detractors, and the fudging of his findingsâ€. He stands accused of asserting that every US President since Franklin D Roosevelt should have been (...) impeached as war criminals; of supporting the murderous Pol Pot regime in Cambodia; and of comparing Israel to the Third Reich. (shrink)

In argumentation, as elsewhere, speakers strategically engage favourable presumptions by manifestly making themselves accountable for their communicative efforts. Such strategies provide the addressee with reasons to regard the speaker as accountable in specific ways and, via that regard for the speaker, with situation-specific rationales for responding positively to what the speaker says. This paper identifies some resources available to arguers for strengthening, elaborating, and focusing such special presumptions. The paper offers an analysis of Barbara Jordan’s “Statement on the Articles of (...) Impeachment” as illustrative of these resources for strengthening a speaker’s ethos. (shrink)

Like the American system ours is federal: i.e., there are two levels of government, neither of which can change the powers of the other or make laws within certain fields assigned to the other. The British system is 'unitary': the British parliament can make laws on any matter, local government has whatever powers the national government delegates to it. Like the British, ours is a system of responsible government . The Government (the Prime Minister and cabinet) is 'responsible' to parliament. (...) This means that at any time, simply by vote of no confidence, carried on whatever grounds, the parliament can remove the Government from office or force it to call an election. In the American system the head of the executive Government, the President, cannot be removed by the Congress (except by impeachment, which requires a kind of trial). As in the British system, a general election can be called at any time (by the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister). There is a maximum term by which an election must be called, but an election can be held short of term. This makes the parliament responsible to the electorate -- for example, if Government policy that has general community support is blocked by the opposition or minor parties, the Government can appeal to the electorate. In the American system the terms of office of the House of Representatives, Senate, and President are all 'fixed', so that an early election cannot be held. If a President dies or resigns, the Vice President serves out the remaining part of his term. There are no circumstances in which the American President can dissolve Congress and call an early election. The U.S. constitution has separation of powers , i.e., the members of the Executive (in our terms, the Government) do not have seats in Congress or participate in its sessions, and they are not removable by Congress and cannot dissolve Congress. The Judiciary is also separate from both Executive and Congress (though judges are appointed by the Senate on the nomination of the President, and can in exceptional cases be removed).. (shrink)