It's a set of vignettes which illustrate the effect of the Bush administration's legal theories. A lot of this discussion boils down to whether the President has the power to disregard laws that he feels, at his sole discretion, are invalid.
Of course if you ask anybody, does the President need to obey the law? and they will answer yes. But the semantics of the Bush administration are different: they work to redefine the law. The say it's unconstitutional, it's not law, so we're not disobeying anything, all completely legal. And by the way we'll keep our reasoning for why it's completely legal secret. Move along now, nothing to see here. In effect, they argue the law is whatever the President wants at any given moment.
From one day's commentary: Monetary | War | Hubris
I haven't seen much discussion about this issue in mainstream press, and I guess it's because it seems a bit abstract to most people. But it's the most basic thing in the world: does the President think he's above the law? Does the constitution allow the President to imprison a U.S. citizen without trial or charges? Supreme Court said Yes in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. EGADS! Is an international treaty signed by Congress binding on the President? 2001 Bush pulled out of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty unilaterally without the advice or consent of Congress. Don't like the Geneva Convention? President says we don't have to abide by that either. UH? ("President says" is the legal argument?!)
The conceit here is that we serve at the will of the President. Consider that the Real ID Act of 2005 gave immigration new power to reject any immigrant at their discretion for any reason they want. And they don't have to tell anyone what the reason is. These reasons, as long as they are made for discretionary purposes, shall be un-reviewable by any court. So the executive branch has these special powers, applied by special standards, and by the way nobody can know what these standards are.
They could kick me out of this country for writing this blog post. It would be legal as long as they said it was at their discretion and didn't tell me the reason. It would be illegal if they told me the reason and tried to back it with case law. Uh, does this seem wrong to anybody else?
These are peoples lives they are destroying.
WHY?
From the program:
[He] can sound over top when talking about this stuff, invoking the founding fathers, quoting America's original documents and saying words like "tyranny". But what kind of language are you supposed to use, when you re-read the Declaration of Independence and realize it's just a laundry list of complaints about a unitary executive granting too much power to petty bureaucrats. What are you supposed to say when you read a sentence like this one: He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people. That old time-y language suddenly doesn't sound so old any more.
That's all for now.
3 comments:
You forgot to mention the widows! Widows who did not get citizenship are being denied because their husbands died before they were interviewed. And one argument is claiming that the spouses cease being spouses when they are dead. When those failed in the courts, they just called the widows terrorists and sent them out of the country.
You beat me to the punch on this one. TAL was riveting. I was agape nearly the whole episode. It did entice me to go back and re-read the declaration of independence (http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm)...
Some of the language:
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
and
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
Scary how relevant the language seems, indeed.
Off topic but interesting to note: in Clinton's speech today she mentioned the Constitution and how when it was drafted neither she nor Barack were in it.
Post a Comment