Letters to the Editor
-
The sad thing. . .
The sad thing for me is that when I heard that Bush had authorized illegal wiretaps, the first thing that came to mind was "of course he did."
I mean, this is just what we have come to expect from this administration. I struggle against cynicism, but again, and again, and again, this administration never fails to confirm our worst expectations. War based on false information? No occupation plan? Torture? Secret prisons? Massive deficits? Cutting social programs in order to fund tax cuts for the rich? The list is so long that it is difficult to enumerate.
This is simply how these people operate, and nothing surprises me about them any more.
-
Reading list for Yoo's "Foreign Relations Law" class
Since I can't post a link, search for "john yoo youngstown", top link. I'll have to take the BART over to Cal just to watch him dance next time he discusses that case in week 1 of his class...
-
Time to Mention The "I" Word?
"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."
I would be very interested to hear from legal and poltical experts if the recent revelations about President Bush's actitvies fall into the last of the three categories established by our Founding Fathers. Lying to the American people about evidence for going to war, grabbing citizens off the street and locking them up for years without trial (Edgar Padilla), and endorsing torture as standard military practice (Abu Gharib et. al.) have not seemed to light a fire of anger comparable to having sex with an intern, but this latest discovery is beyond the pale.
Do we live in a democracy or a plutocracy? Is the war on terror worth scrapping the Constitution? How many more of these stories are going to come out before someone in Washington decides to do something about it?
-
the NYT connection
It would seem on the surface that Bush's latest escapade is an impeachable offense since he certainly avoided/broke the law. However,there are two major walls that must be hurdled before justice can prevail. The republican zealots in congress and their minions in the mainstream media such as those at the New York Times who withheld the story until now. The big question is why would the NYT have done this?
-
Who did they surveil?
That the Bush Whitehouse engaged in domestic surveilance comes as no surprise since the administration's mission has been to restore and expand the powers of the President lost after Watergate.
The thing that needs to be investigated is not the fact that they engaged in potentially illegal acts of wiretapping, but who they surveilled. If any of the targets were selected by Cheney, Rove, et al. you've got a Watergate
size scandal!
-
"Youngstown" has a lot to say here
Reading Justice Jackson's opinion further provides more lessons about such misuses of the Executive as we're seeing today. Quote:
"The appeal, however, that we declare the existence of inherent powers ex necessitate to meet an emergency asks us to do what many think would be wise, although [343 U.S. 579, 650] it is something the forefathers omitted. They knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation. We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies...
"...emergency powers are consistent with free government only when their control is lodged elsewhere than in the Executive who exercises them. That is the safeguard that would be nullified by our adoption of the 'inherent powers' formula. Nothing in my experience convinces me that such risks are warranted by any real necessity, although such powers would, of course, be an executive convenience."
Yes, the forefathers knew what emergencies were. I think we should recognize that we are now facing one as well.
-
Constitutional limits on the president's authority over the military
The National Security Authority wiretaps of course have nothing to do with the President's authority as commander in chief. The Constitution says that the President is "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy," and the NSA is not part of the army or navy.
More importantly, the president's authority as commander in chief does not allow him to do whatever he wants with the military. Overlooked, including in Professor Cole's article, is the tremendous authority that the Constitution gives Congress. Congress has more power than just declaring war (Art I, ยง8, cl. 11), raising and supporting armies (cl. 12) and providing for and maintaining a navy (cl. 13).
Congress also has the right "to define and punish . . . offenses against the Laws of Nations (cl. 9), a power that the Supreme Court has held (albeit in the much-maligned Quirin case) allows Congress to determine the laws of war and the treatment of prisoners of war. Congress can "make rules concerning captures on land and water" (cl. 10). To wrap it up, Congress, not the President has the authority to govern and make rules regulating the army and navy. So the Constitution is clear: the President commands the military, but only within the bounds set by Congress.
-
Bush's Illegal Spying
Latest soundbite -- W justifying saying his actions were "above the law" -- which wasn't what he meant to say but is a confession insofar as he considers himself above the law ... and subject to no one's accounting
-
Constitutional limits, continued
The specific Constitutional provision empowering Congress to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" is Article I, section 8, clause 14.
-
Don't Confuse Congressional Leaders with the People
CE makes a good point about impeachment. The issue, however, is NOT that the people were more angry about sex in the White House than illegal wire tapping. I seem to recall Congress on the opposite side the people on these issues.
We will NEVER get impeachment as long as the Congress is controlled by Republicans. Remember, Watergate didn't make people mad until AFTER the Congressional hearings. I also don't recall one person, in 1998, say "Boy, I am so glad they are impeaching the president for having sex with an intern." In that case, the more they investigated, the more people wanted them to knock it off.
Maybe this will light a fire under people's behinds, and elect a Democratic Congress. If that doesn't happen, I am not hopeful that any of these criminals will be brought to justice.