Congress has the power to make laws. Congress has used that power to require the Executive Branch to provide information on intelligence gathering. Pretty straightforward.
The implicit assumption in your “question” is that the legislature cannot restrict the president in any way in the exercise of his power, no matter how plenary that power is. Although that position seems to be the one Bush has chosen, it’s incorrect, and flies in the face of the separation of powers the founders envisioned. As one man put it “The founding fathers didn’t trust George Washington with unlimited power. Why should we trust George Bush?”"
No, John, I didn’t answer your direct question, I addressed the insulting and monumentally ignorant way you referred to Joe Congressperson as an “arbitrary member of congress.”
Do try and keep up instead of jerking that knee, okay? That’s a good boy. Ta.
(Wow, maybe you and Bush are right after all … condescension is fun!)
These so called “signing statements” are bull shit. They are just a way of saying “fuck you I do what I want”. Maybe Congress should issue a law that outlaws signing statements. The President, whoever he is at the time, has 2 options -either sign a bill or veto it. End of story.
I’m not saying otherwise. I’m just trying to understand to what extent it can go in doing so. Are there no restrictions on what Congress can ask for?
I don’t think the president has plenary power in this respect, but does Congress (which is what you seem to be saying)? And you just confused me with the statement I underlined in your post. Doesn’t “plenary” mean “full” or “unlimited”? If the president has plenary power over something, can the Congress restrict that power? If so, then how can that power be called plenary? How does one limit something that is unlimited?
Yeah, but he could just make a signing statement that the bill he’s signing to outlaw signing statements doesn’t really outlaw signing statements.
I’d love to see the Court take a nice fat swing with a sledgehammer to these signing statements. It’s my opinion that if a law doesn’t say what you want it to, send it back.
Nothing ignorant about it. All Congressmen are not alike, and some have more authority than others, just like some have more security clearance than others. I’m a scientist. That’s the way we talk. It might be geeky, but it isn’t ignorant.
Have you had a chance to peruse my earlier cite? It contains a good, albeit brief, discussion of some of these issues. In general, it seems that Congressional access to intelligence falls in an area of the law that hasn’t been judicially determined. Most of the time, Iran/Contra included, the president and Congress hammer out a mutually beneficial decision. Maybe this will be one of those times. Maybe Bush will actually honor his oath and follow the law, without having to be ordered to by Congress or the courts to do so.
Could Bush create a secret so big that not even he could keep it? I used the term plenary, when it should have been non-plenary, or even, statutorily created.
It seems to me that the government only has the power to make things classified based on laws that the congress has legislated. That is, whence comes the power for the military, CIA, FBI, president, to declare any document or information classified? I believe those powers came from the congress.
Therefore if the congress says “if you want these previously extra-legal rights, you have to do it the way we tell you,” is perfectly valid.
My two cents. By the way, I’m going to start issuing signing statements of how I interpret new laws.
Anyway, wht I’m trying to say is that you’re coming at this from the perspective that the default is that government entities can make whatever they want classified, and I don’t see that as so. I think congress has long passed laws about what can and cannot be kept under wraps (like with the Freedom of Information Act).
I did. What it tells me is that Bush’s signing statment could be entirely benign, although I do understand the unwillingness of many people to grant him that benefit of the doubt. He does tend to push the envelope “a bit”.
bup: Can you cite the specific legislation you’re talking about
It occurs to me that possibly Bush thinks “separation of powers” means that laws passed by the Legislative Branch don’t apply to people in the Executive Branch. I’m sure he had a Civics class in high school, but that was a long time ago.
Try to imagine folks like Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Shodan, or UncleBeer arguing that Bill Clinton should’ve had the level of secrecy and unchecked executive power we’ve seen in the last five years. Yeah, me neither.
The only principles the GOP has nowadays is “Power at any cost.”
Nonsense. He was not allowed to misrepresent the truth, but that does not mean that he was obligated to reveal any details that anyone demanded.
Moreover, being called to testify in this specific case (i.e. the Lewinsky situation) does not mean that he was obligated to divulge any and all confidential matters, no matter how sensitive, and no matter how vital they were to the nation’s well-being.
Is it that difficult for you to make your point without one of you silly hypotheticals? Is it so difficult for you to state: But Hamlet, one thing you left out is that there are limits to Congress’ abiliity to legislate into powers granted specifically and exclusively to the executive branch? Who knows, maybe, if we could save a little time, have an honest debate, and quit trying to play the gotcha game, we could get somewhere.
Was Klein correctly decided? That is, do you agree with the underlying rationale, or do you simply accept that it’s a settled point, even if you don’t agree with the wisdom therein?
And if you agree with the wisdom of Klein… then from whence came your newfound respect for the actual black-letter text? I agree with you, but it seems very unfair that you adopt a respect for textual analysis when it pleases you, and a fondness for the Living Breathing Anamatronic Lifelike Constitution when it does not.
It’s been over a decade since I’ve read the case, but from my quick review, it seems fine. The Constitution clearly grants the President the power to grant pardons, and the statute in question in Klein infringed upon that power, and on the power of the judiciary to determine the effects of said pardon.
How many times have we discussed the Constitution, you and I? Hundreds of posts? And, since I began here, you have consistently, repeatedly, and brainlesslyy continue to misstate, misunderstand, and/or ignore my position. Your steadfast refusal to understand, or even properly state, my position puts you in esteemed company with Shodan, ElvisL!ves, and their ilk. Even if I explained it to you for the 39th time, what effect would it have? Your adament refusal to grasp the idea that non-originalists (or whatever disparaging term you wish to use for those who disagree with you), are just as devoted to the text of the Constitution as you shows a failure to grasp even the simplist of points. You have it set in your mind that anyone who disagrees with your method of constitutional interpretation has no regard for the text and is just making it up as they go along. For 5 years I, and others, have tried to disabuse you of your inanity, all to no avail. I don’t see things changing anytime soon, either.
