| Author |
Message |
    
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 1566
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 1:00 pm: | 
|
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit.ap/index.html |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5546
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 1:41 pm: |
|
The ruling cites this precedent, which I'd like to hear the cons' take on since it struck down an initiative by a Dem president attempting to circumvent a law which he found inconvenient during wartime. Best I can tell, the only real difference here is that Bush is a Republican, and Truman was a Democrat.
Quote:Nor can the seizure order be sustained because of the several constitutional provisions that grant executive power to the President. In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing
of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who make laws which the President is to execute. The first section of the first article says that `All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States * * *'
The President's order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress - it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President. . . . The Constitution did not subject this law-making
power of Congress to presidential or military supervision or control.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5552
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 5:57 pm: |
|
<sound>
Meanwhile, out in the blogosphere, some cons are attacking the judge (she's African-American, they're happy to point out), and -- this is where it gets really wierd -- some urge Bush to defy the ruling.
This is not good. It'll be interesting to see how the Supremes ultimately break down. Does the fourth amendment really have any meaning to Scalia and Thomas? Obviously with the "cruel and unusual punishment" thing they can't find any way to apply it, I wonder what they'll have to say about the explicit "warrant" requirement. Maybe under a strict constructionist reading "persons, papers and effects" only applies if it's written on paper. But who knows what they'll come up with; after all the rationale for Bush v. Gore on equal protection grounds was a stroke of creativity that no liberal would have guessed at. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 15373
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 12:52 pm: |
|
The president is the most powerful single person. I guess some people take that to mean that he should be all-powerful. They must not notice the logical error they are making from point A to point B.
|
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 901
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Bush outright defying the ruling would be both criminal and impeachable.
I don't think he'd go that route. There's no need for such messiniess.
They'll appeal and ask that the program remain active pending the outcome of the appeal.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page