Letters to the Editor
jdmf
Published Letters: 99 Editor's Choice: 11
-
This is premature
[Read the article: Imperial presidency declared null and void]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wish I could take comfort from this piece. I wish that Mr. Blumenthal were right and that the legal edifice (to quote Sascha Baron Cohen) of Bush's "War of Terror" is crumbling. But it is too soon to say.
Al-Marri was decided by the Fourth Circuit, true. But it was decided by the two liberals on the Court, Judge Gregory (whom Clinton appointed to a recess appointment) and Diana G. Motz. Whether their ringing defense of our Constitution will stand or be overturned by the conservative members of the Court sitting en banc is not yet clear.
And the decision by military judges that the military tribunals cannot exercise jurisdiction over certain cases under the infamous Military Commissions Act is weaker than Blumenthal seems to believe (though I applaud the result). It was improper for the military court to have decided sua sponte, without briefing or argument, that it lacks jurisdiction. And substantively it is weak in its interpretation of the MCA. It is too early to say whether the decision's procedural and substantive shortcomings will cause it to be reversed.
On the other hand, the D.C. Circuit -- the Court with effective control over the vast majority of detainee cases has refused to follow the Supreme Court's rulings reaffirming that alien detainees have rights, and that our government must act in accordance with the Constitution. The recent shameful decision by the D.C. Circuit in the case of Boumediene was denied review by the Supreme Court -- which since the appointment of Roberts and Alito has, effectively, ceased to stand up for the Constitution.
Our Constitution and our country remain in grave danger from the President and his hand-picked minions. I wish Blumenthal were right, but it is too soon to say.
-
Hear, Hear
[Read the article: Maureen Dowd slurs the Clintons and the Obamas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan, you are right on the money. I have been following Dowd's vicious and vacuous attacks on the Clintons and Obama with a great deal of interest -- not for what they reveal about the candidates, but for what they reveal about the hollow and barren inner life of Ms. Dowd.
It's only a shame that the NYT gives her an op-ed column to work out her psychodramas.
-
No.
[Read the article: Money, meet mouth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They won't seize this chance.
-
Talking 'bout our Constitution
[Read the article: Money, meet mouth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No. This is wrong. Dherd, your understanding of our constitution is fatally defective.
You wrote:
Democrates are not the problem.
The fact is that very little can be done to reduce the troops by cutting off funding without endangering the well being of the troops and having a huge political minus attached to this action. The President is the commander-in-chief. Its all up to him.
Let's review our constitutional system, shall we.
The Constitution contemplates a system in which sovereignty (and ultimately all power) rests with the People. In the federal government, the Congress is most important branch. How do we know that? It has most of the power of the federal government, and it is the subject of Article I (the very first part of the Constitution). Congress has the sole power to make laws (and may override a presidential veto to do so), to agree to the placement of federal officers in their positions (or not), and to remove any officer by impeachent and conviction. In truth, all federal officers serve (not at the pleasure of the President, but) at the pleasure of the Congress. Congress also has the sole power raise money and determine how the money will be spent.
The powers of the president are much more limited. They are set out in Article II (see -- that's below Congress), and essentially they are "executive." That is, the President is charged with "faithfully" executing the laws passed by Congress. "Executive" doesn't mean much more than that. And once you see that, almost all of the President's other powers make sense. They are just the practical things that are needed help her or him carry out the will of Congress. And every single damned one of them, with maybe the exception of the pardon power, is shared with Congress or limited by Congress' powers:
The President can appoint cabinet members to help her or him "execute" the will of Congress -- so long as the Senate advises and consents and the House votes the funding. And the Commander-in-chief power is the power to carry out the will of Congress when Congress declares war and funds an army. Period. That's it. Commander in Chief power does not extend to defying the will of Congress in any manner whatsoever.
Once you see this, it becomes perfectly clear that almost nothing is "up to" the President -- certainly not in the sense claimed by Bush and his cronies.
And once a President strays from the path of "faithfully" executing the laws, it seems obvious that the Congress has lots of options, including removing him or her from office.
Now, as a practical matter, can Congress muster the will to stop this criminal administration in its tracks? That's a different question. But there is no doubt that our Constitution gives Congress that ability if it choses to exercise it.
-
Not "obsolete"...
[Read the article: In defending Gonzales, Justice officials look to the dictionary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"quaint" -- just like the Geneva Conventions.
-
What is an executive interest?
[Read the article: RNC has already handed over some documents, may withhold others]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A subpoena is a demand for documents, testimony, or information that has the force of law. One basis for resisting a subpoena is that the information it seeks is "privileged," that is, exempt from disclosure under most circumstances. Usually to be privileged information cannot have been disclosed to persons outside the sphere of the privilege.
There is some argument, albeit an exceedingly weak one, that having lodged documents with the RNC has not waived any claim of executive privilege the President may have in the materials.
But "executive interest" as a basis for withholding the information is nonsense. The mere fact that someone, other than the person under subpoena, has an "interest" in the documents is simply not a valid legal ground for failing to comply.
The RNC's lawyers are simply making this up out of thin air...