Blogcritics Comments on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Comment by Dave Nalle on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Wed, 31 May 2006 01:23:37 EDT

It also makes him the 'executive', who has decision making ability. And Bliffle, I find it in the Constitution and in the writings of the founding fathers and how they interpreted and intended the constitution. Dave ]]>

Comment by Gina Weiss on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Tue, 30 May 2006 23:43:13 EDT

It's in the nature of the job to want to make decisions and exercise direct authority. We have a president so that we have someone who can respond quickly in a crisis without having to debate and pass a new law to do it. Any responsible president is going to want to fill that role - as Bush says, being the 'decider'. And he's not wrong to look at it that way. The Constitution does designate the President as "Commander in Chief" but not of the country as a whole, with the powers of some Fuhrer but only as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia when called into the actual Service of the United States." The President may exercise limited authority dependent upon mandates from Congress, not some limitless "inherent" power. ]]>

Comment by Bliffle on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Sat, 27 May 2006 06:27:18 EDT

"Now, under this new thinking, all 3 branches contend for power, each one seeking to outdo the other. This isn't 'new thinking', it's the thinking of the founding fathers." How so? Where do you find this? Or is this your interpretation? If I break the law I can expect to be arrested soon. Who arrests an errant president? ]]>

Comment by Gina Weiss on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Sat, 27 May 2006 04:56:53 EDT

Sure, after he broke it. He could have asked for the law to be changed and illustrated why beforehand. He knew he wasn't completely in the clear, but thought he could get away with it. A true leader would have alleviated any ambiguity by going to Congress or the people. Ah, yes; leading by example with honor and integrity, rather than majestic autocratic rule. Now there's a refreshing idea. You're right on, Roger, and your analysis conjures up pictures of slithering asps. ]]>

Comment by RogerMDillon on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Sat, 27 May 2006 00:58:41 EDT

I've thought about it and your right, Shelly, it does sound very childish. The right is constantly going on about how bad and inept government is but then blindly trust everything they say and do when they are told it is to protect them. "Note that it says 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution'. It doesn't say one word about upholding and defending 'the law'." So the right dismisses the idea of upholding and defending 'the law' when it's Bush and make it the central issue when Clinton breaks the law. Can you guys ever be consistent on an issue? "As for repealing or modifying the law he has publicly asked Congress to either clarify the law or replace it." Sure, after he broke it. He could have asked for the law to be changed and illustrated why beforehand. He knew he wasn't completely in the clear, but thought he could get away with it. A true leader would have alleviated any ambiguity by going to Congress or the people. ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Sat, 27 May 2006 00:55:41 EDT

Sorry, Shelly. Even I don't buy that one. Dave ]]>

Comment by Shelly on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Sat, 27 May 2006 00:40:22 EDT

This is going to sound like a very childish way of looking at this I am sure, but do you not think that the only people who have a problem with our leader trying to take care of us, is the people that have something to hide??!! NOW, before I get attacked for saying just think about it for a min and let it sink in, does that make it any clearer?? ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Sat, 27 May 2006 00:28:46 EDT

Blliff, on a purely philosophical basis you're entirely justified in disobeying laws which you consider unconstitutional or which for that matter you consider contrary to natural law. If you do so, you're a hero in my book and absolutely ethically justified. Rousseau and Montesquieu and Bastiat woudl all agree. The catch is that when you follow that pure ethical course you may face the wrath of a state which doesn't share your purist application of natural law and wants to impose more arcane and expedient laws on you. You can test those laws in a court and may end up winning, but you run the risk of being an oppressed martyr. But I'd be proud of you for it. Now, under this new thinking, all 3 branches contend for power, each one seeking to outdo the other. This isn't 'new thinking', it's the thinking of the founding fathers. But doesn't this legitimize 'legislating from the bench' I may not be a good conservative, but I don't see interpreting the law as legislating from the bench. My belief has always been that the "decider" is the legislative branch, presumably acting under orders from the electorate. Mmm no. The legislative branch is the planner and approver. The president remains the most 'action' oriented part of the government. The budget, the appointments and the policies generally originate with the president and then get formalized and approved by the legislature. Dave ]]>

Comment by Bliffle on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Fri, 26 May 2006 22:03:12 EDT

How strange. Apparently, the pres doesn't have to obey any law not tested for constitutionality by the supremes. Is that the contention? Does it apply to me, too? Can I disobey any law whose constitutionality has not been tested? Like the latest tax laws? My belief has been that congress passes laws, the executive enforces them (that's why they're called the executive branch, because they execute the laws, so they would be remiss if they didn't), and the supremes settle issues of constitutionality of those laws. Now, under this new thinking, all 3 branches contend for power, each one seeking to outdo the other. But doesn't this legitimize 'legislating from the bench' which we've always excoriated (as good conservatives rather than nasty liberals)? My belief has always been that the "decider" is the legislative branch, presumably acting under orders from the electorate. ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Fri, 26 May 2006 21:02:34 EDT

Very true, Troll. It's in the nature of the job to want to make decisions and exercise direct authority. We have a president so that we have someone who can respond quickly in a crisis without having to debate and pass a new law to do it. Any responsible president is going to want to fill that role - as Bush says, being the 'decider'. And he's not wrong to look at it that way. Dave ]]>

Comment by troll on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Fri, 26 May 2006 12:43:49 EDT

I really don't think it's an issue of Bush...any Prez would be chomping at the bit under the circumstances troll ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Fri, 26 May 2006 12:23:28 EDT

Troll, just bitching a lot is probably as good as anything else those who oppose Bush can do. But if they're going to bitch they ought to do it in an informed way. Constantly going on about how Bush is breaking laws and ought to be impeached just makes them sound ignorant and diminishes the chance of their concerns being taken seriously. Dave ]]>

Comment by troll on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Fri, 26 May 2006 12:16:50 EDT

Bliffle - I'm going to assume that you understand that #22 concerns constitutional power dynamics and proposes a structural requirement for executive overreach and that #24 is just semantic distraction if you don't approve of Bush's usurpations then hire a congressman who will stop him either that or consider a juicy seditious conspiracy troll ]]>

Comment by Maurice on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Fri, 26 May 2006 09:42:48 EDT

It cracks me up that so many on the left only recently discovered the electoral college. Please see Article 2, US Consitution. Here are some of the quotes from the Consitutional Convention: "A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787 "The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787 "The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787. Amazing to me how far seeing these men were. -M- (the Token) ]]>

Comment by Bliffle on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Thu, 25 May 2006 23:12:30 EDT

"Zing is right. He is like a king. He is SUPPOSED to be like a King. The concept of a monarch is the distillation of executive power." Somebody must be spoofing us with Daves sig. SUPPOSED!? What a strange idea. Then, compounded with "...a monarch is the distillation of executive power..." as if monarchy historically followed the idea of a US president. Are we then to believe that the innovation in the US constitution is that the king is simply elected (or appointed by the Electoral College) as opposed to the traditional hereditary king? How interesting. Even piquant. ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Thu, 25 May 2006 19:42:39 EDT

okay, if he broke the law, charge him. take it to court. if he is found guilty, put him in jail. let all the things that happen to anyone who breaks the law happen to him. Absolutely. But also rewrite the law, especially if he gets off - as he certainly would. clarify the law? can't he read it himself? did he ask congress before or after he broke the law? Not only can he read it himself he had an army of lawyers read it and they found it to be either ambiguous or to allow his actions. The Senators and Congressmen he consulted also agreed, as have some judges. In that situation, if you don't like what he did, you need to make the law clear and definitive in saying that it can't be done. Which it certainly is not now. Read the parts I quoted. They certainly give him license to do as he has, no matter how much we don't like it. Dave ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Thu, 25 May 2006 19:39:27 EDT

I'll go with the Bingo too. Zing is right. He is like a king. He is SUPPOSED to be like a King. The concept of a monarch is the distillation of executive power. The difference in our system is that we have checks and balances on that executive power. The president is supposed to try to exercise executive power and then when he goes to far the courts and congress and even the press are there to reign him in and set the limits. It's a dynamic system that sets these forces in competition with and against each other. The Constitution IS the law of the land, that is what is conveniently forgotten or pushed aside. The constitution is the supreme law of the land FISA and the Telecommunications act are lesser laws which have not been fully constitutionally tested. They do NOT have the same weight or inviolability, nor are they specified in the presidential oath as Heck suggested. Dave ]]>

Comment by Gina on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Thu, 25 May 2006 18:43:24 EDT

Dave: "Note that it says 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution'. It doesn't say one word about upholding and defending 'the law'." The Constitution IS the law of the land, that is what is conveniently forgotten or pushed aside. Dave: "Actually, I'll go even further than that. By taking advantage of the weaknesses in the laws they are actually protecting our rights." That's exactly what they want you to believe. Heckler: "No matter how you try and obfuscate or dance around it, that is the crux of the matter. You have an Administration and Attorney General's office that has demonstrated time and again that they believe they can bypass the protections of checks and balances merely on THEIR SAY SO ALONE." zingzing: "he IS acting like a king, beholden to no law but his own (which is... vague...). if he thinks a law is wrong, he should see if he can get it repealed. it's that simple." Bingo. ]]>

Comment by zingzing on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Thu, 25 May 2006 17:48:30 EDT

okay, if he broke the law, charge him. take it to court. if he is found guilty, put him in jail. let all the things that happen to anyone who breaks the law happen to him. clarify the law? can't he read it himself? did he ask congress before or after he broke the law? ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Thu, 25 May 2006 16:59:51 EDT

Zing, what are these 'proper channels' you speak of? The way you challenge a law is to flout it, then get taken to court and defend your position there all the way to the SCOTUS if necessary. That's how it works. As for repealing or modifying the law he has publicly asked Congress to either clarify the law or replace it. What more do you want? Dave ]]>

Comment by zingzing on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Thu, 25 May 2006 16:24:24 EDT

is it just me or am i getting deja vu? dave: "I think that sometimes the role of the executive should be to challenge the law in the defense of the constitution and the best interests of the people." well, then, why doesn't he challenge it through the proper channels instead of just doing whatever the fuck he pleases and then saying he thinks it's in our best interests? he IS acting like a king, beholden to no law but his own (which is... vague...). if he thinks a law is wrong, he should see if he can get it repealed. it's that simple. ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Thu, 25 May 2006 15:30:31 EDT

I quote the Oath of Office of the President of the United States: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Note that it says 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution'. It doesn't say one word about upholding and defending 'the law'. When the law is the enemy of the people and of the Constitution, then it is the president's job to fight that law in their defense under that oath which you originally referenced. Dave ]]>

Comment by Heckler on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Thu, 25 May 2006 14:45:00 EDT

"challenge the law" as opposed to "uphold and defend" That does say it all... and you are absolutely correct in it "not happening again" ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Thu, 25 May 2006 14:38:17 EDT

It's not pointless, we're just defining two different views of the role of the executive in our Republic. You believe that defending the constitution is the same as defending the law, while I think that sometimes the role of the executive should be to challenge the law in the defense of the constitution and the best interests of the people. Dave ]]>

Comment by Heckler on Since When is the President Not Bound by the Rule of Law?

Thu, 25 May 2006 14:32:46 EDT

Apology accepted, but it doesn't change the facts. As for your vision of how you think it should work. I say look at the Oath of Office..."defend and uphold the Constitution..." Which part of that is it acceptable to violate? None by me. But you are correct, this is pointless, and I am once again wasting my time. Lesson learned. c ya ]]>