Saturday, May 13, 2006
147 Days and Counting
What is the bottom line here? The Bush administration keeps violating the laws of the United States of America, and the Congress of the United States is negligent in its duty to police these violations.
Every time a defender of this crime spree talks, he or she lies about how it’s really legal because the President always has inherent powers to act in his position as Commander in Chief. Now, I don’t forgive any of them for lying, even if they’re not lawyers, but most of them are lawyers. The part of the argument that’s a lie is the one that ends at “the President always has inherent powers to act” without the rest of the rule which permits the inherent power to act only in the absence of a specific statute.
Readers of this blog will realize that I have concentrated on one and only one high crime as grounds for impeachment: Bush’s admitted violation of FISA.
My friend, The City Troll, writes in a comment this morning that FISA is an unconstitutional restraint on presidential power... On Face the Nation this morning, The Troll's senior Senator, Arlen Specter, unequivocally asserts that "the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has been violated."
How do we square these circles? Simply. Violating a law that is arguably unconstitutional is still a high crime that makes the President subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives. When he is tried in the Senate, he can raise the putative unconstitutionality of the law he violated as a defense.
Listen, this is not rocket science, it isn't even complicated criminal law. It's obvious on its face; just as obvious as the complicity of the Congress in the crimes of this Administration!
Every time a defender of this crime spree talks, he or she lies about how it’s really legal because the President always has inherent powers to act in his position as Commander in Chief. Now, I don’t forgive any of them for lying, even if they’re not lawyers, but most of them are lawyers. The part of the argument that’s a lie is the one that ends at “the President always has inherent powers to act” without the rest of the rule which permits the inherent power to act only in the absence of a specific statute.
Readers of this blog will realize that I have concentrated on one and only one high crime as grounds for impeachment: Bush’s admitted violation of FISA.
My friend, The City Troll, writes in a comment this morning that FISA is an unconstitutional restraint on presidential power... On Face the Nation this morning, The Troll's senior Senator, Arlen Specter, unequivocally asserts that "the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has been violated."
How do we square these circles? Simply. Violating a law that is arguably unconstitutional is still a high crime that makes the President subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives. When he is tried in the Senate, he can raise the putative unconstitutionality of the law he violated as a defense.
Listen, this is not rocket science, it isn't even complicated criminal law. It's obvious on its face; just as obvious as the complicity of the Congress in the crimes of this Administration!
# posted by Alan @ 11:25 PM 
