8828. Michael Doyle, Preface and International Law and Current Standards, e-text, p25, Russ Castronovo and Susan Gillman, “The Study of the American Problems” (Toronto: CSPI, 2011) p22
8829. John Brenkman, “Introduction” and “The Imagination of Power”, p3. Also p5, in text quote by Kagan.
8830. Ibid, p11
8831. Weinert, p112
85
hypocrisy, that instance when the liberalist trajectory towards global acceptance becomes illiberal by coercing the actualization of its liberal agenda – from the larger structure compelling compliance with its idealized pluralism or annihilation in opposition to coercion.
VVMinority Report acts as a contemporary interpretive guide by posing an alternative future to anticipatory preemption/prevention where the institutional punishment for one fatal crime becomes another, thus confusing sovereign right with the unjust enemy.28 The alternative suggested in Minority Report further contests Brenkman’s assertion of power-beyond-responsibility contained within the person of the President of the US, not that it is, but that it never was.29 The insistence that errors and deceptions did not ultimately matter, since the result was good, further undermines the very principle of accountability, with whispers of Weber’s sovereign/intervention binary collapsing into one spacio-temporal coordinate - the domestic.30 Aligning the failure of international systems of organization to protect US citizens, at home and abroad allowed the Bush administration to seize that moment to re-install a ‘state of exception’ to relieve its Benjaminian sense of guilt.
VVSovereignty, Weinert suggests, is but a re-interpretation of private property, re-formatted from the ‘final and absolute in political community’ to the’ final and absolute of political community’, removing individual rights and liberties from the yoke of majority rule. As such he opposes Weber, who equates sovereignty with an ontological status – a state of being- though being and doing is the end ontology which sees sovereignty as an ongoing process of regulation and the expansion and contraction of scope of functional responsibility.”31 Non-sovereign entities such as disease, climate change and terrorism erode the insulation of the internal supremacy on constitutional structures with external responses.[2] The Warsaw Declaration of 2000 included a series of core democratic principles and practices as one would envision Habermas’ Cosmopolitan Law – authorized and legitimized by a ‘Community of Democracies’, yet this continues to invisibilize internal opposition through the simulation of democratic international sovereignty. Here Schmitt advances to the fore if transgression occurs; what processes would be invoked to compel, or result, in a reversion to the norm?[3]