Full Version: President Bush's claims of power
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060108/ap_on_...ropping_ap_poll
Just how much power does a President have these days?
Do the President's powers allow the President to takes such steps?
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
QUOTE
Bush based his eavesdropping orders on his presidential powers under the Constitution and a September 2001 congressional resolution authorizing him to use military force in the fight against terrorism.
Just how much power does a President have these days?
Do the President's powers allow the President to takes such steps?
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
I didn't realize Bush was given this type of authority to fight terrorism. I thought it was limited to the people who attacked the United States on 9/11/2001.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jan 8 2006, 10:03 AM)
I didn't realize Bush was given this type of authority to fight terrorism. I thought it was limited to the people who attacked the United States on 9/11/2001.
You know better than to post one-liners. Please be constructive.TOPICS:
Do the President's powers allow the President to takes such steps?
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
[quote=christopher,Jan 8 2006, 05:48 AM]Do the President's powers allow the President to takes such steps?
His powers don't allow him to disregard acts of Congress, such as FISA. It's a revolt against every principle of the Constitution to say that any government official is above the law.
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
No. If Congress intended to set aside the FISA requirements, as well as all other laws governing how the authorities conduct surveillance, they would have been explicit about it.
Sorry I can't think of much else to say in elaboration of that, except that I have a hard time imagining what even any kind of legitimate counterargument is. Sure one can argue legitimately that he needs to have surveillance powers, but I can not fathom this notion that he's not bound by acts of Congress.
His powers don't allow him to disregard acts of Congress, such as FISA. It's a revolt against every principle of the Constitution to say that any government official is above the law.
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
No. If Congress intended to set aside the FISA requirements, as well as all other laws governing how the authorities conduct surveillance, they would have been explicit about it.
Sorry I can't think of much else to say in elaboration of that, except that I have a hard time imagining what even any kind of legitimate counterargument is. Sure one can argue legitimately that he needs to have surveillance powers, but I can not fathom this notion that he's not bound by acts of Congress.
Do the President's powers allow the President to takes such steps?
Answering this question depends on one's interpretation of the Constitution, and as well know, we have varying opinions on what the document says. Certain clauses and lines have been extended and others restrained depending on the varying circumstances of history. However, the common link between many of the more vague clauses is the inclusion of reasonability. Reason was seen as the factor that would ensure both the document's use and survival. In my opinion, the surveillance that the President allowed to occur was reasonable due to our circumstances. It was not authorized to mount evidence of a criminal investigation against a terrorist...its purpose was specifically to prevent an imminent or future attack. Before 9/11, terrorists had free roam to use any type of communication in which they used to talk to Al Qaeda leaders overseas. The intent of the program was not malicious towards Americans in any way but was rather aimed at protecting them and their civil liberties.
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
Well technically speaking if the President uses the Constitutional argument for his powers, than a resolution by Congress is insignificant since Congress cannot restrict Presidential powers granted by the Constitution. What the resolution does do is provide support for the President in his efforts to fight terrorism. I am unsure of whether or not the resolution had financial provisions or whether it was just a rhetorical declaration...but its purposes was primarily rhetorical i think.
Answering this question depends on one's interpretation of the Constitution, and as well know, we have varying opinions on what the document says. Certain clauses and lines have been extended and others restrained depending on the varying circumstances of history. However, the common link between many of the more vague clauses is the inclusion of reasonability. Reason was seen as the factor that would ensure both the document's use and survival. In my opinion, the surveillance that the President allowed to occur was reasonable due to our circumstances. It was not authorized to mount evidence of a criminal investigation against a terrorist...its purpose was specifically to prevent an imminent or future attack. Before 9/11, terrorists had free roam to use any type of communication in which they used to talk to Al Qaeda leaders overseas. The intent of the program was not malicious towards Americans in any way but was rather aimed at protecting them and their civil liberties.
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
Well technically speaking if the President uses the Constitutional argument for his powers, than a resolution by Congress is insignificant since Congress cannot restrict Presidential powers granted by the Constitution. What the resolution does do is provide support for the President in his efforts to fight terrorism. I am unsure of whether or not the resolution had financial provisions or whether it was just a rhetorical declaration...but its purposes was primarily rhetorical i think.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jan 8 2006, 10:33 PM)
In my opinion, the surveillance that the President allowed to occur was reasonable due to our circumstances. It was not authorized to mount evidence of a criminal investigation against a terrorist...its purpose was specifically to prevent an imminent or future attack. Before 9/11, terrorists had free roam to use any type of communication in which they used to talk to Al Qaeda leaders overseas. The intent of the program was not malicious towards Americans in any way but was rather aimed at protecting them and their civil liberties.
That certainly is an interesting analysis but in order for it to be correct that would have to be the intention of Congress as well in authorizing the use of force.
In reality you won't find that. The authorization of force does not specifically give the President power to do any of the things he has done, nor has anyone cited a Supreme Court case which backs this opinion of Presidential power. In fact the Supreme Court has generally stated just the opposite. I cited Hamdi v Rumsfeld (pdf) in another topic which said in part:
QUOTE
In so holding, we necessarily reject the Government’s assertion that separation of powers principles mandate a heavily circumscribed role for the courts in such circumstances. Indeed, the position that the courts must forgo any examination of the individual case and focus exclusively on the legality of the broader detention scheme cannot be mandated by any reasonable view of separation of powers, as this approach serves only to condense power into a single branch of government. We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens. Youngstown Sheet & Tube, 343 U. S., at 587. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.
Furthermore you have had all kinds of congressmen telling us that when they voted for the authorization to use force they were not voting to give the President a blank check. Up until recently the voices have mainly been Democrats and that has given supporters of this policy ammunition to say that this is some sort of grand liberal conspiracy. Well, now Brownback (R-KS) has joined in. Story.
QUOTE
U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., on Friday said the Bush administration needed to answer questions about spying on Americans without court authorization.
And Brownback said he disagreed with the administration’s legal rationale, which he said could hamper future presidents during war.
~snip~
“I do not agree with the legal basis on which they are basing their surveillance — that when the Congress gave the authorization to go to war that that gives sufficient legal basis for the surveillance,” he said.
And Brownback said he disagreed with the administration’s legal rationale, which he said could hamper future presidents during war.
~snip~
“I do not agree with the legal basis on which they are basing their surveillance — that when the Congress gave the authorization to go to war that that gives sufficient legal basis for the surveillance,” he said.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jan 9 2006, 01:33 AM)
Well technically speaking if the President uses the Constitutional argument for his powers, than a resolution by Congress is insignificant since Congress cannot restrict Presidential powers granted by the Constitution.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, then taken to its logical conclusion, it would have to mean that the President doesn't have to obey any act of Congress in carrying out his official acts. Is that really what was intended by the authors of the Constitution?
QUOTE(christopher @ Jan 8 2006, 02:48 AM)
Do the President's powers allow the President to takes such steps?
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
I agreed wholeheartedly with President Bush. Specifically, I agree with him when he said:
" ...by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
I don't agree with him now that he has "flip-flopped" on this issue.
I think most Congressmen are surprised to learn that they "authorized" warantless wiretaps when they passed this resolution. These actions plainly exceed the Constitutional authority of the President. The President's own words from last year indicate that he was either disingenuous then or that he is now that he is claiming these wiretaps to be legal.
Do the President's powers allow the President to takes such steps?
Yes and no. The president does have an inherent right to take whatever steps are necessary to defend the country against a sudden and immediate threat. That inherent power does have limits, however, and I think Bush is providing a clear example of how those limits can be abused.
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
No. First of all, Congress cannot give something it does not have, which is the ability to expand presidential power. Second, the resolution did not bypass the protections inherent in FISA. As a resolution, it couldn't. The fact that AG Gonzales and others tried to lobby Congress to amend FISA to this affect is actually pretty effective testimony that even they believed doing so would be a violation of FISA.
Yes and no. The president does have an inherent right to take whatever steps are necessary to defend the country against a sudden and immediate threat. That inherent power does have limits, however, and I think Bush is providing a clear example of how those limits can be abused.
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
No. First of all, Congress cannot give something it does not have, which is the ability to expand presidential power. Second, the resolution did not bypass the protections inherent in FISA. As a resolution, it couldn't. The fact that AG Gonzales and others tried to lobby Congress to amend FISA to this affect is actually pretty effective testimony that even they believed doing so would be a violation of FISA.
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Jan 17 2006, 12:38 PM)
Do the President's powers allow the President to takes such steps?
Yes and no. The president does have an inherent right to take whatever steps are necessary to defend the country against a sudden and immediate threat. That inherent power does have limits, however, and I think Bush is providing a clear example of how those limits can be abused.
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
No. First of all, Congress cannot give something it does not have, which is the ability to expand presidential power. Second, the resolution did not bypass the protections inherent in FISA. As a resolution, it couldn't. The fact that AG Gonzales and others tried to lobby Congress to amend FISA to this affect is actually pretty effective testimony that even they believed doing so would be a violation of FISA.
Yes and no. The president does have an inherent right to take whatever steps are necessary to defend the country against a sudden and immediate threat. That inherent power does have limits, however, and I think Bush is providing a clear example of how those limits can be abused.
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
No. First of all, Congress cannot give something it does not have, which is the ability to expand presidential power. Second, the resolution did not bypass the protections inherent in FISA. As a resolution, it couldn't. The fact that AG Gonzales and others tried to lobby Congress to amend FISA to this affect is actually pretty effective testimony that even they believed doing so would be a violation of FISA.
Amen to that. Sorry, I'm a newbie here, but that's all I have to add to this statement at this time...still learning the ropes.
QUOTE(Lou Cypher @ Feb 9 2006, 06:21 PM)
Amen to that. Sorry, I'm a newbie here, but that's all I have to add to this statement at this time...still learning the ropes.
Welcome. One of the 'ropes' is that we don't allow one liners. Please be constructive in your debates. Thanks. 
TOPICS:
Do the President's powers allow the President to takes such steps?
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
QUOTE
Do the President's powers allow the President to takes such steps?
The president's powers are written down in official format, and we see some of it when he puts his hand on the bible and swears his oath of office. I'm sure nowhere in there does it make provisions for the president to go outside the law; outside liberties. The law books are already written and there are (were) provisions which cover this issue. Let's not play games. This could be settled if we were privy to the names of the people being illegally spied on. Are there any Tom Jones' or mom's apple pie on that list, or are the names going to be Arabic in nature?
And there is no yes and no here. One or the other. But when someone uses the word "limits", how can there really be a yes and no? Go past the limit, it's no. Stay within the limit, it's yes.
QUOTE
Bush based his eavesdropping orders on his presidential powers under the Constitution and a September 2001 congressional resolution authorizing him to use military force in the fight against terrorism.
I'm going to guess here but I remember senator Robert Byrd mentioning the problems of SJ 23. This bill was passed late in '01. His book "Losing America" describes this as more of a pork bill clause which was rushed through congress at the last minute. The passing of the bill was a story by itself.
QUOTE
Do the President's powers allow the President to takes such steps?
No. what is happening is a redefining of power, crisis assessment, and a baseless grab for control.
I found an interesting article which describes the view of expanding article 656 which was passed in the Reagan era. Article 656 was developed by Mr. Cheney with the purpose of strengthening pressidential power which he felt was lacking.
So essentially what is happening is
These men planned for suspension of the Constitution, not just after nuclear attack, but for any "national security emergency," which they defined in Executive Order 12656 of 1988 as: "Any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States." Clearly 9/11 would meet this definition.
QUOTE
Does the vote congressional resolution authorizing military force give the President the power he claims?
I would argue no. If we still follow the intent of the law than the president must come back to congress at regular intervals to ask for ongoing extensions of war powers.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.