The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed in 1878. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The original act referred only to the United States Army. The Air Force was added in 1956, and the Navy and the Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense.
On 29th of September, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals." He added that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty." ___________________________________
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Frank Morales
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."
Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.
Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.
Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."
Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."
A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."
In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."
Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."
The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.
The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."
In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)
It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.
Sources:
(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006
(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122
(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.
(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 64
Clarke It amazes me that some of the authors on Gather will spend so much time taking an event of very little significance and blowing it out of proportion. The basic differences between now and before is the addition of insurrection by Illegal immigrants. It seems you didn't remember the marches by the Mexican flag waving illegal and legal immigrants when hundreds of thousands of people flooded the streets and peacefully demonstrated.
Just imagine if they would have taken it to the next level. In situations like these it usually only takes one or two people to turn the demonstration into a riot. There is no harm in being ready to respond to a very bad situation.
Congress recently authorized the funds to construct 700 miles of new fencing along the border as the first step in heightening border security. While, in my opinion, it's good that a first step was taken, 700 additional miles still leaves a vast majority of the southern border open. The most effective way to secure the border is barriers backed up by personnel physically patrolling the border to arrest and detain individuals entering this country in violation of our laws.
There are those who criticize the federal government for not placing a higher priority on border security in the past, and those criticisms are well-founded. What those criticisms don't do is help move us get from where we are to where we need to be, i.e. a secure border properly protected by strict enforcement of immigration laws. That requires "boots on the ground". Boots the U.S. Border Patrol does not presently have and won't have for some time to come. The personnel will take some time and billions of dollars to put in place due to recruitment, screening and training requirements.
The use of military units, both active and reserve/guard, to provide that physical presence is essential in the short-term to address the open border problem. Also, there are many, myself included, who believe that it would be preferable having the military permantly patrolling the borders for a number of reasons.
One, border security, at its essense, is a national security/defense issue -- one that the military is uniquely trained and qualified to handle.
Two, using the military to patrol the border would free up the Border patrol personnel to manage the detainees and their deportation, as well as provide a stop-gap for the Border Patrol to ramp up with additional personnel.
Three, why should we re-invent the wheel as it relates to the border? Our military is already trained in the techniques and precedures for effective border security and are paid to do that. Why do we HAVE to have a civilian agency to to what we already pay the military to do?
Finally, in my opinion, it borders on paranoia to believe this law was legislated and signed with the intent of allowing President Bush, or any other President, the ability to declaring martial law to put down civil unrest over domestic political concerns -- and that is what is at the heart of the views expressed in the article above. This is intended to allow the Chief Executive, whose responsibility it is to protect the integrity of our borders, additional resources necessary to accomplish that task.
It borders on the naive to think that this, coupled with the MCA, and Patriot act, and NSA spying do not weaken the position of "We the people". This was a country where laws protected the individual, and is fast becoming a country where laws protect whoever is in power. These are not piddling concerns, no matter how you try to trivialize them. The framers of our constitution are rolling over in their collective graves at what this president has done. If a tool is in his tool pouch, GWB has shown no compunction for using it, and quite a few he has no right to use, as well. There is no reason something could not be done to secure the borders with the military, without simultaneously giving him the authority to deploy troops upon our own citizenry.
Ron being a little naive is somewhat better than your total paranoia. Have you lost your tin foil hat again?
i'm nervous about the changes generally.
i wonder if the republicans would cheerfully support stuff like this if hillary were president. bush isn't your man, and he's not going to be president very long.
i am looking forward to the transition to a new president.
The Military has not been needed in these situations that I know of, and if they are, the state Government can call out the National Guard at any time. Your argument holds no water. As for the tinfoil hat, well, that is typical, the first refuge of those without an argument, ridicule. I could care less what you think of me, but I do care if the constitution is circumvented.
"I HAVE THE POWER! Mooooaaaaaaa haaaaaaa haaaaa haaaaaaa!!!" (that is evil laughter by the way)
OH, and he's running naked because he can... you know, because he's got the power. Elections can not come soon enough!
While you are worrying about fighting illegals, Bush is handing over our nation on a platter in something called the North American Union. Why are you not concerned more about that?
It is not naive to think that if we don't protect ourselves (collectively) then all our precious individual civil rights are for naught, because we will no longer exist as a country. That is exactly what will happen if we refuse to do what is necessary to protect our borders.
Nor have I trivialized the effects of the positions I've advocated and/or supported. I do NOT relish the idea that we have to proceed in a fashion that falls short of our ideals. Alas, life is unfair sometimes and forces us to make some very distasteful choices in the short term in order to survive in the long term
Mine is not a radical position. Two of our Presidential icons have held this view, as well. President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War as a necessary "evil" to preserve the Union. President Franklin Roosevelt interred Japanese citizens to ensure the Continental US would not be subjected to spying by Japanese collaborators.
As for the Founders rolling in their graves, if anything, they'd be rolling due to the TOTAL distortion of the principles and processes they established by the position you appear to be promoting. Justice Robert H. Jackson stated it best, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Your statement, "There is no reason something could not be done to secure the borders with the military, without simultaneously giving him the authority to deploy troops upon our own citizenry," is incorrect. That is best evidenced by the fact that is PRECISELY what the Clarke M. and Sen. Leahy are arguing in the article. They are correct in their assessment that use of federal troops was not permissible under law prior to the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007", and this is the reason I agree with it being signed into law. Is it an ideal situation? Not by any means; but I'm not an idealist, I'm a realist.
I will make this commitment with you, however. I, along with you and every other concerned citizen will be vigilant in watching whatever administration is in power to hold the accountable if they attempt to use this provision for any other reason outside the protection of our country and its borders.
That's like closing the barn door after the horses have already left the barn. Watching needs to be done before you've got troops stationed in your courthouse square, not when it happens. By then it is too late. The measures you cite being employed in other conflicts are totally incomparable. For all the hype that we are in some kind of major war, we are in nothing more than what we were when we called Vietnam a war, and no measures like this are necessary. The fact that you would hand over your constitutional rights, is no indication anyone else should. You go ahead, you trust this guy, I don't, and for damn good reason. At the very least, you have to have seen he lies at any opportunity, by now. That said, I will say it again, this is a lot like FISA, he needs an inch, and you want to give him a mile. If what he said he was doing was all he is doing, then there is no reason he could not live with FISA. Here, if there are riots, that is exactly what the national guard is for, under the authority of the state government, not the military. As far as our borders, once again, that could be provided for, in another way, without giving the president the power to set troops on American citizens. It is, once again, another piece of the puzzle, and the puzzle says there's more to this than meets the eye.
What you are saying is that we could not pass legislation that allows for the guarding of our borders, without authorising the use of troops on our citizens? That is patently false, and you know that.
Frankly, I'm not concerned about your irrational partisan political fears. I'm concerned that the Chief Executive and Commander-In-Chief performs his Constitutional duty to defend us against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, that hold true whether the Chief Executive is George Bush or anyone else. This is larger than one man or one political party.
As to your assertion that the current conflict isn't comparable to others, well, that's your perception and your opinion. I, and many others, see it entirely differently. The War on Terror is global war, demanding our heightened security. That's one point.
My second point; utilizing the federal armed forces to protect our borders isn't a domestic use of troops, per se; it's international. We're not talking about marshaling throops on the border between Kansas and Oklahoma to keep the Sooners and Jayhowks seperated. We're talking about keeping international aliens from entering US territory illegally. And, some of those aliens are coming here not for jobs, but to do us harm.
Get off the partisan political horse, Ron. We can have a reasonable conversation about the best way to protect American and its citizens, but not if you insist on making the a partisan grudge match.
My point is really more of a practical one. We already have a well-trained miltitary that knows how to secure borders. I served in the U.S. Army for two years on the Czech border back in the Old Days of the Cold War. The military knows how to do it. Why should we spend billions more re-inventing a wheel that we already have and one that works quite nicely.
First, you've got me ALL WRONG on the subject of using troops to guard our borders, I've long thought that was the probable only solution, and have been the first one to question why we did not have troops securing borders, ports, oil, chemical, nuclear, and water industries. I do though, object to the use of troops to quell domestic disturbances. We have a fully capable system for doing that, and it is unnecessary and dangerous. As far as this war and suspending constitutional rights. Remember after the towers came down, and all the government and public officials said was, go on about your business, live like you always would, do what you would normally do, because if we change that, the terrorists will have won? Well, so far we've basically gutted the bill of rights, endorsed torture, broken the geneva conventions, and generally lost whatever we had left of our national moral compass. I'd say that says something. Those that would give up liberty for safety deserve neither, my friend. And that will never change.
After realizing my mistaken intrepretation, I decided it be best that I go see EXACTLY what we're discussing.
It can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c10949E7dB:e939907:
This is it:
" Sec. 2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies
`(a) Provision Authorized- In any situation in which the President determines to exercise the authority in section 333(a)(1)(A) of this title, the President may direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.
`(b) Covered Supplies, Services, and Equipment- The supplies, services, and equipment provided under this section may include food, water, utilities, bedding, transportation, tentage, search and rescue, medical care, minor repairs, the removal of debris, and other assistance necessary for the immediate preservation of life and property.
`(c) Limitations- (1) Supplies, services, and equipment may be provided under this section--
`(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be; and
`(B) only until such authorities, or other departments or agencies of the United States charged with the provision of such supplies, services, and equipment, are able to provide such supplies, services, and equipment.
`(2) The Secretary may provide supplies, services, and equipment under this section only to the extent that the Secretary determines that doing so will not interfere with military preparedness or ongoing military operations or functions.
`(d) Inapplicability of Certain Authorities- The provision of supplies, services, or equipment under this section shall not be subject to the provisions of section 403(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)).'.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies'.
(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c)(1) of such title is amended by striking `No unit' and all that follows through `subsection (b),' and inserting `Except to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or by subsection (b), no unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section'."
Upon actually seeing the provision itself, Ron, it's pretty cut and dried, and I don't see what dire consequences you see arising from this, unless it's, "and other assistance necessary for the immediate preservation of life and property."
If that is indeed what concerns you, Ron, then I must say it doesn't me, and I don't know why it would you either. If I'm missing something here, please enlighten me.
Look above that a ways, dude:
`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law
`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.
That is exactly what Controllers want ! They divide and conquer, set one side against the other achieves the result that they intended all along.
They know that United We Stand does work. When they have nefarious agendas they know there will not be unity, so the only answer to achieve their desire is to divide the opposition into a more manageable number. If they can convince the one half that it is for their own best interest then the mission is all but accomplished.
In mankind there is an inherent spiritual intuition that whispers from within. That comes from the realm of the spirit of God, a realm of unconditional love, a realm where we are all from and will again return. That realm wants us to recognize it within ourselves so we can become individuals with autonomy. To understand that we do all have our common interest based upon Love of one another ... not based upon fear and separation.
A governing hierarchy though that seeks to stay in power, will tell all, that they serve the best interests of the society as a whole. If this were a real truth, society as a whole would intuitively recognize it and there would be no problems.
As it is, with a divided society based upon divided interests, the side that fears an outside threat and trusts their inside government, will be the supporters of the government that speaks to their fears and promises them protection.
It is not at all beyond such governments to employ Think-tanks to work on scenarios of what-ifs to prepare for all contingencies. Even to prepare way ahead of time the plans to best achieve the overall goal. There are vast empires of wealth and lifestyles of power and control at work in all of this that desires their anonymity in order to further their aims. Our governments are but puppets put in place by those special interests to detract our attention from the real agenda/s.
The divisions of both sides are then manipulated in their ignorant bliss in believing that one party or the other (the two puppets) are working just for them. The entire Media empire has already been bought up and controlled very skillfully so as to keep us believing that one or the other source is really looking out for our best interests ... as long as we believe that, it works wonderful for those that will benefit the most ... those at the very top ... of course they claim to 'trickle some down' to those on their 'team'.
So the most naive and fearful fall for the lies from above, then see their 'other half' as the evil activists and protesters that stand in the way of their promised protections. Never realizing that the 'other side' also has their own interests at heart as such being the whole of society. One side desires a unified whole around common ideas of the very best for each and all ... they are called liberal because they are more trusting in general due to more love and less fear in their hearts. They have more compassion for all of their fellows.
But the side of fear feels insufficient on a personal level to accept their lot, they think they need strong leaders to watch out for them, just what leadership tells them as more fear is produced and more promises of protection are issued forth.
When the followers are convinced that there is an evil world awaiting them, they trust their leadership to be their protection ... when the 'other side' questions that leadership, the other side is considered an enemy to be feared also ...
So come on folks ... look inside deep and see if there could be any truth to what I am saying here ! Look before it is too late and you support the selling out of your very soul in the name of protection from false evils ... those presented as the boogieman in order to garner your loyalty that will ultimately lead to your own destruction once your support has led to the destruction of the opposition ... there will not be enough room at the top for all of you ! But a few the most ruthless may well make it there ... that has always been the case.
Be divided and conquered ... or unify and prosper from below ... those are the choices. Fear or Love ???
You are exactly right, but how do we unify when the other entity is so convinced someone can do no wrong that they are willing to surrender our freedoms to them?
I acidentally cut off this part
(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.
(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:
`CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER'.
Still there?
Just to preface my response (which will take me a few minutes to type, since I'm a hunt-n-pecker AND the Colts game is on!), I'm not sure the two sections aren't working together to provide safeguards against what you're expressed concerns are. Like I said, give me a minute, and I'll give you my take.
I have been looking, and I see nothing of the kind. This is a dangerously vague and easily perverted law, from what I am seeing in it. As the President is the one that decides whether a situation meets requirements, and as we've seen, he can get rubber stamped from the congress time after time. I find no reassurance anywhere here, but if you do, I'd be more than happy to find out I was wrong, believe me.
Thanks for waiting.
Okay, here's US Code, Title 10, Chapter 15, Section 333 that was amnded by the Law the President signed last week:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 15 > § 333
§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, as I read it, the amended US Code after the bill Bush signed last week, actually ADDS protections against unwarranted denial of civil liberties than was on the books previously.
Namely, it adds a mandatory notification of Congress once the President exercises this authority and a mandatory 14-day update for the duration of the action.
This is the Link where I found the US Code
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000333----000-.html
That was a very nice speech Jerry. A big Ayn Rand fan I see. Me too.
The thing about Rand's stuff is -- IT'S FICTION! Excellent reads, no doubt, but fiction nonetheless.
We have a system of government that has effectively stopped, in my opinion, the nefarious Bilderberger/TriLateral Commission conspiracies you post reminds me of. I'm not saying there aren't groups of people out there that would like to subvert our freedoms, but in the interest of an open, rational, bi-partisan discussion of the particular topic of this article, I won't go into that now.
The biggest danger I see internally for this country is a two-sided coin. Voter ignorance on one side and voter apathy on the other. It seems to me too many of our countrymen are too willing to take the latest sound byte the media wants to let us hear or the latest press release from the organization they support and thinks supports them, and then blow those up to a greater world-view. They do that, because sadly, they are too ignorant of exactly how our system works and too lazy to find out. And, lest you think I'm being too negative, I can assure you that I'm not. I have hope for us. Ignorance is repairable -- stupidity is not. And, most people I know, and I believe most people we all know aren't stupid.
What did he say?
Time and again, Bush has "signed off" on legislation. This has gone unchallenged until this summer . The Boston Globe first highlighted this, as the Washington Post reported:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701553.html
Signing Off
Presidential signing statements aren't a problem. What Mr. Bush is saying in them is.
Friday, July 28, 2006; Page A24
ACROSS A WIDE range of areas, President Bush has asserted a grandiose vision of presidential power, one to which Congress has largely acquiesced. From domestic surveillance to holding detainees in the war on terrorism, the administration has generally ignored the legislature, brushed aside inconvenient statutes and proceeded unilaterally. All of this, as we have argued many times, warrants grave concern and a strenuous response. But it is worth separating that issue from the ongoing controversy over the president's aggressive use of what are called "signing statements" -- those formal documents that accompany the signing of a bill into law.
Ever since the Boston Globe reported this year that the president had used such statements to question the constitutionality of more than 750 provisions of law, critics across the political spectrum have been up in arms. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings, and this week a task force of the American Bar Association issued a report accusing the president of usurping legislative powers...
Sorry, been watching the Denver game. I'll get back to you, but it still has something to do with how it affects parts of the posse comitatus act and taking the guard out of state government hands and the Presidents ability to come in without being asked. I'm not sure, but I've been looking, and found other articles on this, and I assume all the wolfing has some foundation. It seems pretty complicated, with interacting law, and I'm not real sure it's within my understanding, but I'm trying.
As near as I can figure it, the worst is it allows the president the ability to use the military as a police force, besides being an army to come in and fight rebellions, etc. which is where they are coming up with the military being set loose on citizens. It also removes the necessity to be invited in by state government, such as was the case during Katrina, when the governor wanted to keep control of the national guard. It would enable him to take the guard out of state hands over their protests, which seems a bit dangerous on the face of it. It increases the conditions where he can do this as well, adding the language for disasters, .etc. It basically, by letting him use the military as a police force, at the very least corrodes the posse comitatus act.
Thank you for the additional information. I found it quite interesting read and really have no problem with you representation Polanyi's analysis.
The use of Presidential signing statements are a new phenomina, but I will grant you that President Bush has taken their implementation to an all-new level. That, in and of itself, isn't necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion.
As you pointed out above, the Founders designed a governmetn of Seperated powers, with checks and balances. Congress passes law, the President approves them or not. If he vetos a bill because it contains provision he finds, in his position as Chief Executive, against the Constitution, the Congress has a right to over-ride that veto. We all know that. Part of the powers of the President includes signing a bill into law, with a signing statement expressing his understanding and intent on how he will execute that new law. That's the other side of that balance in the "balance of powers" we always talk about.
The President has a Constitutional obligation to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States." If a bill is presented to him that is not fatally flawed constitutionally, he signs it accompanied by a signing statement detailing how he views the bill and how he plans to execute that law to ensure it remains with the constraints of the Constitution. If the Bill is fatally flawed constitutionally, he vetoes it and send it back, in effect saying, "Not good enough, boys, try it again." Congress can then either change the bill to meet the President's concerns or they can over-ride his veto. There's the balance in powers thing again.
Finally, if the President doesn't like the revision, he can veto it. If he still thinks the bill is bad even with the over-ride, he can sign it with an with a signing statement attached. If the Congress doesn't agree with the signing statement as attached the can start the WHOLE process over again by passing a new law dealing wit the changes the signing statement made to the bill.
Complicated? You bet! It's supposed to be. That's why (theoretically anyway)something can be put into law that violates the Constitution. And, if after all that, if something sneaks through, you have the Supreme Court as a fail safe.
The system is designed to protect us from tyranny -- whether that tyranny comes from the individual sitting in the White House or that tyranny comes from the 535 President-wanna-bes sitting in the Capitol.
The moral of the story? Play nicely boys and girls, cooperate and get something done.
The bill the President signed only amends Section 333 (see above post). Current law under that Title and Section does not require the President to get the State's invitation before sending in federal troops, if he considers it to meet the requirements of the code; i.e. "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy".
That's what the law WAS.
After the President signed the bill into law last week, it adds "natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident". These were added to Title 10 because the Lousiana Governor refused to "invite" the federal troops in to handle the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the President didn't have the authority to send in federal troops or to federalize the National Guard and send them in short of that invitation.
What this amendment effectively does is permit the President to do exactly what Bush was criticized for NOT doing in the aftermath of Katrina .. send in the federal troops to help, even if the local authorities - for whatever screwed up reason they have - don't request that assistance (which Governor Blanco refused to do - you can guess the reason). Add to that, the reporting requirement the President has to inform Congress as soon as practicable initially and then every 14 days thereafter, that's MORE protection than the old law provided.
Old Law
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I_30_15.html
New Law
Again, go here and read the relevent, Section (Sec. 1076)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109ldIlix:e939907:
I printed the two out and put them side by side. It made it very easy to see what was done, and it is clear to me that NOBODY'S civil liberties are in jeopardy.
Oh, and in his signing statement Bush affirms he doesn't have to tell congress jack, as well. So much for Congressional oversight.
They can challenge before the Supreme Court. That's how the system works.
I've read it -- it doesn't. It ADDS protections until that Title, Chapter and Section of the United States Code. Let's not make a mountain out of a "no hill".
It takes sec. 331 out, doesn't it?
Also, that was blatant revisionist history. The governer asked for everything he had, and he did nothing. Then all he wanted to do was take over the national guard she did have out. So that is the Republican line, I know, but it is not fact.
The "global war on terror" is not an internationally verified contest in the manner that Bush avows. The world views it as a criminal response born of cultural shifts brought on by 100 years of world wealth poured into the Middle East. There is no war to be made on 1 billion people. There is no victory when attempting to repress an entire culture continuously fed by our money and no end in sight. Indeed the Bush oil policies have exacerbated the problem by $75 per barrel. How many times for how long will we be able to kick the Middle East in submission for oil? The disaster in Iraq was the best and most typical thinking of the neo-con and it only exposes the complete fallacy and transparency of American imperialism. It is an utter failure; a sham thinly held together by brave GI's that die everyday for nothing.
The existing fence has not stopped the flow of illegals and this 700 mile addition will do no different. Anyone can see that. It is a political token thrown to conservatives, nothing more and in typical Bush fashion, with no funding. The only real impact on illegals will be true enforcement in the workplace which would force industry into paying higher American wages. A no-no for the oligarchy. Bush knows this. So, why again do we subvert posse comitatus? Most polls reveal Democrats in position to take the Congress and severely thwart and even roll back the Bush agenda. What if the Republicans were to achieve a "surprise" upset and retain control? Clearly it would be fraudulent. The anit-Bush rage in America is deep. The President now has authority to quell any disturbance with military force. Mighty convenient it comes along just before one of the most important elections in a century.
Step back, take a deep breath, think truly as a non-partisan, add up the sum total of Bush governmental initiatives, the TRUE value of the "terror" threat, the unbelievable submission of the Congress and the legislation from the Patriot Act to NSA to Military Commissions to this travesty as one continuous drive toward imperial Presidential authority and remember the assertion of "created reality." Consider history of rightist regimes world wide and their corrosion of liberty to defend against external threat and internal dissent. Show me why America, under this ideological cabal, is not under the gravest threat in our 230 years.
By the way David, I have never read Ayan Rand, I am just a spiritual person with an intuition that subjectively tells me there is a better way intended for us than the purely objective.
We can after the fact argue objectively each and every point of any law ... but all the while new and revised old laws are being put in place as we argue ... it is a game of catch up that will never get there from that position.
It is better to use our intuition to get a sense of the essence of the intention behind the presentation of the laws. To look at the bigger picture in light of all that is going on ... so as to not be bogged down in narrow vision details to the degree we miss what is really happening.
The super intelligent rational and logical have their place for sure in these determinations, but believe it or not, there is also a place for the subjective intuitive that has a vision about these things that may not be at all evident to the rationally objective, no matter the level of their intellect.
Federal troops were, previous to this law not subject to be used for law enforcement, that has changed. The control of guard troops before this law, were under the authority of the state government, not federal. This has changed under this law. It superseded the posse comitatus act, this has changed. This is not a good bill. It allows him unprecedented power. Once again, it may be fine with you, but I don't trust him with my life. Your contention that the bill further enhances our freedom is wrong, it does the opposite.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/18/211033/23
To make my final comment on this;
Nothing revisionist about the Kartrina events. Bush did all he could do without an invitation by Gov. Blanco (and its SHE, Ron, not a HE; if you're going to dispute my facts, be clear on them yourself.) She did NOT ask for federal troops to be deployed. If you have evidence that she did, show it to me. And, Ron, that request can't be made in some press conference. It has to be made officailly in writing to the President, asking explicitly for that assitance.
The fact of the matter is, it was the incompetence of the Governor and Mayor Nagin in New Orleans that caused a majority of the problems and resulted in the deaths of the people in New Orleans -- not Bush. To claim anything else is what is revisionist.
I'm not going to argue with you about what could be done before and what can be after the new law signed last week. I've provided you the plain, simple language text of both, and your assertion that the new law substantially changes what the President can order in a time of emergency has not changed appreciably. An objective, side-by-side comparison of the "before and after" clearly shows that. The new also adds reporting requirements that wewre NOT required before. That's clear and indisputable -- if you you look at it without "I-hate-Bush-so-it-must-be-wrong" lenses.
=======================================================
Tony;
It is your bad.
Sam;
You caution me to "think truly as a non-partisan".
You have a deal! You start. Your litnany of problems
about this administration sounds as if it were drafted
by Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi. That's not "truly
non-partisan thinking" and it is rather stilted analysis.
I don't claim this administration is perfect. I don't
claim that some grievous errors haven't been made.
I've got some things I could take them to the proverbial
woodshed myself. But, on the issue at hand in THIS
article, I happen to agree with them. I would like to
think we can all discuss one issue and the merits of
one side and the other, without bringing in ALL our
other complaints (or kudos) about this administration's
actions or inactions.
You want to have that reasoned, rational discussion,
Sam? If so, great! I'll be more than happy to participate
at that level. But, if partisan shots are going to be taken,
I can play that as well as anyone.
I will say that I agree with you on the border fence.
I think the administration is wrong for not starting the
process of putting a fence from Brownsville to the Pacific.
I agree with you of strong workplace enforcement.
I disagree with you on the patriot Act and the NSA
international communication tracking (it's not wiretapping,
it's number tracing; content is not recorded). I disagree
with you analysis on the level of "anti-Bush rage". It may
be deep, but it is very narrow. In any case, we can
have rational, adult discussions on these topic and
try to reach a concensus. But, only if we agree to leave
the partisan shots out of it.
My point about the topic of this article is two-fold:
1) The change in US Code signed by the President
last week did not authorize any additional powers to the
executive that it didn't already have, it simplys claried
what those powers are and when they may be exercised.
The executive always had the power to send in federal
troops if, in its determination it was necessary to restore
order and protect life and property in the event the state
and local authorities were not in the position or had the
capabiltiy to do so. If you have a different reading, fine.
But, to convince me that reading is correct, I'm going to
need more than a simple assertion. That's not being
disrepectful, that's just being exacting. As an example,
Row W. (who I respect) is misreading the new law in my
opinion. That doesn't mean he's bad, evil, stupid, etc...
It just means he's mistaken, in my humble opinion.
2) If, indeed there is a groundswell of concern of the
Executive abusing this amended law, start the process
NOW to change it. I don't think that groundswell is there,
however, and again, with all due respect on the other side
of this issue, in my studied and educated opinion, I don't
see the danger you do.
==========================================
Jerry;
Intuition is fine -- if your deciding to bet on drawing to an
inside straight ot which numbers to pick in the weekly lottery.
When it comes to inferring intentions and motivations,
I prefer to rely on something more tangible than a gut feeling.
I prefer to look at past actions and statements. I find them to
be of more value when my my determination.
You seem to take the orthodox view of objective reality as your primary source, that is normal, that is why I call it orthodox. It is also the exoteric reality that results when the esoteric subjectivity of the spiritual intuition is ignored or devalued.
The orthodox reality that you seem to deal in is that of the details of the minutiae, the 'letter' of the law ... that ignores the 'intention' of such.
The intention is A priori, the letter is A postiori. We all have a spiritual higher Self that transcends the 'normal' ego of lower self. It is the lower self (ego) that deals in the fear based self protective realm of emotion and contrived rationalities that serve it's purpose. These are 5 sensory themes more related to the 'animal' man, albeit developed by some into high degrees of logic and intelligence such as yourself maybe. It is those that might see the intuition for nothing more than possibly being useful for some material gain in gambling.
Those that have become enlightened enough to see the real value in the wisdom offered by trusting more in the intuition, can then integrate better the subjective of spiritual wisdom and the intelligence of the more rational into a synergy that combines everything that gives then a much more accurate view overall of what is going on along with the possible reasoning behind it all, the real intentions.
I have no attitude as it relates to you one way or the other. But, evidently, you do have one with me as evidenced by you resorting to calling me names.
I'll be here to willing accept your apology for such childish behavior.
Thanks for the lesson in, what is that transendentialism? Doesn't matter.
I'm spiritual as well, having my daily conversations with my God. And, I use my intuition as it relates to my social interactions as well; I can intuitively tell when someone is attempting to feed me a line of BS.
However, when dealing with real-world, material problems; I prefer to keep it on the concrete as opposed to the abstract. Say what you mean, the words mean something.
All of that said, our little conversation really doesn't address the issue of the article, now does it?
None of the laws, or their absence, helps or hinders any president in doing what he feels is necessary, or just plain fun in his evil mind, in order to protect this country.
When I compared the two documents. namely, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chap 15, Section 333 as it was on the books prior to the amending bill signed by the President last week and the text of the amedning bill (now law), it adds protections, not weakens any. That's why I've been asking the question I have.
It's about control and conditioning of the people to accept willingly the federal bureaucracy's (the size of which has greatly increased in the past five years) supression of constitutional rights to dissent and justice before the law as "quite OK." A government that has set aside habeas corpus and the rule against self-incrimination is the last place one should look for protection.
This power game was sarcastically explained by H.L Menken, and much more directly by George Orwell in "1984."
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H.L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956
You make a considerable point of parsing this document and extolling the checks against abuse while ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room: Bush chooses what law or portion of it, by executive fiat, he will obey. Consider this column. Read it and tell me that Bush deserves "respect" or his obedient Congress re-election.
July 17, 2006 Issue
Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative
Power of the Pen
The president uses signing statements to decree which laws apply to him.
by James Bovard
For generations, Republican politicians have spoken reverently of the rule of law. But since 2001, this hoary doctrine has been redefined to mean little more than the enforcement of the secret thoughts of the commander in chief.
George W. Bush has added more than 750 "signing statements" to new laws since he took office. Earlier presidents occasionally appended such comments to new statutes, but Bush is the first to use signing statements routinely to nullify key provisions of new laws. He perennially announces that he will not be bound by limits on his power and that he will scorn obligations to disclose how federal power is being used.
While Bush supporters speak glowingly of originalist interpretations of the Constitution, Bush's signing statements have far more in common with George III than with George Washington. The Constitution specifies that Congress shall "make all laws" and that presidents must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." But Bush—his ego swollen by swarms of groveling intellectuals—has embraced theories that convince him that the president alone may decree what shall be the law.
Bush's most famous signing statement was on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. After White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales publicly declared that Bush enjoyed a "commander in chief override" regarding laws prohibiting torture, members of Congress enacted legislation to make it stark that torture was illegal. The White House engaged in long and arduous negotiations with Congress. After Bush signed this law last Dec. 30, he announced that he would construe it "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." This was widely interpreted to mean that the law is binding only when Bush pleases. He was reiterating a confidential 2002 Justice Department memo that declared that the federal Anti-Torture Act "would be unconstitutional if it impermissibly encroached on the President's constitutional power to conduct a military campaign."
Getting the Patriot Act renewed was one of the Bush administration's highest priorities. After months of negotiations and compromises, a bipartisan agreement was finally reached, giving the White House almost everything it wanted. As part of the deal, Bush administration officials agreed to provide Congress with more details on how Patriot Act powers were being used. The Justice Department would be obliged to disclose to Congress how many Americans' privacy was being violated by FBI subpoenas known as National Security Letters. (The Washington Post reported that the FBI was issuing 30,000 such letters a year). However, Bush reneged in a "signing statement" quietly released after a heavily hyped White House bill-signing ceremony. Bush decreed that he was entitled to deny Congress any information that would "impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties." Bush announced that he would interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information."
In other words, any provision in the law that requires disclosure is presumptively null and void. The crux of the "unitary executive" is that all power rests in the president and that checks and balances are an archaic relic. This is the same "principle" the Bush administration invoked to deny Congress everything from Iraqi war plans to the records of the Cheney Energy Task Force. Bush has invoked the "unitary executive" doctrine almost 100 times since taking office, according to Miami University professor Christopher Kelley.
Democrats were furious over what they saw as a Bush Patriot Act double-cross. Representatives Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) bitterly complained to Gonzales: ''Many members who supported the final law did so based upon the guarantee of additional reporting and oversight. The administration cannot, after the fact, unilaterally repeal provisions of the law implementing such oversight." The Bush administration ignored the complaint.
Bush's prerogative also apparently includes the right to cover up waste, fraud, and abuse—regardless of how badly taxpayers get boarhogged. After Congress created an inspector general in late 2003 to look into the Coalition Provisional Authority, Bush decreed, "The CPA IG shall refrain from initiating, carrying out, or completing an audit or investigation, or from issuing a subpoena, which requires access to sensitive operation plans, intelligence matters, counterintelligence matters, ongoing criminal investigations by other administrative units of the Department of Defense related to national security, or other matters the disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to national security." Since the Bush administration seems to consider any unfavorable press coverage a "threat to national security," it is not surprising that the inspector general found almost nothing—despite pervasive reports and rumors of massive fraud. (There is no evidence that the wording of the signing statement was dictated by Halliburton.) Bush also used a signing statement to undermine the power and independence of an inspector general for Iraq in 2004 legislation.
Another frequent target of Bush signing smitings are provisions in laws on whistleblowers. Apparently he considers legal protections for whistleblowers a violation of his own prerogatives. The administration recently swayed the Supreme Court to undermine protections for federal employees who disclose federal crimes, and the Justice Department is signaling that it could prosecute both whistleblowers and journalists who publish leakers exposing government abuses.
Some people consider Bush's "El Supremo" view of his own powers as necessary for the war on terror. But Bush claims this prerogative regarding any foreign intervention. As the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage, who has done the best work on this subject, noted, "On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels. After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief." The Colombian government's paramilitary allies have committed some of the worst atrocities in recent Latin American history. The fact that Bush would claim a unilateral right to engage in what could become a full-scale civil war in Colombia vivifies that his boundless power stems from his job title—not from any conflict with al-Qaeda or other "Islamofascists," as he likes to call them.
Bush's signing statements also imply that he considers the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878—which prohibited using the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement—null and void. Congress passed laws in 2004 and 2005 prohibiting the military from using intelligence not "lawfully collected" on American citizens. In both cases, as Savage noted, "Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military." It is appalling that Congress would feel it necessary to pass a law declaring that the Pentagon cannot violate the Bill of Rights—but the president responds by declaring that he will not be bound by any such law—or by the Constitution.
The "signing statement" gambit for stretching presidential power was hatched during the Reagan administration. Attorney General Ed Meese instructed Samuel Alito, then a Justice Department lawyer, to analyze how such presidential assertions could buttress the administration's viewpoints in court. But Alito was a piker compared to George W. Bush. Alito declared that the Justice Department should ''concentrate on points of true ambiguity, rather than issuing interpretations that may seem to conflict with those of Congress."
Bush, on the other hand, has used signing statements to negate the most important parts of legislation. According to the Bush administration, if the president issues a signing statement memo that is printed in the Federal Register, federal agencies are not obliged to obey laws enacted by Congress.
The American Bar Association has appointed a bipartisan panel to examine whether Bush's signing-statement policies conflict with the Constitution. Their report is due later this summer. However, an ABA report earlier this year that concluded that Bush's warrantless wiretaps were illegal failed to make the slightest dent in either the administration's policies or its preening.
We have a nullification crisis at the heart of the American Republic. Torture is apparently legal, despite a federal prohibition. Domestic wiretapping is apparently legal, despite clear legal and constitutional prohibitions. Seizing suspects and holding them indefinitely is apparently legal, despite the Constitution's requirement of habeas corpus.
Apparently, the government is not obliged to obey any law that Bush does not personally approve of. And how can we know which laws Bush approves of? It's a secret. Bush's personal thoughts thus become the ultimate law of the land—and no one can know if the government is violating the "law" because Bush has not publicly declared what the law is.
Why should anyone give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is obeying all of the laws that he has not yet publicly proclaimed a right to violate? New York University law professor David Golove told the Boston Globe, "Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast quantities of the legislation that is passed during his term unconstitutional, it implies that he also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional."
Americans may have to wait many years to learn what the rule of law meant in 2006. The truth may be suppressed until Bush's aides begin publishing their memoirs or until the Supreme Court has a change of mood and decides that the executive branch is not entitled to boundless secrecy. In the meantime, don't count on the legislative branch to right the balance: Bush has encountered almost no effective resistance in his own party to his power grabs. One Republican senator recently told author Elizabeth Drew: "We've got to hang with the president because if you start splitting with him or say the president has been abusing power we'll all go down." Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, recently denounced criticism of the NSA warrantless wiretapping as "insulting" to the president, Drew reported. Apparently, some prominent Republicans believe that the president cannot be criticized even after he admits breaking the law.
So what is the meaning of "limited government" in the Bush era? Merely that the courts and Congress must be prohibited from limiting the president's power.
——————————————————————
James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy (Palgrave 2006) and eight other books.
July 17, 2006 Issue
You seem to mention a lot, the 'added protections' (your quotes below) we have now with the article in question …
" … So, as I read it, the amended US Code after the bill Bush signed last week, actually ADDS protections against unwarranted denial of civil liberties than was on the books previously.
Namely, it adds a mandatory notification of Congress once the President exercises this authority and a mandatory 14-day update for the duration of the action.
the reporting requirement the President has to inform Congress as soon as practicable initially and then every 14 days thereafter, that's MORE protection than the old law provided. … "
" … The new also adds reporting requirements that wewre NOT required before. That's clear and indisputable -- … "
" … adds protections, not weakens any. That's why I've been asking the question I have…."
As Sam says to David; " … You make a considerable point of parsing this document and extolling the checks against abuse while ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room: Bush chooses what law or portion of it, by executive fiat, he will obey. … " and then that comment continues … well worth everyone's reading again, especially you David.
I would say that Sam has your number … a lot of parsing what 'you' think is 'great protection' … like after Mr Pres. Causes the killing of a bunch of citizens … if he feels like obeying these 'new protective clauses', he will 'maybe' advise Congress and then report again in 14 days … SUCH A DEAL !!!
And you David say to me; " … All of that said, our little conversation really doesn't address the issue of the article, now does it? … "
And I say … ALL SAID IS ON THE ISSUE of the ARTICLE, you just choose to see it your own way, and that is typical of those that see their administration working in their own best interests. The Republicans are all about the people at the very top of the food chain $$$ … and the Democrats are somewhat different having more compassion for the average person that attempts to make an honest living.
I suggest that you pay a little more attention to your intuition … that is where even 'your' God will speak to you.