Posted on 02/16/2006 11:14:47 AM PST by wcdukenfield
I didn't say there was.
You have bought into the notion that our civil liberties are endangered by the president exercising his legitimate power.
Question begging.
The president, in this case, is free to intercept enemy communications
More question begging.
You want judicial review? The courts have ruled exactly as I have said.
The courts have not held that Congress lacks the power to regulate surveillance by the executive branch.
You want some history? Every president has viewed and exercised his power this way, and Congress, until now, has concurred.
They must have been sleepwalking when they passed FISA, then.
Congress gives him the means to carry out his authority, and decides how far those means go.
...Or Treason (disloyalty). ...Or Misdemeanor (bad attitude).
As for misdemeanor - funny.
I want to know the Constitutional clause which suggests that the courts have the authority to authorize a warrant to bug a phone in Germany (or otherwise monitor foreign communications). If they don't...then who do people think does? Pretty clearly that falls within the context of foreign policy, military or diplomatic.
I used to like George Will until I realized that his first loyalty is to the MSM, and that he is anti-evangelical.
You wrote:
Unfortunately, George Will believes that Congress has the power to micromanage the president's explicit commander-in-chief responsibilities. He reads the "necessary and proper clause" the way activist judges read the commerce clause, i.e., without context or limitation.
Will properly notes that the Constitution "empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws ™necessary and proper" for the execution of all presidential powers." [Will's emphasis.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps the problem here is that the clause does not empower Congress to make laws ™necessary and proper" for the execution of all presidential powers.
It says Congress has the power:
"--- 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. ---"
It says nothing about a congressional power "for the execution of all presidential powers". -- Nor does anything in the rest of the Constitution support that idea.
Will can only "properly note" that the Constitution "-- empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws ™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. ---"
The Constitution sets forth authorities. The Commander in Chief is responsible for directing the military in protecting the nation from foreign attacks. No other branch. Only Congress can authorize initiation of an aggressive war (Like if we decided we wanted to seize a peaceful Mexico just for the additional beach-front property), or *pay* for an army. Note that many laws Congress passes do not prohibit executive branch officials from running various programs, but rather state that no funds will be used to persue them. This is part of the inherent recognition that the Executive branch has authority of its own.
From the time of the attacks by the Barbary Pirates during the terms of Jefferson and Adams, it has been accepted by the courts that no such War declaration is neccessary if another group declares war on us, or attacks us. Such an explicit declaration does however trigger a whole gamut of additional laws and powers to go into effect (additional penalties for treason, habeus corpus suspension...etc.).
It may be. It may not be. At the level of the President, negligence can be treasonous.
What if the President decided that he wanted to take an extended golf vacation for a couple of years, broken only by the mandated State of the Union address? That would not be illegal, but would certainly be an issue of misdemeanor.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551281/posts
Every administration, liberal or conservative, has claimed this warrantless surveillance power, and no court has ever denied it. The FISA court of review explained, citing the 14th Circuit's 1980 decision in a case involving the surveillance of a Vietnamese spy named David Truong, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." The court added, "We take it for granted that the President does have that authority."
The court in the Truong case noted that the executive "not only has superior expertise in the area of foreign intelligence, it is also constitutionally designated as the pre-eminent authority in foreign affairs." And the Constitution's framers knew what they were about, according to the Truong court: "Attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign-intelligence initiatives."
Good heavens, well it could be worse- he could have cited the "general welfare" clause.
The Articles of Confederation gave congress the powers so many want to give them roday: "making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations."
But the Founders changed that in the Constitution- they wanted a strong executive. And one who could always act militarily in defense- on his own power.
"FRIDAY AUGUST 17th. IN CONVENTION
...Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.
Mr. SH[E]RMAN thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war."
The vote was 7 to 1.
You're right, negligence can be impeachable. But an impeachment still has to involve some kind of action (or inaction) that's harmful, and it would need to be proved. If he's conducting these activities behind the scenes, how is anyone in Congress to know if he's abusing his power? It's still an unrealistic check.
Providing rules for operations is not the same as directing them. Not in this language.
Carter (who signed FISA) signed off on a paragraph identical to the one bolded below. As a matter of fact, the Clinton EO is nearly identical to the Carter one. EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949
- - - - - - - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section 303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical searches:
(a) Secretary of State;
(b) Secretary of Defense;
(c) Director of Central Intelligence;
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(e) Deputy Secretary of State;
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.
Take it like a man and move on.
For god's sake don't follow me around crying.
I disagree. Andrew Johnson came within one vote of removal from office over what were basically political differences. There is no appeal to SCOTUS if a president is impeached and removed.
And each time I shoot down your misconceptions you run away and then post them on another thread.
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.