"PRESIDENTIAL NON-ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONALLY OBJECTIONABLE STATUTES"

Though a close question, the best course here seems the one chosen by President Clinton, with the caveat that, had the repeal effort failed and litigation ensued, a strong argument could have been made against affording Congress the extreme degree of judicial deference that usually accompanies rational basis review. That argument would proceed as follows. When the President takes the extraordinary step of offering a court his considered judgment that a statutory provision is unconstitutional, and he possesses relevant interpretive expertise, judicial review should be more searching and assess the constitutional views presented by both the President and Congress, in light of their relative interpretive expertise. The reviewing court also should consider the extent to which Congress actually considered the constitutional issue in enacting the provision, rather than apply the usual rule under rational basis review that finds "entirely irrelevant for constitutional purposes whether the conceived reason for the challenged distinction actually motivated the legislature."200 The difficulties inherent in the courts playing an enhanced role of this kind in scrutinizing acts of Congress are justified in these limited circumstances, and a more searching judicial review would be more respectful of Congress's lawmaking function than would an expansion of presidential non-enforcement of constitutionally objectionable statutes.

Here's Clinton's signing statement:

the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have advised me that the arbitrary discharge of these men and women would be both unwarranted and unwise; that such discharge is unnecessary as a matter of sound military policy; and that discharging service members deemed fit for duty would waste the [g]overnment's investment in the training of these people and would be disruptive to [*pg 57] the military programs in which they play an integral role.191

Thanks for that link.

messed up your tag...sorry. ;-)

until Executive Order 13233 is rescinded, to remove impediments to access to historical presidential records. See: Transparency Groups Push Obama on Agenda, November 12, 2008

http://www.propublica.org/article/transparency-groups-push-obama-on-agenda-1112

Executive Order 13233 - Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act, November 1, 2001.

http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/appendix/13233.html

This order allows a former president's private papers to be released only with the approval of both that former president (or his heirs) and the current one.

Enacting Executive Order 13233 was not the first time Bush and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales had resisted clear law about Freedom of Information in Government. It had also occurred as then-Governor Bush was leaving office in Texas, when 1,800 boxes of papers became “the center of a tug of war between Mr. Bush and the director of the Texas state archives.” The Governor kept these papers out of reach by placing them in his father’s Presidential Library. [See: “Battling Over Records of Bush's Governorship” NYT, 2/11/2002] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E7D8103CF932A25751C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

The Bush Administration had to get Executive Order 13233 written and signed quickly because President Reagan’s papers were about to be released because of the PRA [his were the first, since the law was enacted in 1981] Cheney, Rumsfeld and GHW Bush had all been in that [Iran-Contra] Administration. Bush and the Cheney-gang made three attempts to withhold those records before they “decided” to take the “executive privilege” tack. See: “Bush keeps a grip on Presidential Papers” NYT:] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E0D71130F931A35752C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&page

A Controversial Choice for the Position of Archivist of the United States: Part of the Bush Administration's Secrecy Strategy?, by John W. Dean, 4/23/04 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040423.html

Unfortunately, while George Bush understands tough talk, it seems the Democrats don't. Thus, Bush and Cheney will no doubt get away with robbing history of the truth of their presidency, just as they have robbed the public of that truth while in office.

Does anyone have a link to the March 10, 2005 Executive Summary of the DoD Church Report [the Pentagon investigation into detainee abuse]?

The one at defenselink doesn't work for me.

http://www.defenselink.mil/advisories/advisory.aspx?advisoryid=144

Thank you...but I'm getting the same "link has been damaged" message...maybe there's something wrong with my computer? Do the links work for anyone else?

Thanks for letting me know. I guess that's the one I'll use, then.

And Thanks, again, to Jim White for the link.

I wonder if it would be OK with Jebbie for you to send it to the e-mail on his blog? For me, that would be better, I think. I'll wait to see if Jebbie sees this. I really appreciate your help. :-)

I really only needed the functional link, and if you say that one is functional, then that's good enough for me. I'd like to read the report, but am afraid it might be too much for my system [in more ways than one]...I really don't know why it didn't work in the first place. I don't understand computers too well. I'll leave it as it is for now. :-)

Thanks for all the help with links:

Jim White**bystander**muntaba and ondalette

Thanks for help with blockquotes:

Kitt**Arne** and [OY!] Frankly, my dear…

And ondalette,

I got the info about Bolton…nice guy, right? Happiest day of his life? Yikes!

And Jebbie, if you’re around, you may not be able to read small print any more, but you are still really fast!!! It’s appreciated. :-)

Try this one:

http://cryptome.org/church-report.htm

or this one:

http://www.aclu.org/images/torture/asset_upload_file625_26068.pdf

...they were said to be "embedded" with the military. It always sounded a bit like "in bed with" to me.

you all slowing down so I could catch up...I finally got here...but where are we?

World's worst navigator, here...it's a family joke, when they're not busy mumbling curses at me. :-)