« Josh's view of the TARP | MiddleClassBill's Blog | Anyone surprised about a stimulus package including birth control? »
Holder and wiretaps
I thought it was interesting, per today's WSJ, that Holder has backed down on prior statement's about the Bush administration and wiretapping.
He told Congress last week that he agress that "certain things that a President has the constitutional right, authority to do, that the legislative branch cannot impinge upon"
This seems to contradict his prior statements about Bush's "disrespect for the law". So maybe FISA doesn't trump Article II?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123240914892295861.html
Advertisement





Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution...
There is no power therein to override law signed by Congress and signed by the President. Most of the trolls like you interpret the first 34 words as if he would be a dictator
However, you inevitably ignore Article I, Section 8....
You particularly ignore the part I have highlighted. The president is *never* a dictator, he must comply with the laws passed by Congress.
January 20, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note also that part...
The president must obey the law.
January 20, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Superb Marq, Just superb!!!!
January 20, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
♪ Music to the ear. ♪
January 20, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holder seems to disagree with your interpretation
January 20, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a break. When I read that I quit reading.
January 20, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Good for you . . .
Now ... go sit on your thumb and suck on a plum.
~OGD~
January 20, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
One must see the the larger picture...
Keep in mind that in this specific instance, Hatch and Holder were discussing the specific case where the government required telecommunications providers to assist the government for national security purposes.
Although, the court did not address the legality of Bush's earlier actions that the New York Times brought to light in 2005.
Also: Here is the verbatim of the courts conclusion (my highlights):
I think Holder, during his confirmation hearing did NOT rule out investigating the earlier actions of Bush and the administration in relation to the law at that time to see if the government simultaneously fulfilled its constitutional responsibility to provide reasonable protections for the privacy of United States persons and that the government also had instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions.
I wouldn't do any harm for Holder to look into it.
Only time will tell.
~OGD~
January 20, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The larger picture?
I think it's a pretty big enough picture that Holder is now tap dancing on whether Bush's wiretapping was illegal. He agrees that the President's powers under Article 2 trump any statute.
Now that Obama's in power we will see if the White House continues to do what it once said was "illegal".
January 20, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink