Besides, terrorism is not the only new danger of this era. Another is the administration's argument that because the president is commander in chief, he is the "sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs."
That non sequitur is refuted by the Constitution's plain language, which empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws "necessary and proper" for the execution of all presidential powers .
Those powers do not include deciding that a law -- FISA, for example -- is somehow exempted from the presidential duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502003_pf.html
Mark Levin comments:
Unfortunately, George Will believes that Congress has the power to micromanage the president's explicit commander-in-chief responsibilities.
Albertas Child disagrees:
Unfortunately for Mark Levin, George Will is technically correct on this one. Congress can -- at least indirectly -- micromanage any executive power to whatever extent they deem necessary.
Will's bold words quoted just above are far from 'technically correct'. Mark has him pegged correctly.
The power of Congress to impeach a sitting President is basically unlimited. If the members of the House of Representatives decided tomorrow to impeach George W. Bush because they don't like Texans, and two-thirds of the members of the Senate agreed, then George W. Bush would be out of a job with absolutely no recourse other than to run again in 2008.
Good grief child; -- such a basis for an impeachment would never pass constitutional muster. He must be found guilty of "high crimes or Misdemeanors". -- Get a grip on your rhetoric.
I disagree. Andrew Johnson came within one vote of removal from office over what were basically political differences. There is no appeal to SCOTUS if a president is impeached and removed.