From Ed, an author and lawyer friend:
An appropriate court reviewing the legality of the specific actions of the President's agents and appointees, or the Congress through impeachment hearings, will have the final say on whether the powers he claims to have, and the orders he issues and approves, are and have been legal or illegal. If a Federal court, on matters (complaints) brought properly before it by parties with standing to raise the issues, decides that his actions were illegal in allowing (or ordering, or approving) the collection of that telephone information from billions of private citizens without a warrant and without prior court approval, then the issue will be joined (but not yet fully decided). An eventual resolution will result after appeals and (some day) after a decision by the Supreme Court.
If, in the interim, an appropriate court issues restraining orders , the stage would be set for Congress to step in and do its job (to begin impeachment hearings)--but unless a Democratic majority of the House and Senate results from this coming election, that is highly unlikely. If a Federal Court says the acts of the president and his agents have been unlawful, and if a Democratic majority in Congress is obtained, that is a distinct possibility, but not a certainty. Probably we are stuck with long court hearings and appeals before we will ever see the end of this one (which, alas, tends to defuse public interest) before we all get a final answer as to whether his actions have indeed been declared illegal and do in fact constitute a gross abuse of power--so take a deep breath and get ready for a long, difficult road.
Our beloved Prez has, and is, attempting to hide all such actions under the umbrella of the special "executive privilege" afforded him as "commander in chief"--taking the position that as President during what he keeps saying is "a time of war" (although, please note, no "war" has been declared and confirmed and authorized by Congress), he has the right to personally approve such measures in the interests of national security. It is his position that, entirely on his own, secretly and without permission from the Congress, and without any oversight or supervision by the Courts, he is empowered as president to issue orders directing what otherwise would clearly be illegal acts. If so, if a president can unilaterally assume such powers on his own hook, with no "checks or balances" from the other two branches of government, simply because he chooses to say "we are at war with terrorists," then, dear friends, our Constitution becomes a useless paperweight.
I, for one, would truly hate to see the document that has been our mainstay for more than 200 years reduced to something that will retain value only if it happens, by pure chance, to fit neatly under the short leg of your pool table, but that is where this president and his administrative minions would take us. If a president can unilaterally assume the powers Bush claims to assume in this as yet officially undeclared war, assuming unto himself powers that no previous president has ever assumed even during declared shooting wars against clearly identified enemies, then any president at any time can override all applicable federal and state statutes, and can do so entirely on his own say-so. If a president can do that, then he/she can, now or in the future, commit any crime, violate any laws (even murder), as long as he or she declares the nation to be in peril and as long as the president can draw about such acts the cloak of national security.
If we, collectively as a people--as the existing Congress, Courts and voting public of this country--allow this to happen, and permit these actions to go unchecked (setting the precedent for whatever criminal and unlawful acts some president deems "needed" in the future), then we deserve the kind of government that will surely result.
Ed
No comments:
Post a Comment