Posted on 02/04/2006 2:00:39 PM PST by FairOpinion
The revelation that the National Security Agency is spying on Americans suspected of aiding al-Qaida has caused some to accuse President Bush of ignoring the "rule of law."
Gore, Leahy and Bush's other critics are dead wrong. The NSA surveillance is a valid exercise of the president's authority to gather intelligence necessary to prevent attacks within the United States, attacks Congress has authorized the president to pre-empt and deter. FISA and similar constraints on the president would offend the Constitution, contravene the rule of law and make us less secure.
"The law" binding the president includes the Constitution, which trumps ordinary legislation like FISA. Article II of the Constitution makes the president commander in chief of the armed forces. If this clause means anything, it means that the president (and not Congress) directs military operations.
Indeed, a Sept. 14, 2001, congressional resolution recognized the president's "authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States." The resolution also empowered him to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against "nations, organizations or persons" that "he determines planned, authorized, or aided the September 11 attacks."
Thus, Congress has authorized the president to make war on al-Qaida and those supporting its efforts to strike America. When prosecuting wars, the president acts as commander in chief. Congress cannot diminish this authority, any more than it can make it a crime for him to veto a bill or pass laws requiring him to pardon convicted terrorists.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypress.com ...
Excellent article, makes good, valid points. Recommend reading the entire article and bookmarking it.
Nor must the president seek approval before monitoring communications between al-Qaida and suspected U.S. accomplices. A warrant-based "cops and robbers" approach is wholly out of place in time of war. FISA's backwards-looking civilian law enforcement model would hamper the president's ability to identify targets of pre-emptive action before they strike and undermine his ability to fight the war Congress authorized.
Clinton treated the fight against al Qaeda as a law enforcement problem. And liberals still want to take that approach. But, then again, the typical liberal approach to failure is to do more of what failed in the hopes that it might succeed if you do enough of it.
Thank you and bookmarked.
One thing is for sure, there won't BE any rule of law if Al Qaeda manages a spectacular enough hit on one or more of our cities. Those who love the rule of law, and that includes myself, would do well to bear that in mind.
OTOH, applied lefist philosopy is generally destructive of the rule of law to start with, so Democrats are being disingenuous by definition by referencing it.
Like a puppy that just pee'd on the carpet, Congress needs to be grabbed by the collar, drug over here, and have their noses rubbed in that quote.
Yeah, the left pretends to love the Constitution.
As they trample every part of it other than selected parts of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
But, then again, the pubbies have their own sections of the Constitution they bang upon.
Which, sadly enough, is what differentiates the two parties any more - what sections of the Constitution they choose to trash.
SCOTUS delivered an object lesson in enumerated powers back during the Clinton Administration. They said that the line item veto was unconstitutional because Congress could not cede its powers to the executive without a Constitutional Amendment.
So if the Legislative is not allowed to cede its own powers, it definitely has no powers to infringe on the enumerated powers of the executive.
One element of Meese's argument is the grant of war-making powers to the President, by Congress.
Congress authorized this fight. After that, it is up to the President to carry it out.
If Congress disagrees with how the President is doing such, they can always rescind that power.
But what was the last vote on the war? Something like 400 to 3? They all talk big but they won't vote to back their talk.
Which makes them a bunch of slimy-assed weasels.
The solution to this whole thing is very simple. If you don't want your "liberties" violated, don't send emails and make phone calls to Islamic terrorists who want to kill Americans. It's not rocket science.
to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against "nations, organizations or persons" that "he determines planned, authorized, or aided the September 11 attacks."
-----
" ...'whenever a statute gives a discretionary power to any person to be exercised by him upon his own
opinion of certain facts, it is a sound rule of construction that the statute constitutes him the
sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts.' The grounds upon which that opinion
is maintained are set forth in the report, and we think are conclusive.
The same principle applies
to the case how before the court. Undoubtedly, if the President in exercising this power shall fall
into error, or invade the rights of the people of the State, it would be in the power of Congress
to apply the proper remedy.
But the courts must administer the law as they find it."
LUTHER v. BORDEN, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) citing Martin v. Mott, 1827
But of course in Justice Kennedy's Supreme Court words mean whatever he wants them to. I doubt "sound rule of construction" has any meaning at all.
SCOTUS delivered an object lesson in enumerated powers back during the Clinton Administration. They said that the line item veto was unconstitutional because Congress could not cede its powers to the executive without a Constitutional Amendment.The real battle line is somewhere in the middle of those two postions of yours.So if the Legislative is not allowed to cede its own powers, it definitely has no powers to infringe on the enumerated powers of the executive.
Congress authorized this fight ... If Congress disagrees with how the President is doing such, they can always rescind that power.
But what was the last vote on the war? Something like 400 to 3? They all talk big but they won't vote to back their talk.
That lopsided vote was on immediate pullout of Iraq - not on surveillance that has one leg on domestic soil.
Which makes them a bunch of slimy-assed weasels.
I concur with your assessment of Congress, but golly, you argue like a girl.
I think that is the definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result! See Enabling Behavior For Terrorism
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.