or Constitutional schloar, so I don't know about whether or not a President could strip Congress of pay or benefits through executive order. But it seems obvious even to me that as Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, he could order military medical personnel to provide services to citizens in need.

Is there actually precedent for considering benefits as part of compensation? I mean, I make a salary, and I have benefits, and they're not the same. When my insurance premiums go up, I don't really consider that my salary went down (although maybe I should, I don't know).

Anyway, if all "benefits" fall into the same bucket as compensation, can't one be substituted for another? I mean, say the insurance package was worth $XXX couldn't any equivalent "benefit" be substituted? Say $XXX worth of USPS stamps? Or healthclub memberships for family members? Hell, even US Savings Bonds or something?

Because as you know, the COLA stuff has persisted for a decade after the amendment's passage, and that's because (a) the COLA law was passed prior to the amendment and (b) no one with standing has chosen to sue.

In this case, the parties with standing (i.e, the Republican members of Congress) clearly would sue.

What arguments haven't been refuted?

doesn't suit us!  Is THAT what you consider to be progressive?  I also feel like I've walked through the looking glass.

To paraphrase Sir Thomas More in "A Man For All Seasons," I would give the devil himself the benefit of the law, because once we tear down the law, it won't protect US.

But if you folks want to campaign on the theme that John Edwards will govern as a dictator, ignoring the Constitution and the law to the extent that it's necessary to achieve what he views as justice, by all means, as many of you seem to be suggesting he would or at least should, be my guest.  

What troubles me is when anyone seeks to ignore the Constitution, for any reason.  It amazes me that people who claim to be progressives would seem to favor an absolute dictatorship....

Well the discussion we're having is theoretical, but so is your analysis of constitutionalism in our political life.

It's a document whose spirit and letter has been continually ignored in one way or another for its entire existence, usually for the benefit of the wealthy, powerful and privileged.  You are clearly intelligent enough to understand this.  

How long did it take for the curse of slavery to be eradicated from our republic??  How long did it take for Japanese-Americans to be compensated for their illegal imprisonment during WWII?  How long did it take for women to get the vote?

And does it really tear your heart out that Abraham Lincoln exceeded his constitutional authority in waging the Civil War and abolishing slavery?

Finally, what kind of progressivism DO you envision?  The kind that politely follows every petty rule and regulation designed to keep poor and powerless people poor and powerless?  Or the kind that may offend constitutional scholars, but clearly works on behalf of social justice?

I've said several times in this thread that I'm thankful that there's nothing in John Edwards' history to suggest that he has the appetite for rule by decree that some of his supporters seem to.  But it was an Edwards supporter who said he'd do it by executive order, regardless of the law and the Constitution.  THAT'S what I was objecting to.

I've got no problem whatsoever with proposing legislation and using the "bully pulpit."

That a President Edwards would order the Executive Branch to ignore the laws and the Constitution, and to obey his clearly unconstitutional orders even if a court orders them to do otherwise?

I'm frankly astounded that so many Edwards supporters in this community seem to want to elect John Edwards as Dictator, rather than President.  And I suspect that John Edwards would be equally astounded by the attitude of many of his supporters here.