Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (198401)	8/21/2006 5:17:14 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The constitution doesn't say "the president is above the law", nor does Bush's argument about his powers rest on the idea that the president is above the law. Actually, it seems to me that his "argument"--or rather, his assertions--about signing statements imply that he is indeed above the law. At least, he is above the legislators who make the law--after all, his argument is that the president can, while he signs the bill into law, say what he thinks the law means, and he claims that as long as he lives up (or down?) to that declared standard/interpretation, he is "within" the law. So technically, he isn't "above" the law, but only because he declares that his interpretation is determinative of the law. However, this is opposed to the constitution. The legislative branch makes the laws, not the executive. The judicial branch interprets the law, not the executive. The executive branch executes the law--it does what the Congress says it should do. At least in theory it does. Obviously, the executive branch must do some interpreting in order to execute it. However, that interpretation is open to criticism from the judiciary, whose interpretation is the final say. Not the executive. But of course this administration interprets the separation of powers to mean that each branch is independent of the others and no branch can tell the others what to do--especially, no branch can tell the executive what to do. See Dick Cheney's lawyers argument in Judicial Watch v. Cheney et al back in the energy commission battles. I would have given their argument an "A" for Chutzpah, and an "F" for constitutional interpretation if I had received it as a class paper.

To: TimF who wrote (198401)	8/21/2006 5:36:57 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Iraq war over. Good, let's leave today. As for our own criminal contingent, what about spying without a warrant is legal? Even more interesting, what about going around the law ---- when that isn't even remotely necessary ----- is legal? What about the wiretapping laws and the process by which said laws can be changed is unavailable to this administration? Why did they not try and get it changed? What has it not permitted? How often were warrants not obtained and why? Why is this administration IGNORING the law and why is that not ILLEGAL? Since the war is over, by your definition of Saddam being on trial, then Bush isn't a wartime president. Saying that he's battling the 'war on terrorism' is nonsense since terrorism isn't a person or a country but a tactic. It makes as much sense as saying the 'war on drugs' or 'the war on obesity' or 'the war on inflation'. That would mean every President could declare war on something and claim 'wartime' powers. It's ridiculous and everyone knows it. Bush's argument that as a 'wartime president' he gets to expand powers AT WILL and WITHOUT OVERSIGHT and apparently WITHOUT END is utter nonsense both in and of themselves and growing out of his contention that he's a wartime president. Think of the ramifications. From now on out every prez will be a 'wartime president' simply by declaring a preemptive war against somebody or something. Is that what makes sense to you?