Posted on 03/27/2006 8:56:41 AM PST by IrishMike
the truth is that inmates will claim almost anything as 'torture' including loud noises in a prison environment that contribute to a lack of healthful sleep.
by electronic means I assume you mean lie detectors or voice stress analyzers. These are of varying use, depending on the language barrier and the amount of training someone has had on how to beat the machine.
Unfortunately in reality politics just aren't that simple in our country.
The President doesn't have a line item veto.
Congress doesn't restrict itself to passing laws that they know are constitutional.
Congress passes laws in which part of the law is unconstitutional on a pretty regular basis. Some of Congress will often vote for such a law to get the rest of the parts of the law approved and then rely on the courts to overturn and sever the unconstitutional parts.
The President sometimes does the same thing.
This dishonesty in politics is not the best way of doing things. However, trying to be honest in DC while the media is intent of spinning everything to make you look bad simply doesn't produce results.
You're justified in being upset about how the games are being played, but you're being unreasonable in acting like Bush is the only one playing such games.
You can't have a balance of power between the Executive and Legislative granches if the Executive can ignore the very bills he signed into law.
Sure you can. Because laws don't trump the constitution. By signing the the law, but stating that parts are unconstitutional and he won't uphold the unconstitutional parts, he's reaffirming his stand on the constitutional issues, but he's affirming that he will fulfill his duty to uphold the vast majority of the bill which he feels is constitutional.
He's not going behind Congress' back and simply breaking the law. It's now up to Congress to take the issue to the Supreme Court.
If you're so sure that those parts of the law are constitutional and that Congress passed those parts in good faith, why are you so upset about this to the point of calling for the impeachment of the President? If Congress passed this in good faith, they'll appeal it to the Supreme Court. If the law isn't overstepping the power of the legislature the Supreme Court will rule in their favor.
You're calling for the Impeachment of the President because he disagrees with Congress and won't role over and do what they want when they haven't even taken the issue to the Supreme Court.
You're looking at this as narrowly as possible and looking for any way you can possibly find fault in Bush. We're a nation of laws. Let the legal process run it's course. If Congress actually takes this to the Supreme Court, which I doubt they will, then we'll get a ruling on if the President is right or not. If he's wrong, and he refuses to obey the law, that would be grounds for impeachment. That hasn't happened.
I really doubt Congress will take it to the Supreme Court. Why? Because the Democrats don't give a crap about those provisions of the law ever being enforced. They're just looking for ways to criticize Bush. McCain is just looking for ways to maintain his media darling status. Many Republicans were afraid of how it would sound if they voted against such provisions.
Congress isn't trying to pass useful and needed amendments. They're trying to get political leverage.
I hope I'm wrong and just being cynical. However take note of the fact that Congress didn't press the issue of this last year when Bush did the same thing with the anti-torture legislation.
Yet he's trying to create one by fiat by simply ignoring parts of the law.
Sure you can. Because laws don't trump the constitution.
Neither does executive fiat.
If Congress passed this in good faith, they'll appeal it to the Supreme Court.
The problem is that the President didn't sign it in good faith. If he didn't like it, he could have vetoed. But we all know he still hasn't found that veto pen yet, either that or the balls to use it.
You're calling for the Impeachment of the President because he disagrees with Congress
No, I think impeachment might be appropriate for a president who signs a bill into law and then states that he plans to violate the Constitution by not executing it.
A lot of congressmen worked hard to try to add some semblance of civil liberties into the Patriot Act that was basically a prosecutorial wishlist passed in the frantic days after 9/11 with little debate. Yes, I detest that a president can just ignore the efforts to protect civil liberties. What other civil liberties does this president feel he can just ignore?
We're a nation of laws.
If only I could ignore them like Bush does.
However take note of the fact that Congress didn't press the issue of this last year when Bush did the same thing with the anti-torture legislation.
I have an easier explanation: The Democrats have no balls and too few Republicans dare challenge Bush.
That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
You were relieved by a "token check"?
Politics and Abu grab
What's bad about the torture debate is how you define torture. I would hope we're civilized enough not to be flaying skin, branding or beating people to a pulp. Anything that does permanent or serious damage should definitely be out of bounds. I support such a ban, as I think such action is a disgrace to our country.
My problem comes when messing with a detainee's head and making him very uncomfortable (emotionally or physically) is called torture, while we do worse to our own military personnel during training.
Well, that's just it, isn't it? In some countries, showing someone the bottom of your foot is torture.
Yet he's trying to create one by fiat by simply ignoring parts of the law.
You've got major tunnel vision.
He's not simply ignoring parts of the law. He's saying those parts are unconstitutional and that he won't enforce them unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
He's not creating a line item veto because the ultimate determination if those parts of the law are constitutional and enforceable doesn't lie with him. It's up to the Supreme Court. He didn't just ignore the law, and do what he pleases without telling anyone so that they couldn't take the issue to the Supreme Court. He told them why he feels it's unconstitutional and that he won't enforce it unless compelled to do so.
He signed the bill because he feels that overall the bill is good. He doesn't have a line item veto and can't pick and choose what parts of the bill to veto and if he vetoes the whole thing the provisions will likely lapse.
Congress managed to force him to sign the whole bill, and IF the Supreme Court rules that those provisions he feels are unconstitutional are actually valid, he will be forced to abide by them.
Congress doesn't get to tell the President what is constitutional, that's outside their power. However, if the Courts determine those provisions are constitutional, then the President has to abide by them.
No, I think impeachment might be appropriate for a president who signs a bill into law and then states that he plans to violate the Constitution by not executing it.
You are apparently unwilling to grasp the purpose of the signing statement. In the signing statement he's saying that he believes that those provisions are unconstitutional in certain cases and that he will not enforce them in those cases. By signing he accepts the law as a whole, and he's also accepting that if those provisions are ruled constitutional that he will be bound to enforce them.
However those provisions are in limbo until they are ruled on. It's not something new for the executive branch to put enforcement of a law or part of a law on hold while it's constitutionality is being addressed.
You seem to think that the president must take the issue to the Supreme Court himself and prove that the provisions are unconstitutional. The President appears to disagree and feel that Congress must take the issue to the Supreme Court to prove that the provisions are unconstitutional before he will enforce them.
A lot of congressmen worked hard to try to add some semblance of civil liberties into the Patriot Act that was basically a prosecutorial wishlist passed in the frantic days after 9/11 with little debate.
Bull crap. The "debate" over the Patriot Act has been the most dishonest and politically motivated rhetoric I've seen in a long time.
We saw the ACLU, special interest groups, and people trying to undermine Bush any way they could, purposefully distort what the Patriot Act did over and over again.
We got to hear conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory about how the Patriot Act could be used. When the issue was looked at a little more closely the story always changed to "well it can't really do that as it is, but it's a slippery slope".
Yes, I detest that a president can just ignore the efforts to protect civil liberties. What other civil liberties does this president feel he can just ignore?
That's not what has happened. If these Congressmen are really trying to protect people's civil liberties, then they need to finish the job and take it to the Supreme Court.
The executive and legislative branches are in disagreement over the constitutionality of some minor provisions of a broad law. It's up to the courts to determine who is right. That is if someone actually takes it to the Courts for them to decide on it.
If only I could ignore them like Bush does.
The highest law of the land is the Constitution. It's Bush's duty to uphold it and it's his duty to protect our country. He's stated that he feels that to reconcile those duties he is within his Constitutional authority to not enforce those provisions in those cases.
That's part of the job of the executive.
>> However take note of the fact that Congress didn't press the issue of this last year when Bush did the same thing with the anti-torture legislation.
I have an easier explanation: The Democrats have no balls and too few Republicans dare challenge Bush.
That's amusing. The democrats who are constantly calling for the impeachment or censure don't have the balls to this to the Supreme court because they are afraid to cross Bush?
The Democrats that keep filibustering Bush's judicial nominees, something that had never been done before, don't have the balls to take on Bush?
You're saying that they're afraid to take the law that they passed to the Supreme Court and ask the court to affirm it as constitutional?
What exactly are you suggesting they are afraid of? Are they afraid Bush won't want to be friends with them if they question his authority?
There are also a good number of republicans willing to break with Bush on this, after all the amendments did get passed.
So why don't they seem to be willing to actually take the issue to the Supreme Court for them to decide it?
You're assertion that they are afraid of Bush is laughable at best.
So what are they afraid of?
We constitutionalists are indeed rare these days.
Congress managed to force him to sign the whole bill,
Yep, they had a gun to his head. This President continually signs legislation he's stated is flawed. He is too chicken to veto and force Congress to send something he likes, too stubborn to fully execute a law that he doesn't completely like.
However, if the Courts determine those provisions are constitutional, then the President has to abide by them.
He does? He's already shown contempt for the legislative branch, so what makes you think he'll respect the actions of the judicial? How many tank divisions does the Supreme Court have?
By signing he accepts the law as a whole
True. He is then constitutionally bound to enforce that law. If there is now an unconstitutional law, it is only because he signed it.
You seem to think that the president must take the issue to the Supreme Court himself and prove that the provisions are unconstitutional.
That's what happens with any law: it's passed, signed, considered constitutional, then a court case decides the constitutionality. I thought the assault weapons ban (which Bush was ready to renew) was unconstitutional. Could I have just violated it with no penalty to me, relying on the government to establish its constitutionality before they could prosecute?
Laws enacted are assumed to be constitutional until the judicial branch decides otherwise. The President has no constitutional authority to decide whether a law or parts of it are constitutional.
There is no line-item veto as you noted. Period. He can't create one by executive fiat. In Clinton v. City of New York, the Supreme Court said the President does not have the constitutional authority to pick and choose, referencing Washington, who understood the Presentment Clause to mean a President must "approve all the parts of a Bill, or reject it in toto." And that was when Congress explicitly tried to give the President that power.
We got to hear conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory about how the Patriot Act could be used.
You mean used to investigate cases in no way related to terrorism or national defense?
It's up to the courts to determine who is right
True. And the President is bound by it until it is determined to be unconstitutional. It is the law. What part of that is so hard to understand? By breaking the law, the President commits a crime (hasn't been declared unconstitutional yet). Crimes lead to impeachment.
What bothers me the most is that nobody will know when he is actually breaking this law, since there is no accountability. No citizen or Congressman will be able to sue Bush (or his possible Democrat successor) over actions that are unknown, that may or may not have occurred.
Ok, Mr. Constitutionalist. From your reading of the Constitution, how is a disagreement between the executive branch and the legislative branch on the constitutionality of a law get resolved?
If the President's only option is to veto a law he feels is unconstitutional, then the constitution becomes whatever a supermajority of congress says it is, and the amendment process is pointless.
You're not making a constitutional argument, you're spinning things because you don't like the Patriot Act.
He does? He's already shown contempt for the legislative branch, so what makes you think he'll respect the actions of the judicial?
And what exactly is wrong with a little contempt for the legislature when you think what they are doing is wrong? The executive branch is not supposed to just do want the legislature tells them to do. That would destroy the balance of power between the branches of government. If you were really making acting as a constitutionalist, you wouldn't be making that argument.
You're still basing your opinion on the same fallacy over and over again. The legislature does not in itself have the authority to be able to tell the President what is constitutional.
He is then constitutionally bound to enforce that law.
So if it were Clinton who signed the law and Bush feels it's unconstitutional, you're saying that the executive branch can't suspend enforcing the law while it's constitutionality is being appealed? The Executive branch has suspended the enforcement of a great many laws while their constitutionality is being appealed. This is hardly the first one.
The difference may be that in this case the President isn't actually appealing the law to the Supreme Court himself, nor has anyone else done so yet. Instead he's saying that the legislature doesn't have the power by itself to compel the executive to enforce their unconstitutional law.
That comes back to protecting the separation of powers and defending the constitution.
You seem to think he can't do that. Well, maybe Congress should take that issue to the Supreme Court. It's not like congress hasn't taken other issues to the Supreme Court where Bush administration claimed to have constitutionally protected authority? They did the same thing with the Clinton administration as well.
That's what happens with any law: it's passed, signed, considered constitutional, then a court case decides the constitutionality. I thought the assault weapons ban (which Bush was ready to renew) was unconstitutional.
You aren't the executive branch of our government. I'm not saying that the President is above the law. He most definitely is not. However the executive branch of the government plays a different role in the process of determining if legislation is constitutional and should be enforced than an individual does.
For example the campaign finance laws aren't being applied to the Internet because the Executive branch is concerned that would make the law's implementation overly broad and make it unconstitutional. In defending it before the Supreme Court it was pushed as being constitutional because it was relatively narrow.
I'm not meaning to defend the campaign finance law. I think the whole thing was unconstitutional. I'm just using it as an example of the executive branch limiting it's enforcement to ways in which if might pass constitutional muster. This is not a new concept.
Bush isn't even saying that certain provisions are unconstitutional and should be stricken from the law. He's saying that in some circumstances those provisions could interfere with his constitutional duties. This is not a novel concept either. The whole, well supported, idea of executive privilege is an example of how the Executive branch is constitutionally protected from having to tell Congress what it wants when it wants in some circumstances.
None of this is breaking new ground.
Laws enacted are assumed to be constitutional until the judicial branch decides otherwise. The President has no constitutional authority to decide whether a law or parts of it are constitutional.
He does have the power to suspend executing those laws until the question of the law being constitutional is settled by the judiciary. Or more specifically in this case the executive can interpret the law to apply in only those cases where it doesn't interfere with the constitutional authority of the executive until the judiciary rules on the issue.
You mean used to investigate cases in no way related to terrorism or national defense?
The Patriot Act specifically states that some of it's provisions cover areas unrelated to terrorism or national defense. The provisions on money laundering come to mind as an example.
In many cases, the Patriot Act didn't just create new laws, it modified existing laws that apply to things that in some cases were not related to terrorism or national security.
It's absurd to think that Congress is going to specifically make the law act differently for circumstances related to terrorism or national security as opposed to other forms of domestic or international crime.
The whole issue of pointing our circumstances where parts of the patriot act were used in cases not involving terrorism is a red herring. It wasn't an abuse of the law. It was using the law as it was written by Congress.
Read the actual law. There's descriptions of the purposes of the sections and many of those purposes clearly include combating crimes not directly related to terrorism or national security.
It's absurd to think that congress would visit those laws and only change them relating to terrorism and national security.
You're very welcome to disagree with the law, though I haven't heard many people present good reasoning for their disagreements. Instead they make hollow arguments about it not being used as intended, despite it being used within the stated purposes of the law. Or they talk about the slippery slope of what the government could do next rather than what the law actually allows them to do. Or we get the conspiracy theories about how the government could use the Patriot Act along with violating other laws and do something wrong. Of course it they're going to violate the laws anyway, why do the need the Patriot Act?
And the President is bound by it until it is determined to be unconstitutional.
That would make the executive subservient to the legislature. The President's signing statement is where he presents his interpretation of the law and how it enforcing it is done constitutionally. The executive regularly interprets how laws can be constitutionally enforced. That's part of their duties.
When Congress or others disagree, it ends up in court. Go look at the multitude of fights over the implementation of the Clean Air Act for a variety of examples of this.
In this case they are interpreting a law that applies directly to the executive branch. You're asserting that because it applies directly to the executive branch that it should be handled differently and the President must first ask the Supreme Court if their version is correct.
There is no line-item veto as you noted. Period. He can't create one by executive fiat. In Clinton v. City of New York, the Supreme Court said the President does not have the constitutional authority to pick and choose, referencing Washington, who understood the Presentment Clause to mean a President must "approve all the parts of a Bill, or reject it in toto." And that was when Congress explicitly tried to give the President that power.
And the President is bound by it until it is determined to be unconstitutional. It is the law. What part of that is so hard to understand?
Maybe it's just the multitudes of cases where your version of how things work doesn't match reality?
The executive has said that there are cases where enforcing some parts of the law would conflict with the constitution. This is hardly unique to this law. It's a rather common thing. When that happens the executive branch comes out with a statement of how the law is interpreted and how it will be applied.
If congress disagrees with that interpretation they end up taking it to court to get the executive to change their interpretation. That's how the process works. It's how it has worked for a very, very long time.
By breaking the law, the President commits a crime (hasn't been declared unconstitutional yet). Crimes lead to impeachment.
The Executive branch has constitutional duties that cannot be overridden by laws. It's up to the executive branch to execute the laws within the constitution. Where there isn't a question of the constitutionality of the law, the executive has a duty to enforce the law. When the law might conflict with the constitution, the executive has a duty to follow the constitution.
Questions of constitutionality eventually get resolved by the courts. However the executive regularly has to determine how they will enforce the law until those issues are resolved. That's how our system works. That's the role of the executive.
In this case that leave a good deal of question about what circumstances or at least how quickly in some circumstances the President must report some actions to Congress, until that issue is taken to the courts and decided.
What bothers me the most is that nobody will know when he is actually breaking this law, since there is no accountability.
Quit listening to the liberal media and actually read the signing statement and the law.
Here's the signing statement http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060309-8.html
The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.
106A requires the justice department to provide Congress with a report of every time an application was submitted to FISA. The purpose of FISA was to provide accountability and oversight. Not reporting to Congress about such applications in situations where it might risk national security or impair the executive's role in handling foreign relations does not remove accountability.
119 provides for an audit of how National Security Letters have been used. Note that the President doesn't claim that he doesn't have to comply with the audit. He claims that reporting on some of those National Security letters would interfere with the President's duties.
That raises concern about a lack of accountability. However section 115 provides for judicial review of National Security Letters, so there is accountability.
Section 756(e)(2)? Well 756 is "SEC. 756. AUTHORITY TO AWARD COMPETITIVE GRANTS TO ADDRESS METHAMPHETAMINE USE BY PREGNANT AND PARENTING WOMEN OFFENDERS."
Are you sticking with your assertion that Congress only intends the Patriot Act to address issues of terrorism and national security?
However, I agree that the President appears to be overreaching on this one. (2) EVALUATIONS- Not later than 12 months at the end of the 3 year funding cycle under this section, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction that summarizes the results of the evaluations conducted by recipients and recommendations for further legislative action.
There definitely needs to be oversight on how even competitively bid contracts are executed, and Congress definitely should be asking for evaluations and recommendations, especially with narrow programs such as this.
I hope this gets appealed and the executive branch's duties in reporting on these contracts is clearly spelled out rather than left to interpretation. I don't see how there is appropriate oversight without it unless there are additional laws governing such competitively bid contracts that would provide it.
No citizen or Congressman will be able to sue Bush (or his possible Democrat successor) over actions that are unknown, that may or may not have occurred.
There is already judicial accountability for sections 106A and 119. I do agree that there seems to be a need for more accountability for section 756, mostly because I think it's going to be a waste of money and I want to make sure it has to be justified to be continued.
Veto.
then the constitution becomes whatever a supermajority of congress says it is, and the
Until the Supreme Court strikes the law down.
The legislature does not in itself have the authority to be able to tell the President what is constitutional.
Of course not. They do have the power to pass a law which, if signed, becomes a law that the President must abide by. Constitutional issues are for the Supreme Court.
nstead he's saying that the legislature doesn't have the power by itself to compel the executive to enforce their unconstitutional law.
If we're talking legalities, you have to strike that bit, as the law is constitutional until shown otherwise. The Supreme Court gives great deference to the legislative on this.
However the executive branch of the government plays a different role in the process of determining if legislation is constitutional
Okay, I'm reading through the Cosntitution right now, and I can't find anything giving him the power to determine the constitutionality of the law. I can't remember any precedents either, could you provide some? That would greatly help your point.
For example the campaign finance laws aren't being applied to the Internet because the Executive branch is concerned that would make the law's implementation overly broad
Didn't that law specifically leave it to the executive to make decisions on enforcement? That is a common occurrance, such as with copyright. This law did not leave the President's accountability up to his discretion.
It's absurd to think that Congress is going to specifically make the law act differently for circumstances related to terrorism or national security as opposed to other forms of domestic or international crime.
Yet we were told it was needed to fight terrorism.
The Patriot Act was an AG's wet-dream wish list, refused over and over by Congress because it gave the government too much power and violated the rights of the people. Only the panic following 9/11 allowed it to pass.
The Executive branch has constitutional duties that cannot be overridden by laws.
I believe our basic difference is that you have a vision where the Executive is invested with a lot of power. I prefer the vision of the Founders, where they were very cautious of the Executive having too much power.
I prefer the vision where he is bound by law. You prefer the vision where he is not. A strong executive not bound by law is a very frightening prospect.
First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command).I'm torn about a lot of what goes on in DC. Not being a lwayer does not help, and it's hard to separate truth from spin. THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS
Moreover, four sitting Justices of the Supreme Court have joined in the opinion that the President may resist laws that encroach upon his powers by "disregard[ing] them when they are unconstitutional." Freytag v. C.I.R., 111 S. Ct. 2631, 2653 (1991) (Scalia, J., joined by O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).(9)I just found these things interesting. There was a link on a site I visit, about Bush using these statements, with the implication it is some egregious error/crime on his part (it may or may not be, but to be fair, he is not alone). I do wish he had just used his veto at least once...
Thans for the info. It looks like once again I'm on the opposite side from the courts on an issue, as I was with eminent domain, CFR and many others.
That was QUICK. Doesn't mean you're wrong. I don't know what to think on such things, but I want to be intellectually honest (but have trouble knowing who to believe). Doesn't help that I'm not a lawyer...
You showed that in context I was wrong, in that the president probably can legally get away with it. Of course I still believe I was right in my constitutional interpretation, just as I believed I was right in Kelo.
Well, I firmly believe the SCOTUS gets it wrong sometimes (especially Kelo). Just as the other branches do. Take care.
Every things gonna be ok...now go put your foil hat back on and get back into that Orwell book.
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.