Will Republican Senators Save the Republic?

[donheld]

Wednesday 21 December 2005

I'll say this for Vice President Dick Cheney: he puts it right out there, whether it is trying to ensure legal protection for those torturing prisoners, or insisting - as he did on Tuesday - that in wartime the president "needs to have his powers unimpaired." And Cheney and Bush would have us believe it is they who define the constitutional powers of the president.

Supporters of this view are dredging up quotes from former officials like George H.W. Bush's attorney general William Barr who, according to the Washington Post, contends:

"The Constitution's intent when we're under attack from outside is to place maximum power in the president, and the other branches - and especially the courts - don't act as a check on the president's authority against the enemy."

So there it is. The George W. Bush administration contends that the president's power as commander in chief during wartime means that he is above the law. Small wonder that he bristled at a question from the press about "unchecked power." Whether authorizing torture or wiretaps, he reserves the right to act irrespective of domestic or international law.

The question is whether Congress and the courts will continue to roll over and play dead, or whether men and women of principle honor their oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic." Some hope can be seen in a recent remark by Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, who told reporters:

"I took an oath of office to the Constitution. I didn't take an oath of office to my party or to my president."
Will enough Republican senators honor that oath? Our system of checks and balances hangs in the balance, so to speak. The president has thrown down the gauntlet by declaring he will continue to authorize eavesdropping that, by law, requires a court order. Will senators pick up the gauntlet, or will they run away home to grandmother's house for Christmas?



<<<<This is the heart of the matter. Are these people American's first and Republican's second or Republican's first and Americans second>>>>

[unblock]

1. where in the constitution does it say "except when under attack"??

nevermind that a single suicidal assault by 19 now dead people is hardly the kind of "under attack" scenario that the founders would have figured to mean the suspension of everything else in the constitution.

i mean, if the structure was meant to change radically during wartime, YA THINK THE FOUNDERS MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION???

according the cheney, when congress authorized shrub to use force against iraq, apparently they were also authorizing shrub to wiretap political opponents and generally become a dictator. give some people an inch....

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Even Lincoln didn't try to grab the power that Bush wants

and no one can doubt that HE was under attack!

[ddeclue]

3. Unenumerated powers and the "magic genie" defense...

The Executive power mentioned in Article II Section 1, only means the power to execute the laws that have been passed by Congress nothing more. The President has NO powers not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Every branch has powers which are specifically enumerated in the document and all powers that are not enumerated to the Government are reserved to the People, not the government as explicitly stated in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution:

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In fact you need to call any "conservative" that makes the argument that the President has "magic" unenumerated powers on this because they are the ones who claim to be for small government and states rights. Now they are changing their tune because George has gone and confessed to a felony.

The enumerated powers of the President are listed in Article 2 section 2 as follows:
"Sect. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other offices of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session."

Nowhere in Article 2 Section 2 does it grant the President the magical power to ignore the separation of powers or the 4th Amendment or the right to break or ignore the law (which would be a violation of the separation of powers as well as illegal.) In fact it is the President's duty to enforce and execute the law, hence the title Chief Executive.

If he could violate the 4th Amendment on the basis he claims, then why not any other provision of the Constitution, say the 22nd Amendment limiting him to 2 terms, or the term of office listed in Article 2. Why bother with a Constitution at all?

These enumerated Executive powers are relatively weak compared to those granted to Congress which authored the Constitution. The Legislative body granted itself far more extensive powers and if you have read the Federalist papers (particularly #69,#70) you would know that they were very much afraid of the President becoming a King and made comparisons in Federalist #69, and #70 as to how the President was intended to be much weaker than a King.

This defense he's putting up is the "magic genie" defense. You know you buy the lamp at the bazaar and take it home. You rub the lamp and a genie pops out and grants you three wishes. Well George Bush is trying to use the third wish to ask for a thousand more wishes.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[indepat]

4. When was it again that the Congress declared war?

[donheld]

5. Never!