Posted on 12/20/2005 7:29:54 AM PST by kellynla
WASHINGTON -- The president's authorization of domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency contravened a statute's clear language. Assuming that urgent facts convinced him that he should proceed anyway and on his own, what argument convinced him that he lawfully could?
Presumably the argument is that the president's implied powers as commander in chief, particularly with the nation under attack and some of the enemy within the gates, are not limited by statutes. A classified legal brief probably makes an argument akin to one Attorney General John Ashcroft made in 2002: ``The Constitution vests in the president inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority.''
Perhaps the brief argues, as its author John Yoo -- now a professor of law at Berkeley, but then a deputy assistant attorney general -- argued 14 days after 9/11 in a memorandum on ``the president's constitutional authority to conduct military operations against terrorists and nations supporting them,'' that the president's constitutional power to take ``military actions'' is ``plenary.'' The Oxford English Dictionary defines ``plenary'' as ``complete, entire, perfect, not deficient in any element or respect.''
The brief should be declassified and debated, beginning with this question: Who decides which tactics -- e.g., domestic surveillance -- should be considered part of taking ``military actions''?
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Off subject, but did you see the look that George Will gave Mohair Sam when he called supporters of Christmas "Yahoos"?
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Because he did not need to. He had the power without Congressional authorization.
The question in my mind is this: If Congress did not think that the President had the power to intercept phone calls from al Qaeda to the US without a Congressional authorization, then why did it not pass one?
There can be nothing more fundamental than that power in this war on terror. It is essential that the President have that power. So, if they thought he did not, then why did they not pass it?
Answer: It's just another fine example of the Congress not doing its job. Congress is directly to blame for the attack on 911, and it really hasn't done much of anything since then to prevent a second 911 style attack.
Haliburton.
Q: Why didn't Bush as Congress?
A: He didn't want the enemy to know what his plans were.
Everyone knows that if you want to let your enemies know what is going on clue in Congress. These bums can't keep their mouths shut for a nano-second on anything.
Let's start with getting the Dems to pass the Patriot Act.
George Will, the elitist useful idiot for the left. As Mark Levin stated yesterday on Hannity's show, the President's authorization was completely legal!!!
George Will, go back to drooling over Gennifer Granholm.
as = ask
Karl Rove did it.
Karl Rove did it.
Hard to tell if the major players are really on OUR side.
Maybe because he didn't want the enemies of this country to know about it!
But the RATS do.
George Will classifies Bush as a conservative???? George needs to pay more attention to politics.
The original Authority
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787;
"the President is empowered to repel sudden attacks without awaiting congressional action and to make clear that the conduct of war is vested exclusively in the President."
Because he didn't need to and there is too many leaks in congress.
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.