Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And the same is true today; there needs to be oversight on executive power.> There is. It's called an election. And the Constitution doesn't say that the powers of the Executive branch, including those of Commander in Chief, shall be vested in the President, as long as the Legislative and Judicial Branches approve of all his actions. If the Congress doesn't like what the NSA is doing, then they can cut the funding for the program.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>And the Constitution doesn't say that the powers of the Executive branch, including those of Commander in Chief, shall be vested in the President, as long as the Legislative and Judicial Branches approve of all his actions. << He executes the laws that congress passes. That's what executive means. It doesn't mean he gets to make up his own rules or to disregard the rules passed by Congress. We live in a nation of law, and those laws are passed by our legislature. The legislature may not execute the law. The president may execute the law, but he may not pass or make laws. Separation of powers. Conservatives used to know that.
Originally Posted By woody That is not the definition of separation of powers. I know that as a Conservative. Some Presidential powers are codified into the Constitution that the legislature could not abridge. FISA, as a statute, cannot change the Constitutional Powers of the President. BTW, the laws passed by the Legislature must be signed by the President. Unless it overrides a veto, the Legislature cannot simply assume it has the sole right to an interpretation.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He executes the laws that congress passes.> Congress doesn't tell the Commander-in-Chief when and where to deploy the troops. And the Supreme Court doesn't review his decisions.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Some Presidential powers are codified into the Constitution that the legislature could not abridge.<< The Constitution is also law. And neither the Congress nor the President has the authority to declare a law to be Constitutional - only the Judiciary can do that. And neither the President nor the Congress can do things that are unconstitutional - and whether or not something is constitutional can only be determined by the courts. >>FISA, as a statute, cannot change the Constitutional Powers of the President.<< FISA, as a statute, cannot grant unconstitutional powers. And the president cannot assume powers that are unconstitutional. Conservatives used to know this, too.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Congress doesn't tell the Commander-in-Chief when and where to deploy the troops.<< Being Commander in Chief is an explicit authority granted by the Constitution. Warrantless searches are not. >>And the Supreme Court doesn't review his decisions.<< What types of decisions? They don't review his decisions on where to send troops, but there are a ton of court cases that revolve around questions over how laws are being executed.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <FISA, as a statute, cannot grant unconstitutional powers.> Nor can it restrict constitutional powers.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<the Legislature cannot simply assume it has the sole right to an interpretation.>> No, that's the Judicial Branch. The Executive doesn't interpret the law, he just enforces it. Three leg stool. AmGovt 101. Unless you're aligned with Alito, then it's OK for the president to have a signatory statement like, "I know that this bill will outlaw torture, but I get to decide what torture means, thereby making this bill useless."
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Nor can it restrict constitutional powers. << It hasn't restricted any.
Originally Posted By woody The FISA has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be consistent with the Fourth Amendment, but it hasn't ruled on its constitutionality in conflict with the President's inherent Constitutional authority. On other cases, the FISA Court has acknowledged the President's inherent Constitutional authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping. The FISA statute's Constitutionality is yet to be tested, which is why the President may get a pass on his actions to avoid going to FISA to get a warrant in certain circumstances. I think this issue really won't be resolved by any court. It really is a SEPARATION of powers issue with a capital S.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "BTW, the laws passed by the Legislature must be signed by the President. Unless it overrides a veto, the Legislature cannot simply assume it has the sole right to an interpretation." Incorrect. The legislature does have the sole right to interpret their own laws, as they are the ones creating them. In the case of a statute's ambiguity on an issue, courts go to the legislative intent, often included with the bill or statute, to resolve a conflict. A President, or the Executive branch, cannot tell Congress what they really meant when enacting a law. However, this doesn't stop the Executive Branch from deciding for themselves what a law means and then behaving accordingly. That's when a court DOES step in and interpret the law, settling the issue once and for all. Eventually, a court WILL pass judgment on whether the White House's interpretation is correct.
Originally Posted By woody If there is ambiguity and the President believes it has Constitutional authority and the AG presents supporting evidence and court decisions, then the court may agree with the President's decision. This is my interpretation of what's going on.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"That does not necessarily follow. It is never safe to assume the outcome of any given case based on other cases that may or may not be shown to be similar in all ways.">> <The court decisions say in explicit terms ==>>"President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance".<<==> That's taken out of context, of course. And ignores the domestic component of the current controversy. <As long as the President keeps asserting it and the courts have acknowledged it and upheld it or avoided ruling on it, the President is in SAFE LEGAL GROUND.> Until they decide that he overstepped his bounds in this case, which ultimately I think they will. If I were a betting man, I'd also guess that a definitive opinion will not be given till Bush is out of office, and only future presidents will be thus constrained.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<And the same is true today; there needs to be oversight on executive power.>> <There is. It's called an election.> Even in your glibness, you must understand that the other two branches are meant to be the check on executive power for every minute he sits in the office; it's not limited to elections. <And the Constitution doesn't say that the powers of the Executive branch, including those of Commander in Chief, shall be vested in the President, as long as the Legislative and Judicial Branches approve of all his actions.> Nor is anyone trying to claim that. But Tom answered you better than I could. <If the Congress doesn't like what the NSA is doing, then they can cut the funding for the program.> That's bass ackwards. If the admin. felt FISA was too cumbersome for their needs, they could have - and should have - gone to Congress to explain why and ask them to rewrite the law. Instead, they simply violated the law as written. As Republican Spector said "I don't think any fair, realistic reading of the Sept. 14 resolution gives you the power to conduct warrantless surveillance."
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "If there is ambiguity and the President believes it has Constitutional authority and the AG presents supporting evidence and court decisions, then the court may agree with the President's decision." Then again, the court might not.
Originally Posted By woody <If the Congress doesn't like what the NSA is doing, then they can cut the funding for the program.> >That's bass ackwards. If the admin. felt FISA was too cumbersome for their needs, they could have - and should have - gone to Congress to explain why and ask them to rewrite the law. Instead, they simply violated the law as written.< It may be backwards, but it would definitely send the message with the consequences of the action when the NSA activity is defunded. Look. All this talk about impeachment from Bush's critics is pretty serious especially if the wiretapping is one example of an impeachable offense. What can be more serious than the next step of defunding the alleged "illegal" activity? Nonetheless, I think Gonzales has stated quite clearly that the President always had the power so legislation isn't needed.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Nonetheless, I think Gonzales has stated quite clearly that the President always had the power so legislation isn't needed." Until there's a contrary ruling by a court.
Originally Posted By woody "Until there's a contrary ruling by a court." So you will wait??? How long will you wait for the court? There is no plaintiffs. No one has asked for the program to be discontinued!!! All this posturing is clearly for political advantage, yet the only people gaining the advantage is the Bush Administration.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "So you will wait??? How long will you wait for the court? There is no plaintiffs." There is no plaintiffs? Since this just recently came to light, it could take an undetermined amount of time before someone with proper standing comes forward. Moreover, if the congressional investigations continue, you could see some changes as well. Don't get so hot and bothered just yet, wood.
Originally Posted By bboisvert You're right. It's hasn't gone to court yet. This is just the beginning. BTW, the Republicans were calling for this investigation too. The Republicans chair all of the committees including this one, and Sen. Specter in particular has been very critical on the Administration's claims. Saying this is a partisan ploy doesn't pass the smell test. Just keep watching...
