Update to previous post
Mar. 26th, 2006 04:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThe DoJ has answered a set of Congressional questions, which put more light on what I was ranting about.
Both parties submitted questions, and number 5, from the Republicans was if the Executive had agreed to be bound by FISA when President Carter signed it in '78. The phrasing of the question offends me, as it implies the president has some discretion in obeying laws. Citizens do not get to "agree" to obey the law, be it speed limits or murder, they were passed, and we are bound by them. If one doesn't like them one may move to someplace which has preferable laws.
The President is not separate from the rest of the citizenry. He is, for a period of years, primus inter pares. To ask if he agrees to be bound by the laws betrays a strange disconnect from the idea of "Equal justice before the law" and the idea that it is equal for all.
The answer; well that was worse.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statutes inconsistent with the Constitution must yield. The basic principle of our system of government means that no President, merely by assenting to a piece of legislation, can diminish the scope of the President's constitutional power. . . .
Just as one President may not, through signing legislation, eliminate the Executive Branch's inherent constitutional powers, Congress may not renounce inherent presidential authority.
So far, so good, and I can't really argue with it. If Congress were to pass a law which said it was illegal for the president to veto a class of legislation, that would be unacceptable. This White House, however, didn't stop there.
The Constitution grants the President the inherent power to protect the nation from foreign attack, and Congress may not impede the President's ability to perform his constitutional duty.“ (citations omitted).
May not impede. That, my friends, is damned vague. What counts as impediment?
Glenn Greenwald also points this out. When one combines answer 27 to the mix,"In order to execute the laws and defend the Constitution, the President must be able to interpret them. The interpretation of law, both statutory and constitutional, is therefore an indispensable and well established government function." it seems there is no check this administration will allow.
Interpret statutes... some of that is the power of oversight. A cop gets to interpret the enforcement of things. How he present the evidence to the D.A. can make the difference between self-defense (and therefore justifiable homicide) and a charge of willful murder.
Where I really balk is the part where the Office of the President gets to interpret the Constitution.
No. Not at all. Full Stop.
If we have a Holy Writ for how we do business as a nation; some set of principle cast in stone the Constitution is it, and the priests who get to interpret it are judges. They are not a self-selecting priesthood, rather they are nominated by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Giving the Executive the power to selectively enforce (which can't really be taken away) the law, and interpret the basis for them... that is kingly, and not consitent with the principles of the nation.
If one reads the Federalist papers, (so beloved of Conservatives, and "strict constructionalsts") this sort of combination of powers is a horror. A tragedy in the making. A sign of tyranny and the seeds of despotism.
The Constitution adressed these issues in the very beginning.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We the People were securing those blessing to ourselves and we are preserving it for our posterity. They are not a grant of largesse from on high. We the People did this, they not something to be given to us, they are our by right.
We give up the little things at our peril. We secure them, and we secure them by keeping them. When the least encroachment is made, we much scream and howl as though our very life were in mortal peril, because it is.
Both parties submitted questions, and number 5, from the Republicans was if the Executive had agreed to be bound by FISA when President Carter signed it in '78. The phrasing of the question offends me, as it implies the president has some discretion in obeying laws. Citizens do not get to "agree" to obey the law, be it speed limits or murder, they were passed, and we are bound by them. If one doesn't like them one may move to someplace which has preferable laws.
The President is not separate from the rest of the citizenry. He is, for a period of years, primus inter pares. To ask if he agrees to be bound by the laws betrays a strange disconnect from the idea of "Equal justice before the law" and the idea that it is equal for all.
The answer; well that was worse.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statutes inconsistent with the Constitution must yield. The basic principle of our system of government means that no President, merely by assenting to a piece of legislation, can diminish the scope of the President's constitutional power. . . .
Just as one President may not, through signing legislation, eliminate the Executive Branch's inherent constitutional powers, Congress may not renounce inherent presidential authority.
So far, so good, and I can't really argue with it. If Congress were to pass a law which said it was illegal for the president to veto a class of legislation, that would be unacceptable. This White House, however, didn't stop there.
The Constitution grants the President the inherent power to protect the nation from foreign attack, and Congress may not impede the President's ability to perform his constitutional duty.“ (citations omitted).
May not impede. That, my friends, is damned vague. What counts as impediment?
Glenn Greenwald also points this out. When one combines answer 27 to the mix,"In order to execute the laws and defend the Constitution, the President must be able to interpret them. The interpretation of law, both statutory and constitutional, is therefore an indispensable and well established government function." it seems there is no check this administration will allow.
Interpret statutes... some of that is the power of oversight. A cop gets to interpret the enforcement of things. How he present the evidence to the D.A. can make the difference between self-defense (and therefore justifiable homicide) and a charge of willful murder.
Where I really balk is the part where the Office of the President gets to interpret the Constitution.
No. Not at all. Full Stop.
If we have a Holy Writ for how we do business as a nation; some set of principle cast in stone the Constitution is it, and the priests who get to interpret it are judges. They are not a self-selecting priesthood, rather they are nominated by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Giving the Executive the power to selectively enforce (which can't really be taken away) the law, and interpret the basis for them... that is kingly, and not consitent with the principles of the nation.
If one reads the Federalist papers, (so beloved of Conservatives, and "strict constructionalsts") this sort of combination of powers is a horror. A tragedy in the making. A sign of tyranny and the seeds of despotism.
The Constitution adressed these issues in the very beginning.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We the People were securing those blessing to ourselves and we are preserving it for our posterity. They are not a grant of largesse from on high. We the People did this, they not something to be given to us, they are our by right.
We give up the little things at our peril. We secure them, and we secure them by keeping them. When the least encroachment is made, we much scream and howl as though our very life were in mortal peril, because it is.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-25 11:50 pm (UTC)The more I hear the neocons fulminate against the judiciary and promise them retribution for decisions the neocons dislike, the more I wonder if all those people slept through all their civics classes. They don't want separation of powers. They want agglomeration of powers...for themselves and the president. I wish we could impeach legislators like that for their lack of understanding and protection of the separation of powers. Simply voting them out seems not harsh enough for their ilk. But perhaps I am being overly vengeful.