A king is crowned? Bush says he does not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act's powers being used

[Steeplerot]

When President Bush renewed the revised USA Patriot Act on March 9, Congress added oversight measures intended to keep the federal government from abusing the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize documents.

The additional provisions require law enforcement officials to safeguard all Americans' civil liberties and mandate that the Justice Department keep closer track of how often and in what situations the FBI could use the new powers, and that the administration regularly provide the information to Congress.

However, it was not known at the time that the White House added an addendum stating that the president didn't need to adhere to requirements that he inform members of Congress about how the FBI was using the Patriot Act's expanded police powers.

After the bill-signing ceremony, the White House discreetly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law. In the statement, Bush said he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act's powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

link

How is it constitutional to bypass congress?

Is the congress that marginalized now he can get away with this "quietly"? All I have to say is wow, They just handed him the keys to doing anything he wants pretty much.

 

[Kadarin]

At this rate, why even bother to have a Constitution?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The cowardly bastards in Congress renewed the Act. Shame on them all. If you give Bush an inch, he takes your rights.

 

[Jhhnn]

Somehow, the Whitehouse seems to think that they can alter a bill signed into law with a disclaimer... Just more of their "In Your Face!" attitude, you congressional biatches...

It's as if the Bushistas are daring the electorate to install a Democratic congress to impeach them out of office... and it just might work...

 

[Steeplerot]

In theory if he wanted he could scoop up the whole lot of anyone from congress and send them to gitmo, this is a pretty awfully strong thing to give a president, this goes for future presidents also, he has no accountability now for what he does with the FBI and DoHS to anyone, he doesent even have to give an excuse to see as he does fit, I hate to sound like some doomsayer but this is pretty bad. I am sure no republican would want a democrat president to have this power either and as far as I see this does carry over to future presidents.

(If I am wrong please correct me)

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I am sure no republican would want a democrat president to have this power either and as far as I see this does carry over to future presidents.

Unless of course under the "Terrorist Prevention Act" (or whatever cute name they use to sell it to the sheep) they abolish the 22nd ammendment altogether, rendering it a non issue.

 

[K1052]

Congress has many ways (once a course of action is decided) to bend the Executive branch to it's will. If Congress really wants all the oversight they can certainly obtain it.

As far as the "coop up the whole lot of anyone from congress and send them to gitmo" statement, please put down the bong Steep.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: K1052
Congress has many ways (once a course of action is decided) to bend the Executive branch to it's will. If Congress really wants all the oversight they can certainly obtain it.

But how? This is in effect saying there is nothing congress can do.

Originally posted by: K1052
As far as the "coop up the whole lot of anyone from congress and send them to gitmo" statement, please put down the bong Steep.

That is a strong statement but he wouldnt even have to say he was doing it for national security, he wouldn't need a explaination except for (maybe) PR. here, lets not say "bush" ok, a (future) president could.
Please explain how this is not handing the keys over in a sense.

Let's assume here that bush is 100% doing this for the war on terror, but what if a few presidents down the line someone doesent have such good intentions?
It is opening a door to unlimited executive power imo.
The reality is democratic governments fall prey to dictators often, look at the past 10 or so years of how many former democratic governments get eaten up by some warlord/dictator type.
I welcome a explaination how it is not a very dangerous bypassing of our constitution checks and balances to keep us from ever having a tyrant take over, there is no excuse for this war or not.

 

[techs]

This is part of the Roberts/Scalia interpretation of the Constitution that says the President has the power to determine what laws actually mean.
And you thought that the big push to get anti-abortion Supreme Court judges was the REAL reason?
It was to get the President unlimited power.

 

[senseamp]

Well, if Congress is just a lapdog of the executive branch, as it has become under GOP control, what else do you expect. It is essential that the Democrats retake the House for checks and balances to be restored. We are talking about a president who doesn't even know, much less respect the Constitution, and a a party in control of Congress who thinks that preserving its power is more important than preserving its principles or the Constitution of the United States.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052
Congress has many ways (once a course of action is decided) to bend the Executive branch to it's will. If Congress really wants all the oversight they can certainly obtain it.

But how? This is in effect saying there is nothing congress can do.

Originally posted by: K1052
As far as the "coop up the whole lot of anyone from congress and send them to gitmo" statement, please put down the bong Steep.

That is a strong statement but he wouldnt even have to say he was doing it for national security, he wouldn't need a explaination except for (maybe) PR. here, lets not say "bush" ok, a (future) president could.
Please explain how this is not handing the keys over in a sense.

Congress still holds the purse strings of the government and has many other tools to make the President's job impossible. Impeachment and removal is also an option if all else fails.

A President arresting a good portion of Congress for unspecified crimes would quickly precipitate the fall of the Federal government as the states most likely would not play along and large portions of the active military would not support such action.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052
Congress has many ways (once a course of action is decided) to bend the Executive branch to it's will. If Congress really wants all the oversight they can certainly obtain it.

But how? This is in effect saying there is nothing congress can do.

Originally posted by: K1052
As far as the "coop up the whole lot of anyone from congress and send them to gitmo" statement, please put down the bong Steep.

That is a strong statement but he wouldnt even have to say he was doing it for national security, he wouldn't need a explaination except for (maybe) PR. here, lets not say "bush" ok, a (future) president could.
Please explain how this is not handing the keys over in a sense.

Congress still holds the purse strings of the government and has many other tools to make the President's job impossible. Impeachment and removal is also an option if all else fails.

A President arresting a good portion of Congress for unspecified crimes would quickly precipitate the fall of the Federal government as the states most likely would not play along and large portions of the active military would not support such action.

I would hope they wouldnt play along, nor our military, granted there job is to take orders from the CiC. Some good points there about the money and states autonomy. Hope that would work.

Seems unnecessary though, kinda like a "Go f yourself" to congress and the constitution.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052
Congress has many ways (once a course of action is decided) to bend the Executive branch to it's will. If Congress really wants all the oversight they can certainly obtain it.

But how? This is in effect saying there is nothing congress can do.

Originally posted by: K1052
As far as the "coop up the whole lot of anyone from congress and send them to gitmo" statement, please put down the bong Steep.

That is a strong statement but he wouldnt even have to say he was doing it for national security, he wouldn't need a explaination except for (maybe) PR. here, lets not say "bush" ok, a (future) president could.
Please explain how this is not handing the keys over in a sense.

Congress still holds the purse strings of the government and has many other tools to make the President's job impossible. Impeachment and removal is also an option if all else fails.

A President arresting a good portion of Congress for unspecified crimes would quickly precipitate the fall of the Federal government as the states most likely would not play along and large portions of the active military would not support such action.

I would hope they wouldnt play along, nor our military, granted there job is to take orders from the CiC. Some good points there about the money and states autonomy. Hope that would work.

Seems unessasary though, kinda like a "Go f yourself" to congress and the constitution.

The first line of the service oath says "...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."


If even only a small fraction remember that the military would be mostly useless in any potential despot's hands. Not to mention the National Guard units who's first loyalty would likely fall to their native state in such a situation.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: K1052


The first line of the service oath says "...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."


If even only a small fraction remember that the military would be mostly useless in any potential despot's hands. Not to mention the National Guard units that who's first loyalty would likely fall to their native state in such a situation.

I do remember the oath from having to give it myself at one point, well you can probably imagine the worse case scenerios as I can, such as fearing people and disinformation campaigns, labeling one unpatriotic is a big one also if they refuse to follow orders. Anyhow, these are pretty worse case scenerios. I hope never to see this abused. It is not a positive turn though as far as balance of power regardless the last thing we need is more possibility of abuse of power.

 

[Pens1566]

And does this actually shock anyone?

 

[Vic]

So... I guess this means that none of you still support the line-item veto, right?

 

[techs]

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." Sinclair Lewis, 1935.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Vic
So... I guess this means that none of you still support the line-item veto, right?

Don't support it one bit.

neither do I support this whole idea of passing laws in which the President has no intention of following.

Is the President above the law of the land?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: techs
This is part of the Roberts/Scalia interpretation of the Constitution that says the President has the power to determine what laws actually mean.

Cite some writings from either justice indicating they actually mean that. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
After the bill-signing ceremony, the White House discreetly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law. In the statement, Bush said he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act's powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

The president's interpretation of a new law is irrelevant - the Supreme Court couldn't care less what powers a president thinks he has. That's their call, not his. If he's abusing power, he'll get smacked down by the courts.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

The president's interpretation of a new law is irrelevant - the Supreme Court couldn't care less what powers a president thinks he has. That's their call, not his. If he's abusing power, he'll get smacked down by the courts.

If it's irrelevant why the need for the document?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
At this rate, why even bother to have a Constitution?

I haven't thought we did, at least not for a long while. The Constitution I remember reading had specifically enumerated powers for the legislative branch, for one, but when was the last time anyone asked, "Hey, is it constitutional for Congress to do that?"
And don't liberals believe in the Constitution as a "living document", meaning it's meaning changes over time? If its meaning is constantly evolving, then it truly means nothing at all.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: Mursilis

The president's interpretation of a new law is irrelevant - the Supreme Court couldn't care less what powers a president thinks he has. That's their call, not his. If he's abusing power, he'll get smacked down by the courts.

If it's irrelevant why the need for the document?

The president's free to outline what he thinks he has to do under the law, and the judiciary is free to ignore that.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: techs
This is part of the Roberts/Scalia interpretation of the Constitution that says the President has the power to determine what laws actually mean.

Cite some writings from either justice indicating they actually mean that. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:Rfk...ary+executive&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

Time magazine reported that in 2001 Alito acknowledged that he is a strong proponent of the theory of the "unitary executive" under which all executive branch power is vested in the President--and any incursion on it by Congress should be resisted. This theory has been used by the Bush Administration to justify various extralegal activities, including the infamous torture memos. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Justice Clarence Thomas used the "unitary executive" theory to argue that the Supreme Court's restrictions on the President's unilateral power to lock up US citizens constituted "judicial interference"--a view rejected by the Court's majority.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/news/article_full.cfm?eventid=2372

In November 2000, while the nation fixated on whether George W. Bush or Al Gore would emerge victorious from the electoral confusion in Florida, Judge Samuel Alito laid out his view of what powers the future president would hold.

The Constitution "makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that," Judge Alito said in a speech to the Federalist Society at Washington's Mayflower Hotel. "The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing."

Judge Alito was describing the theory of the "unitary executive," an expansive view of presidential powers that he and his colleagues set forth while working in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Reagan Justice Department. Although the Supreme Court has not always agreed, he said in his speech, "I thought then, and I still think, that this theory best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure."

...

In 2000, Judge Alito referred to the unitary-executive theory of presidential power as "the gospel according to OLC," a reference to his office in the Reagan Justice Department. The theory has since become the foundation for the current administration's assertions that it has the power to interpret treaties, determine the fate of enemy prisoners, and jail U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without charging them.

Thus far, the theory has fared unevenly in federal courts. Bush administration officials have criticized some court rulings and pledged to appoint new judges more sympathetic to executive-power claims.

The judiciary had a "disturbing tendency...to inject itself into areas of executive action originally assigned to the discretion of the president," Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a November 2004 speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers' network. "These encroachments include some of the most fundamental aspects of the president's conduct of the war on terrorism," he said, and they impede "the tremendous energy and resolve of President Bush."

...

In written statements issued when he signs legislation, Mr. Bush routinely cites his authority to "supervise the unitary executive branch" to disregard bill provisions he considers objectionable. A statement Mr. Bush issued on Dec. 30 when he signed Sen. John McCain's antitorture amendment, for example, said in part that the executive branch "shall construe" a portion of the act relating to detainees "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." The statement raised questions among critics of the administration's policies about the extent to which the White House considers itself bound by the legislation.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: Mursilis

The president's interpretation of a new law is irrelevant - the Supreme Court couldn't care less what powers a president thinks he has. That's their call, not his. If he's abusing power, he'll get smacked down by the courts.

If it's irrelevant why the need for the document?

The president's free to outline what he thinks he has to do under the law, and the judiciary is free to ignore that.

Do you feel entirely comfortable, in the 'WoT' enviroment, that a Party X dominated Supreme Court would challenge the power grabs of Party X's President?

I don't.

I doubt this document was drafted and signed for no reason.