Specter on censure: WTF?

[magellan]

If there were earlier explanations of this then I apologize. I looked and couldn't find any.

Can someone please point out the part in Article II of the Constitution that Specter kept referring to which allegedly gives a President absolute omnipotence over any law subordinate to the Constitution? I've skimmed through the text and can't find it. All I can figure is this is such a subtle read on what it says that only a Republican can see it.

Also, was it just me, or did Specter cite a couple of SCOTUS cases that appeared to SUPPORT Feingold's call for censure??

Specter is strictly loony tunes.

[Mythsaje]

1. Specter is an old, dried up, vile, drugwar cowboy...

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Commander in Chief Carte Blanche to ignore the Constitution in the way he suggests.

[LouisianaLiberal]

3. That's another thing.

According to the Constitution, he is the commander in chief of the armed forces, NOT the people. Article II, Section 2.1

[magellan]

4. Who can't read, lol

And from the cases he cited, the SCOTUS has said as much a couple of times as well.

[LouisianaLiberal]

2. Thank you for bringing this up.

There is NOTHING in article II about this except the opening sentence of section 1.1 - "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America".

Their reasoning that somehow this supports their argument is in direct CONTRADICTION of the 4th, 9th and 10th amendments. Or so it seems to me.

I am not an attorney, but can anyone here please explain their reasoning? It appears that they have constructed this completely inadequate defense of their actions simply because it is all that they have come up with.

Why is no one pointing this out? Its as if someone told I joke in which I don't get the punchline, and everyone laughs because they don't want to admit that they don't get it either.

[magellan]

5. It's been bugging me all afternoon

But I didn't have a chance to get on here and ask till now. It struck me as false on its face; the founders would NEVER have granted the president unlimited powers. But I checked just to make sure, and was astonished to find nothing that could be construed in that manner even by a Repug with a penchant for convenient semantics.

I'm gobsmacked by Specter citing Article II so falsely. And he's on the Judiciary Committee!! Says a lot.

Did you also catch it when he praised DeWine for wanting to change FISA legislation from 15 days to 45 days? My immediate reaction was: Okay, WHY do you want to bother changing the statute when you just said the President has unlimited power to override any statute subordinate to the Constitution??

I honestly sat there unable to believe my ears at the man's naked ignorance and audacity.

[LouisianaLiberal]

6. You're right.

If the power to wiretap (in effect, the "search" of the fourth amendment) is inherent in the president's position as commander in chief (again, not of the people, but of the army and navy), then WHY is another law necessary?

They are apparently making the argument that it should be clear that the constitution allows him to do this. If it is so clear, why another clarification? And of course if they are successful in altering the law, then the Bush gang can't be prosecuted for past subversion of the law.

But - even if they attempt to make it "officially" legal, wouldn't they have to amend the constitution by eliminating part of the fourth amendment?

It seems that there is no way to logically present their argument. Of course, logic does not seem to be one of their strengths.

[magellan]

7. Do you ever wonder

...how they're able to find anyone willing to present their arguments? Like, how much would someone have to pay you to stand in the Senate and make a fool of yourself by knowingly misrepresenting an article of the Constitution?

Wow, it just occurred to me -- these asshats treat the Constitution the same way they treat the Bible!!