> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 7:02 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: VP not part of Executive Branch? > > Dan wrote: > > > In conclusion, when I was talking about precedents, I was not thinking > > about justifying Bush's actions. They were so ham-handed that even > > someone who > > would support similar powers for the Commander-in-Chief would tend to > > oppose what Bush actually did. What I was talking about was the legal > > framework in which the other two branches of government were operating > > in...and why > > simple condemnation of their actions as weak and unprecedented doesn't > > really fit our history...and does not provide a good understanding of > the > > dynamics. > > I simply disagree. Our government was designed to separate powers. In > this instance not only are they not separate, they augment the power of > the president.
It may not be a good interpretation of the original intent of the founders, but I think it is consistent with decisions of the Supreme Court over the last 140 or so years. I don't think either one of us is a strict constructionist overall. Now, I'll agree that this interpretation of the Constitution is a bit sketchy...I'd like to see a different balance between Congress and the President on war powers, but I was not arguing whether Bush having this power is a good thing. Rather, my original point is that it is based on decisions of the Supreme Court that were based on the general acceptance of Lincoln's actions as Constitutional. Lower courts are, and should be, very hesitant in changing the interpretation of the Constitution from what has been set. Even if the judge doesn't think the actions of Bush are reasonable, (s)he might rule that they are constitutional, based on past cases. The Supreme Court is also somewhat hesitant to make massive changes in the established case law by overturning decisions of earlier Supreme Courts. If you look at the Supreme Court's actions, they are clearly hesitant to define the law here....hoping that Congress would be the branch of government that would balance out the President. The history of the Supreme Court going toe to toe with the President is rather mixed, so I generally favor this type of restraint. In particular, the actions of the Supreme Court in the '30s, declaring much of the New Deal as unconstitutional, and the danger that an activist Rehnquist court would remove the foundation of Federal power in it's opinion on the original intent of the commerce clause. (This didn't happen, but I recall reading in the NY Times of what might happen if the court followed it's logic one more step). One thing I do, when it comes to the powers of the branches of government, I try to set forth my beliefs independent of whether my side is supported by the President, Congress, or the Courts. The same Court that can find a right to abortion in the Constitution can also decide that labor laws violate the right to freely make contracts provided for by the 14th amendment. > If we were threatened as we were during the Civil War and > to a lesser extent WWII, there might be some justification for these > extraordinary measures, but we have not had this kind of emergency. I think I know what your position on the risk of terrorist attacks now, but I want to make sure that I do know. I don't think you'd say that we are safer now than we were before 9-11, but I think you do not see the risk as very significant in the big picture. Indeed, it appears that you think there is a much greater risk of Bush and company (or maybe Cheney and company) staging some sort of coup (I'll address this in another post). I remember Bob Kerry's assessment of the risk before 9-11. He was part of a committee (googling doesn't find it so far...the 9-11 commission overwhelms it in the search) that assessed risks as substantial. Included in their analysis is the real risk of attacks that are far more substantial than 9-11 turned out. The price of staging bioterrorism is going down...more or less according to Moore's law from what I see. So, I don't think the risk of substantial future attacks is minimal. Even if one discounts Bush's statements as virtually meaningless, there is a substantial body of work, from Huntington to Kerry, that indicate that there is a real risk. > By the way, Padilla was arrested in Chicago Technically, he was not, even though he was at ORD. He was arrested outside of the US because he had not cleared customs. I'm pretty sure that there is precedent for this. >and has been in prison much > longer than anyone was during the civil war. Well, he's on trial now, and if he is convicted, I don't see the problem with him being in prison. Far from being someone that > could carry out a plot to detonate a "dirty" bomb, he's an ex gang banger > and taco bell employee that probably has problems with the logistics of > putting his pants on. It's really difficult to understand why the Bush > administration held this guy as an "enemy combatant" unless it was to > serve as some sort of test case to see if they could get away with this > kind of detention. There is a very simple explanation for this. They had indications that he did have some contact with AQ, and that he was rather violently inclined. I think that depending on reports of incompetence for the security of the US. I've also read that he was a gang-banger with a solid history of violence....someone he kicked in the head died. He had connections to AQ, and was returning from travels (he had traveled to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq) when he was arrested. I don't think that arresting him is inherently problematic. The designation of him as an enemy combatant is, but that doesn't mean he posed no risk. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
