(Posting times are EDT)
I love the consistency of KVH's distortions.
If one reads the Boston Globe article in context and separating out the reporter's obvious agenda, what you are left with is something quite desirable for our American Democracy.
The issue that Bush is rightfully asserting is: Can Congress override the Constitutional authority directly given to the Executive Branch? If so, then we no longer have 3 equal branches of government.
This issue should be and ultimately will be decided in the Supreme Court as our Constitution has wisely provided for.
It will not and should not be decided by left or right wing agenda groups who want greater power for their side than is provided for in the Constitution.
If you want to change the balance of powers and enumerated authorities given to each branch, change the Constitution. Until then, some of us remain thankful for a president who challenges one branch who wants to illegally usurp the enumerated powers of another branch.
Not let all the usual left wing voices run rampant with their "defense" of usurping the enumerated powers. They do it often on this site so it should be no surprise if they do so again.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/01/2006 @ 12:50am
. . . and the response:LL's reasoning is more preposterous than usual today. I know that's saying a mouthful.
The issue that Bush is rightfully asserting is: Can Congress override the Constitutional authority directly given to the Executive Branch? If so, then we no longer have 3 equal branches of government. The issue also works the other way. The issue that Bush's critics are asserting is:
Can the chief executive override legislation passed by Congress? Of course, he can in a limited way. It's called a
veto and the president may use it. This one has not. It also seems curious to me that a Republican Congress would pass legislation that would bind the hands of a Republican president.
If you want to change the balance of powers and enumerated authorities given to each branch, change the Constitution. Until then, some of us remain thankful for a president who challenges one branch who wants to illegally usurp the enumerated powers of another branch. Gee, nothing like begging the question, LL. What makes Bush right in this case? You have to take each case individually, by the way; the president does not have blanket authority to just dismiss laws Congress passes any more than he has the authority to decree legislation. Andrew Johnson was absolutely right to challenge the tenure of office act in 1868. He was nearly removed from office over it, but the Constitution does say that cabinet officers will serve at the pleasure of the president.
One of the pieces of legislation cited by
The Boston Globe which Bush has chosen to ignore is a torture ban. What gives Bush the right to ignore this? The US is a party to the Convention against Torture, which categorically bans the practice. Under Article 6 of the main body of the Constitution, it is the law of the land. Consequently, not even his authority as Commander in Chief gives him the right to ignore an international treaty to which the US is party. What is the dispute about Congress passes legislation regulating the use of torture.?Torture is illegal, period. Bush can't make it legal by decree. If any detainees are being tortured for any reason, not only is it an impeachable offense, it is a crime against humanity.
Mr. Bush is relying on the Nixonian unitary executive theory, best summed up by Nixon himself as
if the president does it, then it isn't illegal. That is utter horsepucky. It should be noted that Nixon made that remark in a post-resignation interview with British journalist Sir David Frost. It was not so much a legal theory as a loud, obscene howl of wounded animal. Nixon resigned not for the good of the country but because it was a forgone conclusion that he was about to be impeached and removed from office for violating the very laws he had sworn to uphold.
If the president breaks the law, then the president is an outlaw. Bush richly deserves the same fate as Nixon. If anything, he is even more reckless and irresponsible in claims of unbridled executive power than Nixon. Our Constitution provides for separation of powers and checks and balances. The Nixonian presidency discards that and makes the president a dictator and the only check against his power is a quadrennial plebiscite, which as we now know too well, would be meaningless if voters were purged from the rolls, made to wait hours in line, or votes just not counted or counted by some machine error wrong.
His Imperial Incompetency has exceeded his authority. It's time to dethrone him and replace him with a real president.
Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/01/2006 @ 2:18pm