Excuse me?
Jan. 2nd, 2006 05:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumWhat would you do if one of your employees told you he was going to ignore, when he felt like, the rules you, as an employer set up?
You'd fire him.
What would you do if he told you he was going to ignore the rules that the managers you hired to oversee his work?
You'd fire him.
Looking with more attention at the President's statement about his signing of the defense authorisation bill, I see that he's doing that. Not just on the Torture Amendment (I confess to being a trifle tunnel visioned on that subject, but to other things.
Sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 of the Act prohibit the use of funds to initiate a special access program, a new overseas installation, or a new start program, unless the congressional defense committees receive advance notice. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the President's authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority. Although the advance notice contemplated by sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 can be provided in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his constitutional grants of executive power and authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while protecting certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information. The executive branch shall construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.
Section 8059 of the Act provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 may be used to transfer defense articles or services, other than intelligence services, to another nation or an international organization for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations, until 15 days after the executive branch notifies six committees of the Congress of the planned transfer. To the extent that protection of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations might require action of a kind covered by section 8059 sooner than 15 days after notification, the executive branch shall construe the section in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.
A proviso in the Act's appropriation for "Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide" purports to prohibit planning for consolidation of certain offices within the Department of Defense. Also, sections 8010(b), 8032, 8037(b), and 8100 purport to specify the content of portions of future budget requests to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe these provisions relating to planning and making of budget recommendations in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to require the opinions of the heads of departments, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient.
Section 8005 of the Act, relating to requests to congressional committees for reprogramming of funds, shall be construed as calling solely for notification, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in INS v. Chadha.
The executive branch shall construe section 8104, relating to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Also, the executive branch shall construe sections 8106 and 8119 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the President from altering command and control relationships within the Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the authority of Commander in Chief.
I suppose the justification for violating the laws is derived from the oath of office, and the idea that such an abrogation of the balance of powers and the system of checks and balances is in needed to, "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Never mind those pesky provisions in Art. I, Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To...
Clause 10: To define and punish ... Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
But this White House thinks that the acts which excercise those powers are based on "purported" authorities.
Purported. Not actual, no the powers the Constitution grants the Congress aren't real, but purported.
To read the text of the legal minds of this administration is to see that Congress has no real power. Declare, to them, means to say out loud. Congress doesn't make war, it merely announces. Once the President has decided war is needful, they get to come along for the ride, and (because there's a war on) they lose the power to make laws which affect some "Department[s] or Officer[s] thereof."
That, my friends, seems to be a statement that the President is trying to sieze dictatorial power.
He can do that, but only if we let him.
You'd fire him.
What would you do if he told you he was going to ignore the rules that the managers you hired to oversee his work?
You'd fire him.
Looking with more attention at the President's statement about his signing of the defense authorisation bill, I see that he's doing that. Not just on the Torture Amendment (I confess to being a trifle tunnel visioned on that subject, but to other things.
Sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 of the Act prohibit the use of funds to initiate a special access program, a new overseas installation, or a new start program, unless the congressional defense committees receive advance notice. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the President's authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority. Although the advance notice contemplated by sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 can be provided in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his constitutional grants of executive power and authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while protecting certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information. The executive branch shall construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.
Section 8059 of the Act provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 may be used to transfer defense articles or services, other than intelligence services, to another nation or an international organization for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations, until 15 days after the executive branch notifies six committees of the Congress of the planned transfer. To the extent that protection of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations might require action of a kind covered by section 8059 sooner than 15 days after notification, the executive branch shall construe the section in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.
A proviso in the Act's appropriation for "Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide" purports to prohibit planning for consolidation of certain offices within the Department of Defense. Also, sections 8010(b), 8032, 8037(b), and 8100 purport to specify the content of portions of future budget requests to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe these provisions relating to planning and making of budget recommendations in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to require the opinions of the heads of departments, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient.
Section 8005 of the Act, relating to requests to congressional committees for reprogramming of funds, shall be construed as calling solely for notification, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in INS v. Chadha.
The executive branch shall construe section 8104, relating to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Also, the executive branch shall construe sections 8106 and 8119 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the President from altering command and control relationships within the Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the authority of Commander in Chief.
I suppose the justification for violating the laws is derived from the oath of office, and the idea that such an abrogation of the balance of powers and the system of checks and balances is in needed to, "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Never mind those pesky provisions in Art. I, Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To...
Clause 10: To define and punish ... Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
But this White House thinks that the acts which excercise those powers are based on "purported" authorities.
Purported. Not actual, no the powers the Constitution grants the Congress aren't real, but purported.
To read the text of the legal minds of this administration is to see that Congress has no real power. Declare, to them, means to say out loud. Congress doesn't make war, it merely announces. Once the President has decided war is needful, they get to come along for the ride, and (because there's a war on) they lose the power to make laws which affect some "Department[s] or Officer[s] thereof."
That, my friends, seems to be a statement that the President is trying to sieze dictatorial power.
He can do that, but only if we let him.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 02:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 02:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 03:13 am (UTC)NOW.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 06:54 pm (UTC)From a realpolitik point of view we needed to kick him out the last time around. We have a couple of chances left to avoid becoming a pariah, or at the least the bastard stepchild of the west.
Ike used the power of debt to get his way; with Eden, and Degaulle, and I forget whom else. Big way too, Britain got out of Suez, and France left Algeria. He threatened to call in our markers from the War.
China is in a place where it could start doing that. Japan might do some of that too. Europe could spend some money and make it a bigger problem.
So, mid-terms, or 2008. After that, well we have a screwed economic model (without much safety net to ameliorate a real depression) and a military that can't really take on a first world power (not the shape it's in now, and not for a while yet) so barring the use of nukes (as what, blackmail to keep the Money flowing our way?) we can't prevent becoming a second world power if those we've been selling our debt to decide to foreclose on the mortgage.
Armed revolt, the last (and very last) step. With the freeper talking points being as frightening as they are, it would be very ugly, take a long time, and lead, I think, to a real balkanization. I don't think the Union would survive.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 03:43 am (UTC)I feel so helpless. Like you, I see what is happening -- it's appalling, it's frightening. I keep saying this can't be happening -- but it is, and most people seem to be smiling and chatting while the nation's moral heart is being cut out.
I hear you.
Date: 2006-01-03 05:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 01:07 pm (UTC)I'm also concerned because it seems like when Bush speaks it seems he is medicated, drunk, stoned, or something. He pauses in odd places in his sentence structure and he slurs words and pronounces them oddly(Pronunciation trouble may be a byproduct of my own accent, and not real.) He seems to have difficulty with speech these days. I suppose he could have a health problem he's trying to hide.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-03 06:46 pm (UTC)But yes, the strain seems to be getting to him.
I just wish the press would up the strain.
TK