Posted on 02/03/2006 8:47:20 PM PST by ken5050
Turned on the radio, happened to catch the last segment of the John Batchelor show. He was interviewing Jeb Babbin....who many of us know and respect, and read his columns. I was absolutely stunned by what Babbin just said...hadn't seen/heard it anywheres..and thought it merits reposting for your benefit....
I have those same questions. The only answer was that it wasn't covert...there was no qualification or explanation. It seems like the administration's decision to brief only the chairmen and ranking members speaks to some kind of classified protection but I don't know.
I find myself just sick over this whole subject...
The fact that Specter is even allowing these hearings at a time that our country is involved in very precarious negotiations all over the world...plus the Hamas elections, you have Rumsfeld and Condi traveling around trying to get the "coalitions" to stand up for what is right...
While at that same time...their whole administration is being put on trial...and our enemies must be laughing their butts off...
I also find it AMAZING that these same Congresscritters that are all up in arms about "secret" wiretapping, are the same ones that don't think twice about slipping in billions of dollars worth of pork into bills in the middle of the night, unbeknownst to we American taxpayers...THOSE secrets they can keep.
If not for the fact that Bush is right on this subject..and KNOWS that he is right on this subject...and KNOWS that the dems are gonna end up screwing themselves on this subject....
I just wish that Bush would use his POTUS power to tell them to go to heck...in the name of national security.
I really, really wish I had gotten to see that hearing..but, babysitting and LONG hearings don't go well together...LOL
I thought I was gonna get a good day of hearing watching in on Monday...but, I found out I will be babysitting on Monday this week...(I LOVE my granddaughters, really I do)....sigh.
I was watching spitball this last week and Sissie was talking to a White House press secretary-type gal (I forget her name, but very well spoken and very hot looking blonde). He brought up Bush's line in the the State of the Union about defeatism then referred to a poll that supposedly shows that the vast majority of Americans think it was wrong to send troops to Iraq. He then asked if that made all these Americans defeatists! Talk about a leap in logic.
"The Dellinger Memorandum"
I haven't found the full text of it. Dawn E. Johnsen's law review article, "Presidential Non-enforcement of Constitutionally Objectionable Statutes" discusses the Dillinger memorandum at some length.
Under Dellinger's formulation, whether the President should [*pg 24] enforce a particular statute that he considers unconstitutional depends largely on a prediction of how the Supreme Court would rule on the constitutionality of the provision in question. That is, the President typically has the authority to decline to enforce a statute if he determines both that a law is unconstitutional and that it is probable that the Court would agree. By contrast, if the President believes the Court would uphold the law, he generally should comply with the law. When the President's own powers are threatened, he has greater authority: The President may decline to enforce a statute unless he is convinced that the Court would disagree with his assessment. Dellinger also identified several other factors the President should consider in deciding whether to exercise non-enforcement authority, such as the likely effect of non-enforcement on the justiciability of the law and on the constitutional rights of affected individuals. ...The Dellinger Memorandum recognizes that an important factor in the President's decision whether to disregard a constitutionally objectionable statute is how clear the constitutional defect is. The Dellinger Memorandum also addresses the related central issue of the appropriateness of presidential deference to the constitutional views of the other branches. The Dellinger formulation requires the President to base his enforcement decisions not only on his own views but also on great deference to Congress and a prediction of how the Supreme Court likely would rule. If the Court likely would sustain the provision, the President "as a general matter" should enforce the provision. "If, however, the President, exercising his independent judgment, determines both that a provision would violate the Constitution and that it is probable that the Court would agree with him, the [*pg 45] President has the authority to decline to execute the statute." Dellinger endorses a standard more permissive of non-enforcement for provisions that encroach on presidential powers. ...
... I would add to the Dellinger formulation that the President's own constitutional views should play a greater role when the presidency, as an institution, possesses special expertise such that the President's views on at least some aspect of the constitutional issue are likely to be superior to those of the Court and to any considered view Congress seems to have been expressing. [*pg 46] The President's views may be deserving of added weight, for example, on issues regarding which the courts typically defer to the political branches or treat as nonjusticiable and entrust to the executive branch, either alone or together with Congress.
The Dellinger Memorandum describes the President's non-enforcement authority as greatly enhanced when the law encroaches on the constitutional powers of the presidency: "Where the President believes that an enactment unconstitutionally limits his powers, he has the authority to defend his office and decline to abide by it, unless he is convinced that the Court would disagree with his assessment." The Dellinger position is consistent with past executive branch policy and practice.
The executive branch typically has justified enhanced non-enforcement authority when the President's powers are threatened as necessary to self-defense, and, in turn, preservation of the constitutional balance of powers. The 1980 Civiletti Memorandum describes this rationale well: "[T]he Executive can rarely defy an Act of Congress without upsetting the equilibrium established within our constitutional system; but if that equilibrium has already been placed [*pg 51] in jeopardy by the Act of Congress itself, the case is much more likely to fall within that narrow class."
63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 7 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Dawn E. Johnsen, Presidential Non-Enforcement of Constitutionally Objectionable Statutes
63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 125 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Lori Fisler Damrosch, The Clinton Administration and War Powers
63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 479 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Alan J. Meese, Bakke Betrayed
Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes, 18 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 199 (1994)
(memorandum from Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger)
The Attorney General's Duty to Defend and Enforce Constitutionally Objectionable Legislation, 4A Op. Off. Legal Counsel 55 (1980)
(memorandum from Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti)
[Recommendation] 7. Congress should update and clarify the almost 200 standby statutory authorities, triggered variously and often ambiguously by "declared war," "war" alone, "time of war,"or "national emergency,"and it should codify selected laws of war.An authorization for the use of force affects not just the foreign target.By virtue of almost 200 statutes providing standby domestic legal authority, each authorization triggers "domino"domestic legal effects. Unfortunately, not all of these are known to or intended by Congress because the domestic standby statutes have accumulated haphazardly over many years and have not been updated or clarified to fit the contemporary congressional preference for using use-of-force authorizations rather than declarations of war. Congress has not codified important aspects of the law of war, especially regarding the scope and procedures for military detention and military trial of enemy combatants - law which has recently been invoked by the President to detain even U.S. citizens in conjunction with the 2001 use-of-force authorization.
Deciding to Use Force Abroad: War Powers in a System of Checks and Balances
An Initiative of The Constitution Project | 2005
Rich Rocky needs to be down in his West VA working
on the mine problems instead of undercutting Bush on
the war
****
HA! First he would have to understand what a miner does. LOL
At the end .. when Negroponte talked about how everyone on the panel took an oath to uphold the law .. he also mention that the Attorney General would address this further next week (Monday)
Also .. another thing that caught my attention was Rockefeller saying that only 4 members of the 535 members of Congress knows the most extensive effort of our intel in the NSA
He seemed to be trying to make a case that he believes under the law more members of Congress should know what is going on
Ahh, here 'tis ...
Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes, 18 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 199 (1994)
(memorandum from Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger)
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm
DoJ Opinions -> http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/opinionspage.htm
63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 7 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Dawn E. Johnsen, Presidential Non-Enforcement of Constitutionally Objectionable Statutes
63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 107 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Peter L. Strauss, The President and Choices Not to Enforce
63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 125 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Lori Fisler Damrosch, The Clinton Administration and War Powers
63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 479 (Winter/Spring 2000)
Alan J. Meese, Bakke Betrayed
63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 513 (Winter/Spring 2000)
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS
>>>>This administration couldn't even punish Sandy Burger, they're not going to take on a senator.<<<<<<<<<<<
........Agreed. W always wants to be nice......
The instance cited would have been a minor political win.
The current instance will confirm historical precedent for conduct during time of war. It is a different matter.
W says "At a time of my choosing"
Tend to agree. I doubt if they will ask him to take a polygraph. But if they require his staff to take one, chances are they will spill their guts if they know the truth of the matter -- especially if they were involved. Plea bargain for testimony, betcha.
thanks, and good morning..see you Monday...
THat's the one..the same guy apparently just wrote some article attacking Bush..in effect saying the exact opposite..
You are hereby ordered to get some sleep
I take it for granted that Babbin knows what he is talking about and would not made such a statement if these discussions on "background" with members of the intelligence community had not actually taken place. However, what I would like to know is why these people in the intelligence community are leaking the name of Rockefeller to Babbin at this time or anyone else for that matter. They obviously did not swear him to secrecy until after the hearings started or he would have not said anything about it on this radio show. What was their purpose in giving Babbin this information?
That's the way you go after him. Start low and work your way up.
ping
'Zactly!
I'd srumise it's an attempt to shape the hearings tomorrow..in effect, a warnign shot across Rockefeller's bow...While I'm sure that the intelligence types, along with everyone here on FR, would love to get Rockefeller..see him frogmarched out of the committee..they are probably,a nd right so, MORE concerned for now with not blowing any more operational details..I'd watch and listen very carefully to the tone of his opening statement.
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.