Peter Irons

Peter Irons' article (Editorial Pages, Feb. 10), "The Impeachment Question Is Back," is a diatribe that cannot go unanswered. Isn't Irons aware that Richard Nixon was never tried and that his "removal from office" was therefore not "inevitable"? The Constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence until proven guilt. Why isn't that part of Irons' idea of the law? Nixon wasn't "forced to resign," he resigned to save the country months, perhaps years, of devastating political disruption brought on largely by Nixon-haters.

CONSERVATIVE judicial scholars love the Founding Fathers, and they have created a legal theory called "originalism" in which the Founders' words essentially are carved in stone. If you're stuck with a complicated legal question, just think about what James Madison would do.

Like a lot of lawyers, Peter Irons dreams of someday arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. He concedes, though, that this might not be the best time. "I'm not sure it would be in the best interests of my clients," he said. The reason is simple as a poke in the eye. The Supreme Court is extremely vexed at the 53-year-old professor of political science at UC San Diego.

CONSERVATIVE judicial scholars love the Founding Fathers, and they have created a legal theory called "originalism" in which the Founders' words essentially are carved in stone. If you're stuck with a complicated legal question, just think about what James Madison would do.

Acting Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal, in an extraordinary admission of misconduct, took to task one of his predecessors for hiding evidence and deceiving the Supreme Court in two of the major cases in its history: the World War II rulings that upheld the detention of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans. Katyal said Tuesday that Charles Fahy, an appointee of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, deliberately hid from the court a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence that concluded the Japanese Americans on the West Coast did not pose a military threat.

What's wrong with giving the public the chance to hear--literally to hear, and not just to read about--some of the arguments made before the U.S. Supreme Court in major cases? Clearly the answer is that there's nothing wrong with the idea at all, but it has taken the high court until now to come around to agreeing that the public has the right to such access. Credit a UC San Diego political science professor, Peter Irons, with forcing that decision.

IN his review of my book, "War Powers: How the Imperial Presidency Hijacked the Constitution" [Book Review, Aug. 14], Nicholas Thompson found some positive things to say about it, for which I'm grateful. Speaking of the "war declaring" power the Constitution gives solely to Congress, he wrote that "Irons does a good job of walking readers through the gradual usurpation of this power by various presidents." That's what the book is about, and I'm glad Thompson feels that I accomplished that goal.

THE EDGE by Dick Francis (Fawcett Crest: $5.95). Thoroughbred mystery takes place aboard the Great Transcontinental Mystery train ride--and it's a horse race at the finish. PANTHER IN THE SKY by James Alexander Thom (Ballentine: $5.95). Panoramic saga based on the life of Tecumseh, a Shawnee Indian who chooses diplomatic means to fight the colonial settlers. WHEN ANGELS FALL by Meagan McKinney (Dell: $3.95).

Like a lot of lawyers, Peter Irons dreams of someday arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. He concedes, though, that this might not be the best time. "I'm not sure it would be in the best interests of my clients," he said. The reason is simple as a poke in the eye. The Supreme Court is extremely vexed at the 53-year-old professor of political science at UC San Diego.

Peter Irons' article (Editorial Pages, Feb. 10), "The Impeachment Question Is Back," is a diatribe that cannot go unanswered. Isn't Irons aware that Richard Nixon was never tried and that his "removal from office" was therefore not "inevitable"? The Constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence until proven guilt. Why isn't that part of Irons' idea of the law? Nixon wasn't "forced to resign," he resigned to save the country months, perhaps years, of devastating political disruption brought on largely by Nixon-haters.

The Courage of Their Convictions: Sixteen Americans Who Fought Their Way to the Supreme Court by Peter Irons (Free Press/Macmillan: $22.95, 420 pages) Shortly after starting law school, I was delighted to discover that the case law of the American judicial system amounts to a mammoth library of dramatic narrative.