Posted on 09/29/2006 3:05:32 AM PDT by EBH
I believe Mr. Bush is the one who's confused. He thinks that being CinC in wartime releases him to do whatever he thinks is necessary; but since Congress has the power to regulate the military, his being CinC in wartime only puts him under Congress's thumb (in regards to defense operations).
Think of it this way: imagine a pacifist President who refuses to order the military into action after Congress declares war. If we accept Bush's argument about the President's Article II powers, the Congress would have to accept that President's refusal to act.
I don't think any of us would expect Congress to do that, though.
"Its not a matter of limiting power, but keeping the executive within the powers it already has and not expanding that."
What part of Commander in Chief was expanded? (All Presidents have had this power in the past).
"This law is in direct conflict with the 4th amendment. Regardless of the situation the founding fathers knew that since the presidency is a revolving door its powers should be kept in check."
Our constitution was written for everyone around the world, including those that are trying to destroy us and our constitution? Including those who have never set foot on our soil? (Please read the Preamble of the US Constitution. Who does it say it was written by? The first 7 words should answer that question.)
"I believe Mr. Bush is the one who's confused. He thinks that being CinC in wartime releases him to do whatever he thinks is necessary; but since Congress has the power to regulate the military, his being CinC in wartime only puts him under Congress's thumb (in regards to defense operations)."
First of all, this issue does not involve the military.
Second, the President is Commander in Chief, not Congress.
Third, Congress has to power to declare war, but that does not mean that the President has to act or react in any specific way. If the President does not order the military to respond there is a way to take care of that. It is called impeachment.
Thanks, it's just unfathomable that people wish to extend rights to terrorists working in caves around the world to destroy this country.
And when did the terrorists sign the Geneva Convention? I must have missed that too.
"And when did the terrorists sign the Geneva Convention? I must have missed that too."
First of all, you are welcome.
Second, I must have missed the news about terrorists signing the Geneva Convention also. I guess we are both slackers on this issue. Either that or they never signed it.
There must have been a terrorists convention in Indonesia on a Saturday night here when we were out cuz I'm pretty sure I missed the treaty signing. :)
Every time I call my friends in Pakistan, and Iran, arranging for news interviews as a stringer for the New York times, in exchange for intelligence info on the New York Port Authority, I hear this tap, tap, tapping on my phone line! (Could it be the Presidents foot?)
I'm with you on this one.
True, but the CinC is subordinate to Congress because of its power to regulate the military. This is why I say that CinC is a separate job from President, with the only job qualification being that the jobholder is President. This is the only way to square Congress's power over the military with the President's independence under the separation of powers. This means that the CinC's powers don't carry over to the Presidency, and that they are less rather than more anyway.
Only when its their party in power. If, in 2008, we do get a Democrat president and a majority of Democrats in Congress, with all these new government powers passed by Republicans, suddenly FR will see a change--you won't believe how many patriots are out there (sort of akin to how just about every Frenchman was a member of the Resistance after WWII--NOT).
Memories are pretty short (some on purpose). Part of Clinton's problem in 9/11 happening was that he didn't truly regard terrorists as the real enemy, but rather gun owners, the truly religious, and those who didn't think the Constitution was written on toilet paper, who lived in his own country.
"True, but the CinC is subordinate to Congress because of its power to regulate the military."
No, Congress is to regulate the military during war and during peace. The President is CinC all the time also. One is not suborinate to the other. They are equals.
A while back, before I took something of a hiatus from Free Republic, I was much in protest of this very sort of thing. I felt that Executive power was overstepping its bounds.
I made a mistake, and I was wrong. We are embroiled in a serious multi-front war against an enemy whom will stop at absolutely nothing to kill us. There is no new low that this enemy will refuse to stoop to in its quest to eradicate our civilization. They have declared war on our freedom to be free from tyrants such as themselves, and thus they use every means possible to turn those freedoms against us.
Freedom is for those that respect freedom. No one wants to listen into the conversations of ordinary Americans, and if they tried they would not get away with it for long. To state otherwise is to ignore the many checks and balances that exist within our society provided by the very freedoms that some simply take for granted.
This wiretapping is absolutely essential to protecting our freedoms in this War on Terror against an enemy that desires to overthrow our civilization and take credit for all our accomplishments over the centuries, much as they did to the Byzantine Empire and others.
We must stop them.
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.