FISA, spying on Al Qaeda in the USA and the Constitution
I had come to the conclusion a while back that congress cannot by statute limit the power of the executive as granted by the Constitution. It takes an amendment to do this.
I have seen some good arguments to the reverse like this one about default vs inherent powers, but in the end they failed to convince specifically because of THIS line of argument:
If it is true that congress can by statute limit the constutionally granted powers of another branch, then why can't congress require a supermajority, for instance of the Supreme Court (like 6-3 or 7-2) in order to reverse decisions already taken. After all a simple majority is nothing more than a default setting.
However now via Powerline comes more on this.
Yesterday, five former judges of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject of the amendments to FISA that have been proposed by Senator Arlen Specter. Earlier today, we noted a remarkable contrast in the reporting on the hearing by the Washington Times and the New York Times. The Washington Times headlined its story, "FISA Judges Say Bush Within Law," and reported:
A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
The New York Times headlined its article, "Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program," and wrote:
Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.
In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order.
Senator Feinstein: Judge?
Judge Stafford: Everyone is bound by the law, but I do not believe, with all due respect, that even an act of Congress can limit the President's power under the Necessary and Proper Clause under the Constitution.
***
Chairman Specter: I think the thrust of what you are saying is the President is bound by statute like everyone else unless it impinges on his constitutional authority, and a statute cannot take away the President's constitutional authority. Anybody disagree with that?
[No response.]
Chairman Specter: Everybody agrees with that.
The entire transcript is here
Equally upsetting is the total distortion by Lichtblau of the NYT whose book depends on a criminal president for increasing sales.
Here is HIS presentation:
Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."
Nowhere in Mr Lichtblau's article is the opposing view presented, analyzed, or weighed.
The New York Times is a complete JOKE at this point.
Categories
Constitutional Issues1 TrackBack
TrackBack URL: http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/mt-tb.cgi/2894
TITLE: ticket broker secret URL: http://rxsafemeds.org/ticket-broker-secret.htm IP: 83.219.129.118 BLOG NAME: ticket broker secret DATE: 01/20/2007 04:40:10 AM Read More
Leave a comment