Who Needs Checks and Balances?
While I think it's quite nice that Jane Harman and John Conyers want Congress to pass a bill to make it clear "that any attempt to listen in on Americans or collect telephone or e-mail records must be conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978", I'm not sure what good they think this will do, at least not under the current Administration. The President has already stated that he believes he has the authority to "set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution."
I believe that this Administration has done more than any other, in my lifetime, to expand the powers of the Presidency in ways not only never contemplated by the Constitution but not allowable under it. We were given a tripartite government for a reason, and that reason was to make sure that no branch of government should be so powerful that it could, effectively, do whatever it wanted without concern for the other two branches.
The powers of the branches of government were clearly laid out by the founding fathers.
Article I, Section I, which clearly states that Congress is the branch of government which gets to pass the laws.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article II, Section III, which clearly states that the President has the power to execute the laws.
he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Article I, Section VII, which clearly states that the President has the right to object to any laws Congress has passed by refusing to sign them, after which Congress can override his objection by a 2/3 majority.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.
Article III, Section II, which clearly states the Supreme Court gets to judge the constitutionality of cases.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...
It seems to me, and has been accepted practice in this country for a couple of hundred years, that the flow of government works like this: Congress passes a law. If the President disagrees with that law, he can veto it. If Congress overrides his veto, and he still disagrees with it as being unconstitutional in his view, he can take a case to the Supreme Court arguing that it is unconstitutional.* The Supreme Court then rules on the constitutionality of the law. If they find it constitutional, then the President is bound to faithfully execute it. If the President or Congress disagree with a Supreme Court ruling, the President can recommend to Congress or Congress on its own can attempt to amend the Constitution. The President can also select nominees to serve on the Supreme Court. No branch of government escapes a check from another.
Unless, of course, one branch simply decides it can ignore this entire flow and act on its own. This seems precisely to me what President Bush is doing in arguing that he has the power to ignore "any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution." We've managed to keep our Republic this long. Ben Franklin's jocular warning, however, may prove eerily omniscient. I applaud the calls of certain members of Congress for hearings, especially those members who are Republican. I hope they aren't swayed by the fact that an apparent 63% of Americans support the latest disclosure on warrantless data collection. We were given a Republic, if we can keep it, for a reason.
*Any citizen has the same right to challenge the constitutionality of a law, but this isn't relevant to the particular point I'm making.
Comments
Don't take this as defending shrub, but this is nothing new. Each of the previous presidents, at least as far back as Carter, used executive orders to increase domestic spying powers. The loony left likes to claim shrub invented spying but they forget predator and carnicoure as well as executive orders signed by willy to change the scope of wire taps. Bush I Reagan and Carter all signed executive orders expanding eavesdropping power. Shrub has done nothing past presidents haven't done.
Right wingnuts like to claim "Hey we are at war..." a database with phone call patterns is not a significant change in domestic spying, nor is it a significant change from what we already have been doing in a bipartisan manner for decades.
I guess there is a bit of truth to the wingnut arguement. It isn't much different from the status quo.
(Stealing Reason's metaphore Re: eminent domain) Are a few grains of sand a hill? Then surely a few grains on top of a few grains are not a hill. A few grains is so insignificant that adding a few grains cannot possibly create a hill, right?
Someday sometime someone has to realize that the status quo has "created a hill" of civil liberty violations. They all have been robbing us of our right to privacy. "But Justin there is no constitutional right to privacy." Bullshit. Where does it say we DON'T have a right to privacy? Then by the 10th we have it. Not that SCOTUS can read and apply the 10th properly.
The point of my rant? demicans and republicrats are two sides of the same wooden nickel (how's that for a mixed metaphore?) Want someone that won't rob you of your rights? Don't count on either major party.
Posted by: Justin | May 18, 2006 11:01 PM
I'm not claiming that other presidents haven't attempted to increase spying powers. I don't disagree regarding Democrats and Republicans both trying to infringe on our civil liberties. I just think that Bush has shown a particular contempt for the law. I do not recall any other president claiming they didn't have to uphold laws they disagreed with. No wonder Bush hasn't vetoed any bills. Why veto a bill if you think you can unilaterally disregard it?
Posted by: Lesley | May 19, 2006 06:42 AM
We have had presidents ignore or disobey the law from the founding of the country. Jefferson with the Luisiana land purchase comes to mind. Others have had thier run-ins with the law and SCOTUS. I forget which case it was but there was a significant SCOTUS ruling based upon a law, ruled as constitutional that the President chose not to execute SCOTUS basically said sure it is a legal law, but the congress has no power to force the prsident to execute it.
I am not a particular fan of obeying a law when it is unconstitutional. Disobedience may be a moral imperative in some cases. (Not this one)
Anyway the point I was trying to get across is that for anyone to count on some other sanctimonius ass to be different because he has a D next to his name is to ignore history. Demicans and Republicrats will (and do) act the same when it suits them. They are two sides of the same coin. FDR, the patron saint of the democrat party, had many contra-constitutional programs - he threatened and appointed the court with compliant anti-constitutionalists to get them to rule in his favor.
Posted by: Justin | May 20, 2006 07:00 AM