But the law does not prevent the exercise of CIC powers - it does not prohibit the release; it is a notification requirement. Could it not be equally Constitutionally valid that Congress, in exercising its Constitutional oversight responsibilities, requires sufficient notification to perform that Constitutional function? There is a balance of powers and the Commander In Chief does not exempt the President from that balance. He is not supposed to be a military dictator.
“Could it not be equally Constitutionally valid that Congress, in exercising its Constitutional oversight responsibilities, requires sufficient notification to perform that Constitutional function?”
That’s a fair question. The president’s military power as commander in chief is clearly not absolute. Congress, for example, provides the funds.
Let’s say Congress buys the president a tank division. Does Congress have any say on how those tanks are subsequently used, and if so, how much say do they have? For example, they can withhold funds, but do they have a constitutional right to tell the president how those tanks must be operationally used?
There’s a gray area there, because you are literally talking about the dividing line in the constitutional balance of powers. Congress has largely abdicated its power to declare war, but once hostilities have started (i.e. a war is declared), the president has broad powers under the constitution to execute that war.
Either way, I don’t understand how a president can sign something into law and then argue that he’s not going to follow it as he deems it unconstitutional. That’s grounds for impeachment if you ask me (even though we know that’s virtually impossible in Obama’s case).