Fred Fielding's letter tells me a lot.

[Hailtothechimp]

The first thing I should do is establish my credentials. I work in the editorial department of a publishing house. I make my living by knowing the English language. I sometimes introduce myself as a professional nitpicker, but I take what I do very seriously.

In reading the actual letter that Fred Fielding sent out to the various members of Congress today, two things jumped off the page at me. Here's a link, if you want to see for yourself: http://rawstory.com//other/letterfielding.pdf

The first thing is Fielding's use of the word "president." According to the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition, the word "president" is appropriately capitalized when it is used in conjunction with a person who holds that office (President Andrew Jackson). Otherwise, when used in the abstract, the word should not be capitalized (the presidency, for example). Fielding's letter uses "President" and "Presidency" a number of times, always capitalizing the word when it has no reason for being so. There is no direct reference to "President Bush," and as such Fielding's usage goes against the CMS. See point 8.25 on page 318 for examples.

The second thing is Fielding's use of "constitutional." In this context, Fielding is referencing the specific document which was adopted in 1789, and which George Bush took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend." As such, this requires capitalization (a Constitutional issue) to identify the U.S. Constitution, and not the constitution of Denmark. However, Fielding uses this term several times, without capitalizing it once. In my mind, this is a deliberate misusage by Fielding and those who employ him. See point 8.86 on page 343 of CMS, 15th Edition for further examples.

When the "Presidency" is (wrongly) capitalized, while "constitution" (again, wrongly) is not, we can see what Bush and his crowd are doing. The document that created the office has now become subservient to it, in their view. This is the "unitary executive" concept taken to its absurd end.

I grant you that this isn't the same as lying us into a war, or ignoring the FISA court, or any of the other heinous things they've done over the years. On the other hand, it is an unmistakable sign that the office matters greatly to this crowd, while the charter that created it does not.

[spindrifter]

1. An excellent observation.

[MadMaddie]

2. Very nice catch...

What it means is they are so hungry for a facist country that they are willing to be subtle about it.

I wonder at what point will Americans who honor and believe the Constitution should be protected will consider these acts Treason? Just askin.....

[onenote]

3. I think you are over analyzing this big time

The Chicago Manual of Style may say that the word "president" shouldn't be capitalized when its used in the abstract. But that's not the style employed by the executive branch or even the judicial branch.
For example, take a look at this memo from Janet Reno to Bill Clinton. Every reference to the president or the presidency is capitalized. http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/drugs.pot.htm

Or read the SCOTUS opinion in US v Nixon -- again, references to "a President" -- capitalized.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/72.htm


While you are absolutely correct that this administration has an overly broad view of executive power, the use of capitalization isn't proof of that.

[blitzen]

4. As a professional literary critic, I commend your interpretation...

nice

[niyad]

5. very good observation--it may be subconscious, but they are telling us what they think.

[robinlynne]

6. Thank-you. that might have slipped right by the rest of us!

[Cogito ergo doleo]

7. In keeping with "unitary executive concept taken to the absurd,"

today * said, Gonzales serves at "Our pleasure." (Sovereign usage?)

[hvn_nbr_2]

8. I think you read too much into their ignorance of English usage.

For example, they also incorrectly create the possessive form of the singular noun Congressman Conyers by adding only an apostrophe and not apostrophe-s. As the very first rule of usage on page 1 of Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" says, "Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write Charles's friend, Burns's poems..." You can form the possessive only of plural nouns by adding only the apostrophe.

Hardly anybody knows when and how to capitalize president or constitution.

I think the probability that Fred Fielding knows what's inside the Chicago Manual of Style is about the same as that he knows what's inside "The Elements of Style," and that's about the same as the probability that he walked on the moon last week. He probably never even saw the inside of either manual.

[EVDebs]

9. Start a RICO action on Bush as 'Godfather' in the GOP conspiracy to create a fascist state

out of the USA

[pacalo]

10. Using your logic, why would he capitalize "Members" (of Congress) & "Committees"?

I trust anyone affiliated with this regime no more than I could stand to think of them as being legitimately in charge, but I think the man simply might have missed a lesson or two in grammar, nothing more.

[MLFerrell]

11. That's a very prescient observation.

And now that you've made me aware of this subversion of language, I'm going to pointedly and strenuously refute it whenever encountered.

I'm working on a Ph.D. in history. Not quite as wrapped up by pure language as your profession, but it's still my stock in trade. :)