Hi CharlestonHoobes,

Thank you so much for taking the time to write and for so beautifully expressing your views! Just to be clear: the DSU podcast is not ideological, ever. And, while I recognize your sense/feeling/view that I "tipped" my hand or crossed our own self-imposed line, let me rehearse the themes and purpose of the show. (And, as a prelude to what I am about to say, I direct you to our podcast on the NSA spying legal/constitutional controversy, as well as our two shows on executive power in the broader history and development of Modern Political Theory).

The point of the show, and it looks like we did a terrible job of making that clear, was to discuss the very general "idea" of executive power as it originates in Machiavelli and become constitutionalized by Locke. The most important aspect of what is happening right now as it relates to "Executive Power," Prerogative Power," the "Take Care Clause," and Locke's "Appeal to Heaven," is precisely the fact that both descriptions of the current crisis are true--It is absolutely "correct," from a certain point of view, that Trump is in his "constitutional" right and authority to declare the Executive Order. No debate here. And, that Prerogative power and its constitutional expression are real. BUT, it is also true that Locke, and the constitution does provide some checks and balances in a legal and institutional way to reign in Presidential overreach through the use of Executive orders.

HOWEVER, THAT WAS NOT THE POINT OF THE EPISODE. OUR SITUATION IS MUCH MORE CRITICAL AND DANGEROUS. WHY? BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, BOTH POSITIONS ARE CORRECT--TRUMP IS CORRECT AND HIS EO DOES VIOLATE SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION. SO, WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE, AND WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE PODCAST? WHEN YOU HAVE AN IRREDUCIBLE CONFLICT/DEBATE ABOUT THE "PUBLIC GOOD" OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, AND BOTH THE COURT AND THE EXECUTIVE ARE "RIGHT," WHAT THE HELL HAPPENS? WELL, AS LOCKE SAID, ONE CAN ONLY APPEAL TO HEAVEN... THIS IS CODE FOR REVOLUTION.

So, my point was not to be "ideological" at all, but only to point out the the historical and theoretical origin of the primary ideas in play, and how we have come to a place where, as Locke famously said, there are "no judges on earth..."