Supreme Court in 2004 will Expand or Shrink the Power of the President

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
[Q]The U.S. Supreme Court and The Imperial Presidency
How President Bush Is Testing the Limits of His Presidential Powers
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jan. 16, 2004

Can the President of the United States arrest any American he suspects of being a terrorist and toss him in a military brig, deny him a lawyer, omit to bring any charges against him -- yet indefinitely keep him imprisoned nonetheless?

Can the President kidnap foreigners charged with violating federal law, and bring them to the United States to stand trial? How about Osama bin Laden, for starters?

These are only a few of the issues raised by cases now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court that will examine the limits of presidential powers. As David Savage, the legal writer for the Los Angeles Times, has noted, this is a remarkable collection of cases.

"[T]he justices have voted to take up five cases that test the president's power to act alone and without interference from Congress or the courts," Savage explains. The description of these cases, as Savage has ably summarized them, is startling: "They involve imprisoning foreign fighters at overseas bases, holding American citizens without charges in military brigs, preserving the secrecy of White House meetings, enforcing free-trade treaties despite environmental concerns, and abducting foreigners charged with U.S. crimes."

What the Supreme Court has placed on its agenda, in short, is the Imperial Presidency -- that is, the Presidency in which the Executive largely acts alone, pushing the Constitution to the limits and beyond. And how the Justices deal with this overwhelmingly important topic could affect the reelection prospects of the Bush presidency, for, as David Savage notes, at least four of the five rulings are anticipated to be handed down during the summer of 2004 -- right in the middle of the presidential campaign.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Executive Power Cases the Court Will Hear Soon

As I noted at the start of this column, it has been three decades since the Court will have tackled such important presidential power questions -- with such potential political implications for a presidential race. For that reason, the five cases that raise these questions should be on the radar screen of all president -- and Supreme Court -- watchers.

The cases are:

Sealed Case. A case so secret it does not appear on the Court's docket, and the Solicitor General simply refers to it as "this matter ? that is required to be kept under seal." In fact, it is not all that secret. It involves Mohamed Kamel Baellahouel, who wants the Court to rule on whether he was improperly secretly jailed. The government want to argue its case in secret. But some twenty news organizations are opposing this extreme secrecy.


Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. This case raises the rights of an American citizen -- Yaser Hamdi -- who was captured overseas and held in the United States as an "enemy combatant." Hamdi was arrested in Afghanistan.


Rasul v. Bush, and Al Odah v. United States. These cases address the habeas corpus rights of aliens detained at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The government is maintaining that these aliens do not have the right to file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. federal courts.


Padilla v. Rumsfeld. This case involves Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who is being held indefinitely, in a military prison, as an "enemy combatant." He was arrested when deplaning in Chicago. (Thus, his case may be treated differently from that of Hamdi, who was arrested abroad, in Afghanistan.) The Second Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling, held that Padilla's detention violated the Non-Detention Act of 1971, which asserts that no citizens may be held by the federal government "except pursuant to an act of Congress." The Government is appealing, claiming that the President has power to unilaterally cause such detentions to occur.


Cheney v. Judicial Watch and Sierra Club. This case involves the right of the vice president (and, by implication, of the president) to refuse to turn over documents in a civil lawsuit. The suit seeks to determine if Cheney violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (the law that forced First Lady Hillary Clinton to open up her sessions on health care). [/Q]


The rest of the article is well worth the read. Bush is more like Nixon according to John Dean. Actually, he has expanded the power of the presidency more than Nixon. The Supreme Court put Nixon back into his place. It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court will do so to this President.



http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040116.html
 
It is always better to have a political system with checks and balances rather than allowing power to be a tool/ weapon in the hands of an individual.
 
I find it interesting, Dread, that you posted this article. It seems to me that this article is critical of the President's actions. Other persons here have made the charge that Bush is dangerous, largely for the reasons enumerated above, and you don't seem to buy that. On the other hand, we have this article which clearly spells out abuses, or soon-to-be abuses, of power within the Bush administration.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with Osama bin Laden being brought to trial if he's ever caught; I think it should happen in an international setting, because the U.S. isn't the only nation involved in the "war on terror," but of course I believe he should be brought to trial. And I would have no problem with Al-Qaeda members being held as POWs in accordance with the Geneva Convention. But I do happen to think that the longer the U.S. flouts international standards for law and justice, the more other countries will feel free to do so as soon as those standards become inconvenient for them.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I don't know how that article doesn't prove that Bush wants to expand the powers of the executive branch WELL beyond the limits of the Constitution. How seriously, then, does he take his oath to defend the Constitution?

I have never been so excited about voting in my life.
 
Bush has not done anything different from Presidents Lincoln and Rosevelt in regards to the detentions of individuals in a time of war. We all know how members of Al Quada and Bin Ladin would vote on this issue if they could.
 
paxetaurora said:

I have never been so excited about voting in my life.


Word. :up: :yes:

And if the primaries turn-out is anything to judge by, you're not alone by a long shot. I'm planning to help the VA DNC register and drive people to the polls who wouldn't be able to vote otherwise. I want to do all I can.

:)

Cheryl
 
STING2 said:
Bush has not done anything different from Presidents Lincoln and Rosevelt in regards to the detentions of individuals in a time of war. We all know how members of Al Quada and Bin Ladin would vote on this issue if they could.

So are you trying to say that those who support the limiting of the President's power are now aiding the Al Quaida?
 
STING2 said:
Bush has not done anything different from Presidents Lincoln and Rosevelt in regards to the detentions of individuals in a time of war. We all know how members of Al Quada and Bin Ladin would vote on this issue if they could.

Then again, Lincoln and Roosevelt were president before the UN (with their declarations on Human Rights and POW's) even existed.

Marty
 
STING2 said:
Bush has not done anything different from Presidents Lincoln and Rosevelt in regards to the detentions of individuals in a time of war. We all know how members of Al Quada and Bin Ladin would vote on this issue if they could.

But there's one problem with this statement: we're not in a time of war. No war has been officially declared by Congress since World War II. Call it whatever you want, but this is not a "time of war." Being in a constant state of siege, like the incorrectly named "Cold War," is not a "time of war." Since you're so good on technicalities like UN Resolution 1441, I'm sure you'll understand the problems in your logic.

Giving the executive branch such unparalleled power runs contrary to the ideals that founded this nation. We're a republic with distinct separation of powers to prevent any branch of government, including the executive branch, from overstepping its boundaries and turning this nation into an autocratic quasi-monarchy.

This is not like World War II; this is more like the Cold War: a state of siege that is mostly based on fear and the potential for conflict. I trust that the Supreme Court will not cheapen itself by handing the executive branch powers that it was never intended to have.

And bringing up the specters of bin Laden and Al-Qaeda? How presidential of you, but undermining our democracy in favor of dictatorial decrees is precisely how I'd imagine they'd vote.

Melon
 
melon said:


This is not like World War II; this is more like the Cold War: a state of siege that is mostly based on fear and the potential for conflict. I trust that the Supreme Court will not cheapen itself by handing the executive branch powers that it was never intended to have.

And bringing up the specters of bin Laden and Al-Qaeda? How presidential of you, but undermining our democracy in favor of dictatorial decrees is precisely how I'd imagine they'd vote.

Melon

:up:

Welcome back. :hug:
 
paxetaurora said:
I find it interesting, Dread, that you posted this article. It seems to me that this article is critical of the President's actions. Other persons here have made the charge that Bush is dangerous, largely for the reasons enumerated above, and you don't seem to buy that. On the other hand, we have this article which clearly spells out abuses, or soon-to-be abuses, of power within the Bush administration.

Pax, I think that historically Presidents always try and get away with what they can as far as expanding their power. they each have done a bit in their own way.

I would agree with you, that I have defended the Presidents actions more often than not in this forum, however, I have been fairly consistent in my belief that through the democratic process and voting we can change what we do not like. The Patriot Act is not permanent. The Patriot Act II has not passed. There is a process. The Supreme Court has already started to rule on some of the cases and against the administration. It proves what I believe in my heart, that the system of checks and balances, will in the long run always even itself out. It may not always be as fast as we would like it too, but the system in general works.

As for the President, if the administration is wrong in its actions, so be it. I would rather them be wrong and test the boundaries of the law, than to be wrong and not know the limits of the law in the climate we live under today. Some do not feel this way. I can respect that, and once again, the system through voting, and the courts will weed it all out.

A historical example of what I am thinking of would be Robert Kennedy having the FBI grab Mafia Godfather Carlos Marcello in New Orleans and having him illegally deported to Guatemalla and dumped in the middle of the jungle. This happened. It is not fiction, nor is it conspiracy crap. Marcello got back into the US and won his case against the Government. The FBI had no business doing that to him.

Another Kennedy example would be Kennedy using the FBI to gather personal information on the owners and executives of the major Steel Corporations. He used this information to blackmail them into sticking to an agreement to "fix" the price of steel. If they had not gone along with it, he was worried about the economy and his chances for reelection. Power of the President...abuse of power? Dirty Tricks? or Good for the Country?


One other point Pax.....I grabbed this from a Law site. I did not get it from an editorial, or a propaganda site that was equating Bush to Hitler. Something I find so offensive for personal reasons it sickens me that it is still allowed that articles can be posted like that in this forum. Deep down, maybe they are saying the same thing....the Executive Branch is expanding its powers. One however says it without offending people who may have a connection to that period in history due to religion, loss of a loved one, or maybe even because a family member had nightmares until the day they died from cleaning up a concentration camp.


Yes I posted it....I anticipate the Supreme Court finding that the executive branch has exceded its authority.

Melon....I think you make an excellent point....can you declare war against a group that is not a country? I am curious. I have argued in here that a formal declaration of war should have been made for Iraq....and I am not sure constitutionally if it is possible to declare war against a group of people.
 
The article I assume you're referring to is the one drawing parallels between this time in American history and the rise of the Nazi regime in Germany. I think this article was let go because it did report facts and was not engaged in name-calling. You're right; it's a very heavy and sensitive term to toss around, which is why we discourage it in FYM. I know that at some point people have been admonished by mods when calling Bush "Hitler" or a "Nazi," but if you really have a problem with the article, I suggest bringing it to Elvis's attention. He will advise the mods about what to do.
 
When I was born, we were the sole Scotch-Irish family in a Jewish enclave apartment house, an unusual environment for the Bible Belt. Our neighbors were concentration camp survivors from Poland. I can't remember, but my mother says the man used to have blood-curdling nightmares that he was still in the concentration camp and would start screaming. His wife was very strong, the strength in the family. They would later move to New York City so their kids could study to be rabbis at the yeshiva. The lady gave me my first baby present, a blue dress. My parents learned alot from those people. They taught us kids that we are all God's children and we need to respect diversity. I think this is so strong in our culture, even a relatively rigid one like the Deep South, that bad politicians in the White House or whatever can't screw it up. The voters will take care of any shenanigans just like they did after Watergate if God forbid there are any major scandals brewing. In the end the voters won't take getting screwed.
 
Last edited:
Melon,

"But there's one problem with this statement: we're not in a time of war. No war has been officially declared by Congress since World War II. Call it whatever you want, but this is not a "time of war." Being in a constant state of siege, like the incorrectly named "Cold War," is not a "time of war." Since you're so good on technicalities like UN Resolution 1441, I'm sure you'll understand the problems in your logic."

The Declaration of War is no longer used(nor will it ever be again), so one cannot claim that a state of war does not exist based on the fact that Congress did not "Declare War".

The Presidents most important responsibility is to ensure the National Security of the country.

"And bringing up the specters of bin Laden and Al-Qaeda? How presidential of you, but undermining our democracy in favor of dictatorial decrees is precisely how I'd imagine they'd vote."

Yep, lets allow terrorist more flexibility to murder thousands of Americans. What a way to uphold American Democracy.
 
STING2 said:
Yep, lets allow terrorist more flexibility to murder thousands of Americans. What a way to uphold American Democracy.

All I know is that you don't uphold democracy by taking it away--precisely what Bush has been doing.

Melon
 
What a shame it was not voted upon this time. Maybe, just maybe the intelligence would have been looked at more closely. There clearly was not any immediate threat from Iraq. We had time to do what the constitution was designed to do. Now, we have two choices.....A Declaration of War might have made people take things a little more seriously. Maybe I am dreaming though.

A) the President lied....
B) the Intelligence community really failed.

Neither is really promising....both damage us internationally.

The congress is as responsible for this as is the executive branch.
The voters are too if they do not do their jobs.
 
Dreadsox,

It was never incumbent upon US intelligence to prove that Saddam had WMD a or c. After the failure of intelligence about what Saddam had or did not have which was discovered following the First Gulf War, the international community made sure that the Verifiable Disarmament by Saddam himself would be the only reliable way, short of his removal to insure the security and stability of the region and for that matter the rest of the world. Verifiable Disarmament required some degree of cooperation from Saddam which he never gave.

Past intelligence estimates said:

Saddam would not invade Iran. He did

Saddam would not invade Kuwait. He did.

Saddam in 1990 was a decade away from a Nuclear
Weapon. He was actually less than a year away.

Once again, this is why the responsibility for verifiable
disarmament came down on Saddam. Past experience had
already shown that Saddam's actions were nearly impossible
predict, and he had been able to conceal his activities.

This is why Saddam's full cooperation with the inspections
process to achieve Verifiable Disarmament was necessary.
But Saddam never did fully cooperate. Considering what
Saddam had already done to the region and the world, this
was simply intolerable.


"What a shame it was not voted upon this time."

The President asked for and received from the US congress,
the authorization to use military force against Iraq. The
support to do so was overwhelming compared to vote in
Congress to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait a decade earlier.
Every Congressman new this was a vote about sending the
country to war and Congressman from Dick Gepthart to
Edwards and others examined the situation and believed it
was the right thing to do.

The Declaration of War is a relic of the past and will not be
used again. Every Congressman new they were voting to
either go to war or not to go to war, just as they did with
the vote back in 1991.


"There clearly was not any immediate threat from Iraq."

Any time a dictator with Saddam's past behavior and WMD possession, has a military of nearly 400,000 men, much of which were in position less than 100 miles from most of the Planets oil supply, and has failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD, there is always an immediate threat.

Saddam was required to Verifiably Disarm precisely because his possession or potential possession of WMD was seen as an immediate threat to the region and there for the rest of the world.
If this were not the case, there would have been no reason to force Saddam to disarm upon the end of the 1991 Gulf War.


A: Saddam lied and failed to verifiably disarm. While Kay
has yet to find certain stocks of weapons, hundreds of
items have already been found that violate resolution
1441 and the Gulf War Ceacefire.

B: The intelligence community has consistently failed in
many area's in regards to Saddam since 1980. This is
not a surprise but often the nature of intelligence. It is
for this very reason that Saddam was required to
verifiably disarm through an intensive uninterupted
inspections process because of the inability to predict
Saddam's actions as well as the inability to tell what
Saddam had or did not have from the outside.


Nearly every intelligence community from other countries including most former weapons inspectors concluded that Saddam still had WMD. The fact that he had failed to Verifiably disarm and comply with UN resolutions was uncontested.

The administrations overall case is rock solid because at its heart is Saddam's failure to Verifiably Disarm. If there is anything to criticize, it is the failure of this administration and the previous one to move more rapidly on the issue. Saddam had 12 years to meet his responsibilities, far longer than it would take to actually meet them if he had been willing to do so.

The President made his case, and the Congress and people examined and approved it.

What would be damaging internationally would be to have Saddam still in power, not disarmed, coming upon a 13th year of non-compliance. The inability to enforce the UN's most serious resolutions would have damaging effects on the problems of proliferation and rogue states well into the future as well as the obvious implications for security and stability in the vital Persian Gulf Region.
 
Last edited:
Anyway...

I really look forward to seeing what this court does. I still have faith given the recent rulings....that they are going to take a few of these cases and rule that the executive branch has indeed exceeded its powers.
 
Dreadsox said:
Anyway...

I really look forward to seeing what this court does. I still have faith given the recent rulings....that they are going to take a few of these cases and rule that the executive branch has indeed exceeded its powers.
:up:
 
:applaud: :applaud:

I hope so also. I think this has really damaged our standing in the international community.

Kay has even stated they found some records of disarmement. Too bad they didn't let the inspectors work longer.
http://hnn.us/articles/3193.html

...
The world simply doesn't trust us any longer ? a reversal of goodwill in lightening time ? yet Mr. Bush pretends it's only because of some silly difference of opinion over some petty difference about what was real and what was not.

Perhaps if the president engaged the world by at least reading newspapers he could grasp the unpleasant diplomatic consequences of crying wolf. According to a front-page report in the Washington Post last week, foreign policy analysts who had sat in the president's pro-invasion corner are now in anguish over sinking, or rather sunken, U.S. credibility abroad.

Defense Advisory Board member and war hawk Kenneth Adelman, for example, complained ?the foreign policy blow-back? from the administration's rhetorical hyperbole ?is pretty serious.? He noted the damage done to exercising future, legitimate actions against imminent threats to national security. In effect, the Bush doctrine had one shot at proving itself justifiable, but the postwar absence of damning evidence has only served to shoot down our credibility instead. (For those egg-on-the-face conservatives who now advance the curious defense that the always-wrong Clinton administration also believed in damning evidence, try to remember this much: It didn't slap on six-shooters and go blasting its way into Baghdad, only later to say, ?Oops.?)

Richard Haass ? Council on Foreign Relations president, former assistant to State Secretary Colin Powell and good Republican ? joined Adelman's critical ranks. Not only have U.S. allegations about North Korea 's nuclear capability been thrown into question as a result of the Iraqi WMD fiasco, similar and quite valid allegations against other hostile nations, said Haass, could be dismissed by the international community as so much swashbuckling. The giant gap between Bush's imaginary rhetoric and proven reality has made it ?more difficult on some future occasion if the United States argues the intelligence warrants something controversial, like a preventive attack,? Haass concluded.

One can try piercing that argument from many angles, but it would seem impenetrable. Only the most diehard apologist or hyper-hormonal cowboy would argue the administration's overblown warnings about Iraq have not altered and, in fact, further limited U.S. options against real foreign dangers. And therein lies, it seems to me, the irony behind the president's schoolyard taunt that political opponents would seek an international ?permission slip? before acting again. Ironic, because that is the one course of action that Mr. Bush, more than anyone else, has helped to establish as the only course.

...
 
The majority of the intelligence agencies from other countries around the world believed Saddam still had WMD. But the ultimate fact was the Saddam had failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM and that is the Bush administrations central case for war. Can you name a single country before the war that stated or believed that Saddam had reliably complied with any of the 17 UN resolutions passed against him inlcuding those that were dealing with disaramament?

There was only one person required to prove anything and his name was Saddam.
 
If you are going to LEAD the charge into another country......
It should be EXPECTED that your Intelligence is correct......

I could care less about what France and Germany had for intelligence. I did not support their governments' position on the war. I supported MY government's position on the war. I now want my government held ACCOUNTABLE for what apparently was not correct.

I for one, cannot support any future action like this until it is CLEARED up.

Now can you all please get back to the topic of this thread...please

I think it is reasonable that if we are spending about 32 Billion a year and they screw up on an issue like this, we should now why. We paid for it.

:wink:
 
---I love how most threads get sidetracked into discussions about related, yet tangent subjects. (sigh)

---Concerning the upcoming cases before the Supreme Court I believe that old laws will be respected. Getting a president into office is one thing; giving him unilateral powers concerning illegal detainment is another.
 
"I think it is reasonable that if we are spending about 32 Billion a year and they screw up on an issue like this, we should now why. We paid for it."

The fact that Saddam failed to verifiably disarm is not a screw up for American intelligence. The fact that there continues to be all kinds of things that are unaccounted for by Saddam is not a screw up for American Intelligence. Its a Fact!

I think it is important to investigate in order to improve intelligence. What such an investigation should not be used for is as a tool to improve someone's election chances.
 
Back
Top Bottom