Posted on 01/03/2002 9:50:13 AM PST by 74dodgedart
Edited on 07/19/2004 2:09:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Exactly.
How about this one - Congress passes a law and a president signs it that is clearly unconstitutional. The next president refuses to enforce that law on those grounds. Would you support the president, or support enforcement of the unconstitutional law?
Congress has developed a pattern of leaking intelligence information as a way of stopping whatever intelligence operations an individual lawmaker dislikes for any particular reason.
Not only do these practices mean the individual Congressmen can have "veto" power over national security operations, but they also endanger people who are already taking extraordinary risks to serve their country.
-penny
The Constitution itself is law.
King George W. appears more than willing to sidestep the Constitution so why should he care about any other laws?
Where in the Constitution, then, does it say that Bush is supposed to inform Congress of intel matters? You are sidestepping the question.
I can understand his fear BUT he does not have the authority to declare himself king and pick and choose which laws he will honor and which he will ignore.
I can understand his fear BUT he does not have the authority to declare himself king and pick and choose which laws he will honor and which he will ignore.
Just think....if the GOP would go along with that, there is a possible large savings of money to be had by the elimination of those non-productive, non butt-kissin congresskritters! :)
Then it would be up to the Supreme Court to determine that the law was unconstitutional.
Our government is composed of three seperate but equal branches that operate under a system of checks and balances. It was designed that way for a reason, so that no one branch could usurp power.
I've seen quit a few leaks attributed to "senior White House officials " in the past.
This is another outrageous police state tactic by GW Bush that goes way too far.
GW Bush is destroying our country and our freedoms. He has also turned the CIA lose against American citizens inside the US.
Wake up America.
GW Bush has now became a Gestapo style dictator. He is a wolf in sheep skin.
GW Bush shows contempt for the Constitution and Congress and GW Bush is violating his oath to uphold the COnstitution. He should now be impeached.
This action by Bush should be challenged immediately in court and by Congress. Also, Bush's executive priviledge claim to block Ashcroft from responding to 13 subpoenas on 9/11/01 before Dan Burton's Governement and Reform Committee should be challenged immediately by COngress and in court.
I did not suggest that the Constitution req's Bush to inform Congress on intelligence matters.
That is a requirement of the law passed by congress, and not the Constitution.
I mentioned the Constitution, because you asked if the president was req'd to follow a law which was passed in violation of the Constituion. Since the Constitution is itself legally binding, such laws should not theoretically be possible (although we both know otherwise in actuality)
But getting back to the point, the law requiring Bush to inform congress is NOT in any way unconstitutional, and I think you're obfuscating the original issue by bringing up the subject.
If the law is unconstitutional, then I would think the president, having sworn to uphold the constitution, would have a duty to refuse to comply, and to force the issue to the USSC.
From the article: Bush made the announcement in signing the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2002, which includes an amendment stating that reports to Congress should ``always be in written form.''
Since the Constitution is itself legally binding, such laws should not theoretically be possible (although we both know otherwise in actuality)
Actually, instead of it just being otherwise in actuality, it is the norm rather than the exception. Since that is the case, would you personally support the actions of a president who refused to enforce a law you considered blatantly unconstitutional, even if that law was passed by a previous Congress and signed by a previous president? Please answer yes or no.
But getting back to the point, the law requiring Bush to inform congress is NOT in any way unconstitutional, and I think you're obfuscating the original issue by bringing up the subject.
Not really. IMO much of the so-called oversight exercised by Congress over the executive branch is unconstituional - the Constitution is clear that the president is in charge of operating the government, not Congress. So it is highly relevant - and in this case you are demanding that Bush follow this law, but would you applaud if Bush refused to carry out laws you considered to be blatantly unconstitutional?
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.