Monday, October 29, 2007

I Told You We Are Just Trading Facists At The Helm of DOJ

I almost missed this well written editorial in the NY Times last week by Jed Rubenfeld, Thanks to The Daily KOS for pointing it out:

AT his confirmation hearings last week, Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, was asked whether the president is required to obey federal statutes. Judge Mukasey replied, “That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country.”…….

It is true that a president may in rare cases disregard a federal statute — but only when Congress has acted outside its authority by passing a statute that is unconstitutional. (Who gets the last word on whether a statute is unconstitutional is something Americans have long debated and probably will always debate.)

But that is not what Judge Mukasey said. What he said, and what many members of the current administration have claimed, would radically transform this accepted point of law into a completely different and un-American concept of executive power.

According to Judge Mukasey’s statement, as well as other parts of his testimony, the president’s authority “to defend the nation” trumps his obligation to obey the law. Take the federal statute governing military commissions in Guantánamo Bay. No one, including the president’s lawyers, argues that this statute is unconstitutional. The only question is whether the president is required to obey it even if in his judgment the statute is not the best way “to defend the nation.”

If he is not, we no longer live under the government the founders established.

Under the American Constitution, federal statutes, not executive decisions in the name of national security, are “the supreme law of the land.” It’s that simple. So long as a statute is constitutional, it is binding on everyone, including the president.

The president has no supreme, exclusive or trumping authority to “defend the nation.” In fact, the Constitution uses the words “provide for the common defense” in its list of the powers of Congress, not those of the president.

I told you all before, this guy was just as bad as “Al”

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, was A. Lincoln a Facist also?

Thursday, November 1, 2007 2:55:00 PM EDT  
Blogger Curlydog - Bill said...

You're not just comparing apples to oranges you are comparing apples to hockey sticks(or any other irrev
lent object).

The Constitution clearly grants the the President authority to suspend habeas corpus during Rebellion or Inavasion! Abe had a bit of an rebellion on his hands.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Nor did Abe even remotely profess the classic signs of fascism that this administration does, plus Mussolini did not coin the term until the 1930s :)

Thursday, November 1, 2007 6:28:00 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more, I just wanted to be sure you weren't putting Abe and W. in the same box.

Friday, November 2, 2007 9:07:00 AM EDT  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home