Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Admin Tells Congress (Again)-Won't Abide By Your "Laws": Glenn Greenwald

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:22 PM
Original message
Admin Tells Congress (Again)-Won't Abide By Your "Laws": Glenn Greenwald
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Administration tells Congress (again) - We won't abide by your "laws"

The Republicans and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee submitted detailed questions to the Bush Administration regarding the NSA program, and the DoJ's responses to both the Democrats' questions and its responses to the Republicans' are now available.

There are numerous noteworthy items, but the most significant, by far, is that the DoJ made clear to Congress that even if Congress passes some sort of newly amended FISA of the type which Sen. DeWine introduced, and even if the President "agrees" to it and signs it into law, the President still has the power to violate that law if he wants to. Put another way, the Administration is telling the Congress -- again -- that they can go and pass all the laws they want which purport to liberalize or restrict the President's powers, and it does not matter, because the President has and intends to preserve the power to do whatever he wants regardless of what those laws provide.

Question number (5) from the Committee Republicans asked "whether President Carter's signature on FISA in 1978, together with his signing statement," meant that the Executive had agreed to be bound by the restrictions placed by FISA on the President's powers to eavesdrop on Americans. This is how the DoJ responded, in relevant part:


The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statutes inconsistent with the Constitution must yield. The basic principle of our system of government means that no President, merely by assenting to a piece of legislation, can diminish the scope of the President's constitutional power. . . .

Just as one President may not, through signing legislation, eliminate the Executive Branch's inherent constitutional powers, Congress may not renounce inherent presidential authority. The Constitution grants the President the inherent power to protect the nation from foreign attack, and Congress may not impede the President's ability to perform his constitutional duty.“ (citations omitted).


Can that be any clearer for you - Congressmen, Senators, journalists? The President is bestowed by the Constitution with the unlimited and un-limitable power to do anything that he believes is necessary to "protect the nation." Thus, even if Congress passes laws which seek to limit that power in any way, and even if the President agrees to those restrictions and signs that bill into law, he still retains the power to violate it whenever he wants.

more at:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/administration-tells-congress-again-we.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Look at the signing statement he added to the Patriot Act
He basically says that he has no requirement to be accountable to Congress, whether to
protect the homeland or because such oversight would interfere with his executive privilege.
So let's see Arlen Specter and Pat Roberts digest that little nugget. Oh, by the way,
Pat Roberts resents being called a "lapdog of this admistration" by the bloggers. I
think he's right, his status should be elevated to "Power Poodle."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. I noticed this in the Defense bill Bush signed
the wording went like this:

"in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority" . . .

"the executive branch shall construe" . . .

"The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority"

In the bill:

"The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."

and,

"The executive branch shall construe the provision in a manner consistent with the bicameral passage and presentment requirements of the Constitution for the making of a law."

"The executive branch shall implement these provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority"

The Defense bill 'signing statement' is on their website. That bill contained McCain's compromise torture amendments. Check it out:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060106-12.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. This is emerging as the central issue:
They don't believe they have to obey the law.

nominated
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahatmakanejeeves Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. Here's the link to the signing statement.
Edited on Sat Mar-25-06 01:20 PM by mahatmakanejeeves
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC