...and those responsible for this horrible nightmare will pay, sooner or later.It is the way of things.
Bush Asserts a King's Prerogative
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Wednesday 25 July 2007
In theory, President Bush is sworn to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. In reality, he has treated federal law as a menu from which he picks and chooses those laws he likes, while ignoring those that do not suit his taste.
That royalist attitude may soon inspire a constitutional confrontation unrivaled in U.S. history.
At the moment, the president's penchant for ignoring laws he finds inconvenient is best displayed in the standoff with Congress over subpoenas. Congress has demanded the sworn testimony of White House officials as part of an investigation into the Justice Department; the White House is refusing to allow that testimony, citing executive privilege.
In itself, that conflict is hardly unusual; it continues a traditional contest of wills between presidents and Congress that goes back to the earliest days of the Republic. The conflict is so standard that federal law lays out a clear process for resolving it. If witnesses refuse to honor congressional subpoenas and are found in contempt, the matter is referred to the U.S. attorney from Washington, D.C., "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."
The wording of that law doesn't give the U.S. attorney any leeway. It doesn't say that he or she "can" or "may" bring it before the grand jury. It says he or she "shall" bring the matter to the grand jury, so the courts can resolve the conflict between the other two branches of government.
Bush, however, claims the right to ignore that law. He not only refuses to allow his aides to testify, he refuses to allow the U.S. attorney to refer the matter to the grand jury, as the law says he must. In essence, Bush is denying Congress access to the courts as an impartial arbiter of their dispute.
Now, in most other eras in American history, that would be the making of a serious confrontation between the congressional and executive branches. But in the Bush administration, it's a minor prelude to what may be coming next.
For months now, Congress has been debating ways to force a change of course in Iraq. Under the Constitution, the president is commander- in-chief, but Congress has the power of the purse - the right to fund or refuse to fund government activities. That means that the most obvious means of forcing a change of policy in Iraq is through the appropriations process. Congress could chose to fund military operations in Iraq only until a certain date, or only under certain conditions.
The Bush administration argues strongly against taking that course, as is its right. However, the White House also claims that any provision that sets a date certain for withdrawal would "infring[e] on the president's constitutional authority as commander-in-chief." In other words, the White House believes that any law telling the president what to do in Iraq would be unconstitutional, and thus could be ignored.
The administration has already refused to abide by numerous other provisions of law that it considered an unconstitutional assault on its powers, with the law regarding congressional subpoenas only the most recent. And within the administration, that a hard-nosed approach toward executive power has been championed most strongly by Vice President Dick Cheney.
Cheney did not come to that position lately. He expressed similar opinions 20 years ago, when he was still a member of Congress from Wyoming and vice chairman of a committee investigating the Iran-Contra scandal.
The heart of that scandal involved the Boland Amendment, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. That provision - a clear case of Congress exercising its power of the purse - barred the U.S. government from sending financial or military aid to the Contra guerrillas, who were trying to overthrow the Communist government of Nicaragua. When a cabal inside the Reagan White House arranged secret means to fund the Contras anyway, in clear violation of federal law, a scandal was born.
Most congressmen, Republican and Democratic alike, believed the White House had broken the law by funding the Contras. Cheney did not. In a minority committee report, he and others argued that the right to conduct foreign policy belongs exclusively to the president, and the Constitution "does not permit Congress to pass a law usurping presidential power."
"Congressional actions to limit the president in this area therefore should be reviewed with a considerable degree of skepticism," the 1987 report argued. "If they interfere with core presidential foreign policy functions, they should be struck down."
"The power of the purse ... is not and was never intended to be a license for Congress to usurp presidential powers and functions," the report concluded.
That attitude clearly animates the Bush administration in its dealings with Congress on lesser issues, and if applied to Iraq could have enormous ramifications. It provides the philosophical foundation - a foundation poured, set and cured over the previous six years - for the administration to continue trying to fight in Iraq no matter what restrictions Congress may choose to enact. And that would set the stage for a whole range of nightmares, up to and including impeachment.
Jay Bookman, for the editorial board.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
No comments:
Post a Comment