Replies

If I'm reading Bush's statement correctly, hair-trigger Bush-bashers are reacting with their usual eagerness to a liberal media headline. Bush does not say he will ignore the rule but that in following it he will interpret it in the context of his own Constitutionally mandated responsibilities and other statutes which require discretion about intelligence sources and agencies.

This sounds like business as usual amongst the separated powers, not the long-awaited but somehow perpetually postponed coup d'etat establishing the Bushid Dynasty (as prophesied in the Oracles of Paeleodamus).

The idea that only the Supreme Court has the authority to have an opinion on the constitutionality of acts of Congress is a liberal nostrum that has helped turn the Court into a danger to the republic; it has only held sway for half a century or so, and conservatives ought to be ashamed to have any truck with it. Here is a scholarly sort of First Things article with the relevant information:

How the Court Became Supreme

Bush is entirely right, indeed obligated, to resist any form of compliance with this rule that would, in his best judgment, interfere with his performance of his duties as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.

Luis, good point about Daschle and creeping Parliamentary supremacy, even if this isn't exactly a case of it. There is the threat to the separation of powers, not Bush. But I suppose the Congressional supremists on this thread must welcome his initiatives to turn back the insidious King George and his drive to reinstate the Divine Right of Kings.

I've been sick about half of this year and haven't even had the energy to lurk much. Nice to see that war and world upheaval haven't changed the basic structure of life and argument on FR.