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
Have you guys checked the Patriot Act for any “special powers” that might be lurking in that huge pile of toilet paper?
I agree that we are again engaged in the battle to restore balance between the three branches. But disagree that one month will determine that interrelationship for “decades”. Support for the administration is beginning to fragment with each revelation of their consistent abuses of power.
I am cautiously optimistic that the forces acting against those abuses are gaining ground. When the democratic leadership in congress is joined by their republican counterparts – in the NSA case Graham & Specter – in a call for hearings, the administration takes note.
The Bush administration no longer operates in an “at will” environment.
Listening to Gonzales and Bush talk this morning, I think the C-in-C and AUMF things are going to play large for a long time.
Best,
Jeff
I missed the Gonzales lies this morning. Anyone know where I might find a transcript or video? Thanks for any assistance you may be able to offer me.
.
I love the expression: “Where I might find …”.
WASHINGTON (MSNBC)- U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales joined President Bush and other administration officials in defending the president’s secret order to allow domestic spying without a court order, telling NBC News that Bush has constitutional and congressional backing for “very limited, targeted” surveillance.
The president, as commander-in-chief, has certain authorities under the constitution, Gonzales said, and those were expanded by Congress to include electronic surveillance a few days after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
The president’s use of that authority is “consistent with law in my judgment,” he said, adding that he had met Sunday night with Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., and other senior lawmakers to explain the authority.
Gonzales defends Bush policy, senior Democrat calls it `power grab’.
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Berto and others will continue to cite that, which is a big reason I want folks to look at what Article I and II actually say.
Crooks and Liars had the video of Gonzales on the Today Show this morning.
To sum it up:
“Bush has these awesome god-like powers because WE SAY SO!”
But you can check the video at the link to get Gonzales warped version of it. He cites all of the things that we already know are not true.
So this explains Bush’s Civil War / Lincoln reference(s) last night?
(From your link to Lew Rockwell in your ePluribus paper).
I’m sure they lifted it right out of the Lincoln aruments.
Ask them a question: Given that the Atty General’s claim that the President can do anything to protect the nation during war will also apply to all of the Presidents who follow Bush, which do you fear more, Al Qaida or Hillary Clinton with unlimited power? I’m as progressive as it gets, and I’m far more afraid of Hillary. Concentration of power in the executive branch is a horrible idea regarldess of who holds the presidency.