The Law Applies To Everyone Including The President
Maybe that headline should read, especially to the president since he is supposed to be an example for others to follow.
From the NYTimes Today
Asked, for instance, if the president was free to violate a law enacted by Congress, (President Bush’s nominee for attorney general) Mr. Mukasey said, “That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country.”
The authority of the president to defend the country and act on his own applies to an immediate threat, such as on the day of and the days after 9-11 or pearl harbor. One incident that allows the president to exercize complete authority does not mean he can continue to exercize that authority for as long as he wants.
It’s like giving your babysitter the phone number to your doctor in case of an emergency. The babysitter can call the doctor or 911 without calling you first. But as soon as possible, the babysitter must call you for further instructions. Your babysitter would not also think they had the authority to authorize surgery on your child without notifying you first.
That analogy works for this perfectly. Bush had the authority to do things without congressional consent during the emergency. But he also wants to claim that the emergency is ongoing and that he should be able to continue to exercize the authority that was meant to be used just during the emergency.
It would be like your babysitter saying, well the child is still sick while under my care so I should be making all the medical decisions until the threat is over with and that the decisions made by the babysitter cannot be interfered with by the parents.
Previous supreme court decisions uphold the right of congress to curb executive authority.
In the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court said “Whether or not the president has independent power, absent Congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, citing Youngstown.
That is pretty plain. The law says that if congress has put limits on the president’s power in a specific instance, then the president is bound by those limitations.
But, like many attorneys general of both parties, Mr. Mukasey indicated that he understood Youngstown to leave room for presidential power even in the face of Congressional action. “I would certainly suggest that we go to Congress whenever we can,” he added.
What text is he reading? Go to congress whenever we can? It’s a law that you do so, not something you do IF you feel like it.
The administration has in recent years met with substantial success in Congress, obtaining legislation on surveillance, military commissions and the treatment of detainees that authorized almost all of what it wanted.
Bush supporters try to say that the reason the president does this is because congress is hindering his ability to defend the country. The congress hasn’t refused this president anything he has brought before them so that argument is a lie.
Bush wants to be King George. Not President Bush. And people are allowing him to be a king. Let’s say Bush is a good king. Let’s say all of his decisions have been and are completely sound, (A stretch, but let’s say he makes good decisions for the sake of argument), and let’s say you think he should have this extreme power.
Are you prepared to give that same power to Hilary Clinton? Barack Obama? Rudy Guiliani? Thompson? McCain? And give complete authority to act without congressional approval to any nutcase that gets elected in the future?
By allowing king george this authority, you grant it to every president elected from this point forward. Are you absolutely sure they will all act in our best interest?
Stumble it!