We have finally reached the constitutional Rubicon. If Congress cannot stand firm against the open violation of federal law by the president, then we have truly become an autocracy.
(Parenthetically, Turley testified before Congress in favour of Clinton's impeachment).
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 38 U.S.C. 1802 is very clear that such surveillance needs judicial authorization - which can be received retroactively
Of course, Bush says that the resolution by congress after September 11, authorizing him to use "all necessary force" to combat terrorists in Afghanistan, gives him permission to do that.
This is a staggering claim. They always taught me in law school that a statute overruling another statute does so to the narrowest extent possible - that if Congress is overruling a prior act, it has to be clear in doing so. I'd be shocked if the conservative trio on the Court - Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts - would disagree.
But if this is the case - if a Congressional resolution, not an Act, can sweep away the Constitutionally-mandated judicial oversight of wiretapping, without specifically stating it is doing so, then what have we arrived at?
And where are the Congressional hounds now? Clinton lying about sex with Lewinsky (and really, what self-respecting man would admit to getting a hummer from her) demanded impeachment, whereas Bush repeatedly breaking the law and admitting to it does not?
This much of course is obvious. But the greater problem is if we sit back and let Bush get away with saying that a Congressional resolution sweeps away all sorts of protections, then what is next? Does it authorize him to search your houses without a warrant? If the language of the Congressional resolution is so broad that it can annul a statute which it doesn't even reference, then it must annul many other statutes and protections as well.
So really, what we need is for someone to give Bush a blowjob.
I'll take one for the team.
No comments:
Post a Comment