Thursday, August 17, 2006
So... The President doesn't have the authority to break the law?
Let me get this straight...
In the post-Nixon era, Congress decided to restrict the Executive Branch's authority to eavesdrop on US citizens. It is, therefore, illegal for the Administration to tap into conversations without judicial oversight. The Administration sought and obtained modifications to FISA following 9-ll, but decided that it was undully cumbersome and ill-adapted to the War on Terror. Therefore, citing its "inherent powers," the Bush Administration authorized the secret interception of communications and, when caught having violated the law, audaciously claimed that the President can ignore laws that infringe on his Constitutional authority because no such law is really binding. In this context, a law that oversteps the Legislative powers need not be challenged through the recognized judicial processes because it is not REALLY a law anyway... It is more of a "suggestion."
(And MQAblog and Deuce wanted to impeach Bush for Iraq? Boy did y'all miss the boat!!!)
It is an amazingly brazen argument that the Administration is making. Were it only an argument, not an accomplished deed, it would be a mere footnote in Constitutional history. But... its not.
The Bush Administration broke the law. Let me repeat that... because it bears repeating... The Administration BROKE the law!!! I don't mean they stretched it or manipulated it, they knowingly, with malice of forethought, bent FISA over a barrel and went to town on it.
I wonder though... is the silence of the people, the opposition, and the GOP a sign of the times? Are we so enamored with power and audacious, outrageous conduct that even the violation of law is accepted?
There is a lot of recent history to suggest that the answer to that query is a definitive "yes." Can our Republic survive in a world where the power to do something is equivalent to the authority or right to do something? Have we reached the point that we no longer expect lawful behavior from one another?
Uggh... What a world.
In the post-Nixon era, Congress decided to restrict the Executive Branch's authority to eavesdrop on US citizens. It is, therefore, illegal for the Administration to tap into conversations without judicial oversight. The Administration sought and obtained modifications to FISA following 9-ll, but decided that it was undully cumbersome and ill-adapted to the War on Terror. Therefore, citing its "inherent powers," the Bush Administration authorized the secret interception of communications and, when caught having violated the law, audaciously claimed that the President can ignore laws that infringe on his Constitutional authority because no such law is really binding. In this context, a law that oversteps the Legislative powers need not be challenged through the recognized judicial processes because it is not REALLY a law anyway... It is more of a "suggestion."
(And MQAblog and Deuce wanted to impeach Bush for Iraq? Boy did y'all miss the boat!!!)
It is an amazingly brazen argument that the Administration is making. Were it only an argument, not an accomplished deed, it would be a mere footnote in Constitutional history. But... its not.
The Bush Administration broke the law. Let me repeat that... because it bears repeating... The Administration BROKE the law!!! I don't mean they stretched it or manipulated it, they knowingly, with malice of forethought, bent FISA over a barrel and went to town on it.
I wonder though... is the silence of the people, the opposition, and the GOP a sign of the times? Are we so enamored with power and audacious, outrageous conduct that even the violation of law is accepted?
There is a lot of recent history to suggest that the answer to that query is a definitive "yes." Can our Republic survive in a world where the power to do something is equivalent to the authority or right to do something? Have we reached the point that we no longer expect lawful behavior from one another?
Uggh... What a world.
# posted by Gorgius Vegetius : 5:53 PM
