In a country supposedly ruled by law, Bush asserts that when it comes to countering terrorism:
“Anything we do to that end in this effort, any activity
we conduct, is within the law.”
Ignore, for a moment, that the statement boldly claims that anything –ANYTHING– is lawful.
Focus instead on what are the legal grounds for Bush’s assertion.
In his ePluribus Media piece The Ides of December: Smoke, Mirrors, and War Powers, Jeff Huber sets out to analyze Bush’s supposed “plenary power.” Not surprising, the precedents are shaky at best.
Assisted by KagroX, DEFuning, and Cache, Huber walks us through an analysis of constitutional and legislative works on which Bush purports his powers rest.
It’s not just that Bush sold this war to the American public on a lie, but the legal framework on which the Administration bases its powergrab has questionable application.
Huber writes:
But assertions that Mr. Bush or any American President has “plenary power” to make his own law or suspend civil liberties in time of war–declared or otherwise–are fuzzy constitutionality at best.
From the Top of the Deck
Article II of the United States Constitution defines the authority of the executive branch of the federal government. Here’s what it says about the President’s war powers:
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…
…and…
…shall commission all the officers of the United States.
That’s it. The Constitution mentions nothing about granting the President authority to assume any other powers or suspend laws in times of war.
Please read Huber’s vigorous analysis at the ePluribus Media Journal. Do you agree with his conclusions? Help us discover more at our community site.
ePluribus Media contributors include:
KagroX, Cache, Cho, Stoy, DEFuning, Stoy, Sue in KY, Standingup, JeninRI
