« 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

 

 


9 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution...

Section 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 offenses 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 officers 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.

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....

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

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.

You particularly ignore the part I have highlighted. The president is *never* a dictator, he must comply with the laws passed by Congress.

user-pic

Note also that part...

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

The president must obey the law.

user-pic

Superb Marq, Just superb!!!!

user-pic

♪ Music to the ear. ♪

user-pic

Holder seems to disagree with your interpretation

user-pic
Most of the trolls like you....

Give me a break. When I read that I quit reading.

user-pic

.

Good for you . . .

Now ... go sit on your thumb and suck on a plum.

~OGD~

user-pic

.

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.

In a ruling released Thursday, the court embraced the Protect America Act of 2007, which required telecommunications providers to assist the government for national security purposes in intercepting international phone calls and e-mails to and from points overseas.

www.washingtonpost.com/.../2009/01/15/

Although, the court did not address the legality of Bush's earlier actions that the New York Times brought to light in 2005.

The decision does not address the legality of an earlier warrantless surveillance program that the Bush administration secretly put in place without legislation from Congress, and which The New York Times exposed in 2005. The 2007 law that was the focus of the court ruling expired in 2008, but intelligence gathering efforts that it authorized remained in effect.

ibid.

Also: Here is the verbatim of the courts conclusion (my highlights):

CONCLUSION:

Our government is tasked with protecting an interest of utmost significance to the nation-the safety and security of its people. But the Constitution is the cornerstone of our freedoms, and government cannot unilaterally sacrifice constitutional rights on the altar of national security. Thus, in carrying out its national security mission, the government must simultaneously fulfill its constitutional responsibility to provide reasonable protections for the privacy of United States persons. The judiciary's duty is to hold that delicate balance steady and true.

We believe that our decision to uphold the PAA as applied in this case comports with that solemn obligation. In that regard, we caution that our decision does not constitute an endorsement of broad-based, indiscriminate executive power. Rather, our decision recognizes that where the government has instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions, its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts. This is such a case.

We need go no further. The decision granting the government's motion to compel is affirmed; the petition for review is denied and dismissed; and the motion for a stay is denied as moot.


Pages 28 and 26:

http://www.uscourts.gov/newsroom/2009/FISCR_Opinion.pdf

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~

user-pic

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".

Leave a comment

MiddleClassBill

user-pic

Following: 0
Followers: 9

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address