Hatch: Congress cannot compel Bush to obey the law

[Rose Siding]

US Senator Orrin Hatch, last week at Utah Valley State College, giving a lecture "on how Congress works"-

"It would be unconstitutional for the Congress to say, 'You have to go through the FISA court.' We could pass a law that says, 'We want you to go through the FISA court,' and I think the president would probably try to live with that. The problem is, you cannot do what they've been doing to protect us through the current FISA statute."

Hatch is a member of a group of lawmakers tasked with providing some oversight to the surveillance program now that it's been made public.

[niyad]

1. maybe they cannot compel this jerk, but they COULD get rid of him.

[Erika]

2. Is Hatch declaring W king and dictator?

The Republicans who refuse to reign in W and his unconstitutional activities are going to pay a deep price for it in the elections.

[MikeNY]

47. The worst possible situation I can imagine

If the Republicans don't do anything about the growing list of crimes this administration has commited, and somehow miraculously win another Presidential election then I am really going to start to worry - not for Democrats anymore - but for this entire country. Unchecked executive power will lead the US down a path to destruction

[annabanana]

49. Dear Mike,

"somehow miraculously win"

I would like to direct you to our Election Reform board:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

(no miracle required)

[radfringe]

48. yep

hatch just abdicated all congressional power to bush* and he's now the Featured Dummy in the store window... all dressed up and nothing to do

so why even bother with a congress, are they content to be window dressing?

ARE WE CONTENT to allow window dressing?

currently - the repug "platform" is "we won't impeach" -- just my two cents - I think the Dems should run counter campaign and reframe it as "GOPers won't take responsibility" or "GOPers won't hold President accountable"

[mwb970]

50. Um, it's "rein in".

But I like your spelling better!

[msongs]

3. like the reichstag couldnt "compel" hitler, Mr. hatchet? nt

[The Magistrate]

4. Words Fail Me, Ma'am

The Congress damned well can do so: the executive is not above the laws passed by Congress and ratified by signature. No comment added at signature, by the way, has the slightest legal standing; the Constitution makes no provision whatever for that. The remedy is impeachment of the executive who breaks the law. Everyone knows that.

This is dictatorship; this is Monarchy.

"No King save King Demos!"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Gabi Hayes]

6. are you talking about signing statements?

can you give an explication of those, and how they can possibly be constitutional?

how long have they been happening?

what's the point of passing a bill at all, if he can impose his own conditions upon signaturea?

why no uproar from the spineless ones?

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Yes, there have always been signing statements

The President -- that is, the real ones that we've had in the past -- often gave a short speech in a singing ceremony about how pleased he was to sign the bill into law (even if he opposed it and the political risks of a veto were too great).

Bush's signing statements are somewhat different from those others. Bush is telling the public how he plans to interpret the law through a theory of the Constitution called the unitary executive that is complete horsepucky. Often, he's telling the public that he plans to disregard the law that he is signing.

Unconstitutional? Of course not. He can say whatever he likes or sing "The Lady from Spain" while he signs a piece of legislation.

However, The Magistrate right in saying that there is a Constitutional remedy for a president who persistently breaks the law or abuses his power. It is found in Article 2, Sexton 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

In case there's any question, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment, torture of combat detainees in violation of an international treaty and lying to start an unnecessary war of aggression against sovereign state are all high crimes and misdemeanors.

[The Magistrate]

17. That Was Indeed My Reference, Sir

They are not easy to explain; nonesense never is.

There is absolutely no Constitutional warrant whatever for "signing statements" as legal items.

They seem to be a fruit of this evil tree, "unitary executive", and to sprout from the most foul branch of it, treating the title "Commander in Chief" as granting extraordinary power in time of war. But of course we are not at war; that requires a declaration of a state of war by the Congress, and a mere delegation of authority to the Executive under the War Powers act to decide to commit the armed forces of the nation to combat pending notice to the Congress does not suffice as a substitute for declaration of a state of war.

As near as can be made out, the idea behind all this is that as "Commander in Chief", a President can disregard law he views as interfering with his command of the armed forces, and these "signing statements" serve as notice he intends to do so in a particular instance. Of course, this not only requires assent to the previously referenced fiction we are at war, but also requires assent to the further fiction that every official and employee of the Executive is part of the armed forces of the nation.

The founders of our nation, who wrote the Constitution, certainly envisioned or intended no such thing. Endowing the Presidency with the title of Commander in Chief was meant merely to ensure the armed forces remained unbreakably under the control of the civilian government. It would never have crossed the minds of any of those men met at Philadelphia that they were endowing the Chief Executive with the power claimed today. And let us be quite clear what that proclaimed power is: it is the claim that as chief of the military arm, the Executive has the right to set aside all other branches of the government, or, in other words, it is the claim that the office of Executive contains the power to wield the armed forces of the nation against the Congress and the Judiciary, and also against the governments of the several sovereign States, and set them aside in what can only be phrased with clarity as a military coup.

The words Hatch has uttered here mean, in fact, that he as a Senator has acquiesced to the transformation of the Presidency to a Monarchy, and accepts a future of dictatorship for the United States of America. That is not the act of a patriotic citizen; it is rather the act of a cowardly traitor.

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the Reason? Why, when it prosper, Sir, none dare call it Treason!"

[Rose Siding]

9. I'm not ashamed to say

This one made me cry. Just for a moment. After today.

I want to send Wheaties to the AWOL judiciary dems.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Wheaties?

It would be more to the point to send them Viagra.

[alterfurz]

35. or stem cells...

...so they can grow themselves some spines.

[katinmn]

37. Throw in a few cans of spinach

[hootinholler]

32. I disagree, Sir.

The remedy is incarceration. Impeachment simply removes the executive from office so he may be tried and serve his sentence.

I concur regarding the rest.

-Hoot

[countmyvote4real]

5. It's more like WON'T.

Catch the replay of the Judiciary hearings. The Repugs don't even think * broke the law.

[C_U_L8R]

7. Hatch needs adult diapers

and a bus ticket back home to momma
because he seems incapable of upholding the law.

Get out of the way Hatch... stop blocking justice

[helderheid]

8. Screw Hatch. Donate to his opponent Pete Ashdown

www.peteashdown.org

[steve2470]

10. Either he thinks we're dumb as rocks or....

He's as dumb as rocks. Either way, he should not be a Senator, ya bonehead :/

[jean]

11. Hatch proclaims his dereliction of duty with this statement.

[The Magistrate]

24. That Is It In A Nutshell, Sir

[Synnical]

12. It would be Un Con for Law Makers to say what?

My head is spinning.

[grateful581]

13. Hatch wants a republican dictatorship

He always so shocked that the democrats want to hold the president accountable for his illegal actions. He has done nothing but kiss bushes ass and cash in vitamin supplement checks.

My favorite Hatch quote:
"Nobody denies that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda… Well, I shouldn’t say nobody. Nobody with brains"


Time for Whorrin Hatch to go.

[anitar1]

16. Folks like Hatch need to undergo serious mental testing.

He is a strange guy and needs a bit of observation. Appears to become more irrational each year.

[Cleita]

18. I guess he is a king and above the law according to Hatch.

If Congress can't make him obey the law then who can?

[Roland99]

19. The power of Russ compels you! The power of Russ compels you!

Does this mean Hatch is willing to bring charges?

[The Magistrate]

26. Sen. Feingold, Sir

Is certainly acting in the spirit of the Founders, and the Constitution they wrote. That is the true touchstone of patriotism in our American Republic.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Garbo 2004]

20. Which is why the Constitution gave Congress the power of impeachment. n/t

[Metta]

21. Hatch is an unabashed water carrier and criminal accompliss.

imho.

[BadgerKid]

22. Revisiting Appeasement 1938

The history books I learned from mentioned that appeasing Adolph was detrimental. Look at what I have googled. The similarities are shocking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/britain/cen_munich.shtml

Even the time span is about right: Jan.1933-Sep.1938 vs. Jan.2001 to ???-2006.

[leesa]

23. Well, how bout a few cops with guns? Throw the sorry son-of-a-bitch in

jail. This whole censure thing is nonsense...Bush is a frickin hard case criminal thumbing his nose at us and our law enforcement ain't doing a thing about it.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. Incredible. Hatch needs to be swept out with the rest of the NeoCon trash.

[pdxmom]

27. So is Sen. Hatch going to apologize to Clinton for voting for

his impeachment? The laws against perjury were just a suggestion for the President, based on this quote. They didn't really have a right to make him follow that law.

[Hubert Flottz]

28. No not if congress has no desire to abide by the law either.

Hatch is as criminal as Bush. Anyone who votes for that man hates America.

[longship]

29. Amazing. This is a man who

This is a man who is often mentioned as a great SCOTUS prospect. Yet he clearly does *not* understand the concept of division of power in the Constitution.

[rman]

30. So, another "1933" moment.

We're getting there.

[stepnw1f]

31. Because Hatch and the Rest of the GOP Don't Have Balls

nor any moral obligation to the people of this country. They have been bought and sold, and now have outsourced their commitments to International corporations. They are traitors to our Constitution and the people who have died for it.

[MissWaverly]

33. interesting note regarding Hamdan trial

Timothy Lynch is a legal expert at the CATO Institute in Washington. He has filed a legal brief in the Hamdan case arguing that the Guantanamo detainees should be accorded the due process of law.

Now, even though Mr. Bush is acting in good faith, doing what he thinks is right to protect the country, this idea that the president can assume legislative powers to make rules and that he can assume judicial powers to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of persons on trial, this poses a direct challenge to the separation of powers principle of our Constitution," said Mr. Lynch.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-03-28-voa73.cfm

[kiteinthewind]

34. OMG!! Off with his head!

FBI, NSA, and whoever else may be reading this: Just kidding

:scared: :puke:

[YankeyMCC]

36. NITWIT!

sorry for 'yelling'

[Notoverit]

38. What version Constitution is he reading? Mine sez: check and balances

I seem to remember a story in 2001 about Bushco taking the original Constitution from its display (for "maintenance"). Maybe they got a revision distributed in congress.

[Terre]

39. Oh brother!

We could pass a law that says, 'We want you to go through the FISA court,' and I think the president would probably try to live with that.

Ummmm, hello??? Earth to Hatch, Earth to Hatch. We ALREADY HAVE THAT LAW, you nitwit!! It's called FISA!

Note to Mods: Could you add a 'pulling out hair' smilie in addtion to the :banghead: ? Thanks.

The problem is, you cannot do what they've been doing to protect us through the current FISA statute.

Well freakin' DUH! Not if Bush is gonna do WARRANTLESS wiretaps on citizens without PROBABLE CAUSE and COURT APPROVAL!

WHERE do these people from?!?!?!

[Solly Mack]

40. Then no law can compel anyone and nor should anyone be held

accountable for doing anything illegal

If the highest office holder in the country isn't subject to the law, then no one is

The contract is null and void - and no citizen is obligated to adhere to anything government says

[cascadiance]

41. You cannot question King George!

[Festivito]

42. If Impeachment, incarceration or death penalty do not compel him.

How about trying them? Due process anyone?

Any of them would stop him. He'd no longer have the power to effect the same breaking of law.

Sounds like it would indeed compel him to stop.

Something bad must have fallen into Orrin's hatch.

[pstans]

43. Did he just admit Bu$h is breaking the law?

:shrug:

[EVDebs]

44. Funny, I thought Bush took an oath of office to protect and defend

the Constitution. According to Hatch, the Constitution was written on toilet paper.

[dobegrrrl]

45. I feel like I'm living in an alternate universe ..

truly 1984. The shameless arguments that the wingnuts made in the censure hearing were ridiculous! Impeach Clinton for perjury yet they have no problem lying with impunity to protect idiot the younger. Do you think they really believe this crap they spout? Why do they hate America?
:wtf:

[EVDebs]

53. Yep. Just read Bruce Fein's prepared statement before the cmte.

And you will see that the R's have ALL swallowed the kool-aid.

[Lexingtonian]

46. he's half right

The Supreme Court in fact decides which laws Congress makes actually apply to the President, and the Court's moral authority with The People forces the President to comply. Congress has certain kinds of leverage with which to bargain, true, but it does not- strictly speaking- have authority over individual actions of the executive branch.

As for the FISA stuff, that's bullshit. "Protect"...ha. It's been purely a Chinese fire drill.

[glitch]

51. Compel? No. Impeach? You bet! What an ass. nt

[AndyA]

52. I would thing the Republicans should be concerned about losing support

from their constituents, since there are a great many real conservatives and a lot of moderate Republicans who are very unhappy with the situation America is in. They voted for Bush and have supported him, but the lobbying scandals, not adhering to laws, the arrogance, and the fiscal irresponsibility of this administration has left them with a bad taste in their mouths.

I know quite a few people who fit in this description, and they are very unhappy - to the point of saying they are voting for Democrats. They do not get a consistent message from John McCain, and most of the top tier Republicans are either in trouble or indicted. So where is the future of the Republican party?

I think the Republicans are taking it for granted that their former supporters will still support them, or will come around before November. I just don't see that happening. There is a high level of disgust among the Republican voters right now, and while the core group may still be very supportive and vocal, I see the outer rings slipping away.

It will be difficult for them to recover those people at this point. With the war in Iraq continuing, high gas prices this summer, more bad news for Republicans forthcoming from Abramoff and from Fitzpatrick, a growing protest movement in America as well as overseas, higher interest rates, the housing bubble bursting, and so many other ominous events on the horizon for the Republicans and the Bush Administration to hurtle, I think they're fighting the impossible battle at this point.

They are in control of everything, and they have been for quite some time. Trying to blame this mess on the Democrats has gotten old. No one really believes that any longer, and it just gives people more reason to wonder why they've supported the Republicans for this long.

[July]

54. Hatch admits Bush HAS broken the law?

"you cannot do what they've been doing to protect us through the current FISA statute"

In other words, Bush has not followed the FISA statute.

Hatch tries to save face with "to protect us," but is still saying that Bush has used means other than those established by the FISA statute to wiretap.

Seems pretty clear to me.

And what is this "would probably try to live with that?" Did Hatch have this same low standard, which reduces Congressional legislation to suggestions for the monarch, for Clinton? I do not think so.

[newspeak]

55. gotta understand that this is Hatch from Utah

A man of such great wisdom--I mean all you have to do is look at the Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas Hearing. One wonders what goes on in that small little brain. Then, there was his response to Gropenfuherer's youthful indiscretions. You know, that groping was a long time ago. Now this. From what has come out of his mouth, I wonder if he thinks he's going to make it to sainthood by the Mormon Church. My own evaluation, Orrin Hatch is NO SAINT!!!!!!

[suffragette]

56. Maybe we need a new smiley of a head spinning so furiously that

it flies off the body, rather like an old fashioned top would do.

Because that's what Hatch's statement made my head feel like.

His "oversight" obviously consists of finding a way around the law and the Constitution to get Bush excused from his wrongful actions.