Admin Tells Congress (Again)-Won't Abide By Your "Laws": Glenn Greenwald

Saturday, March 25, 2006
Administration tells Congress (again) - We won't abide by your "laws"

The Republicans and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee submitted detailed questions to the Bush Administration regarding the NSA program, and the DoJ's responses to both the Democrats' questions and its responses to the Republicans' are now available.

There are numerous noteworthy items, but the most significant, by far, is that the DoJ made clear to Congress that even if Congress passes some sort of newly amended FISA of the type which Sen. DeWine introduced, and even if the President "agrees" to it and signs it into law, the President still has the power to violate that law if he wants to. Put another way, the Administration is telling the Congress -- again -- that they can go and pass all the laws they want which purport to liberalize or restrict the President's powers, and it does not matter, because the President has and intends to preserve the power to do whatever he wants regardless of what those laws provide.

Question number (5) from the Committee Republicans asked "whether President Carter's signature on FISA in 1978, together with his signing statement," meant that the Executive had agreed to be bound by the restrictions placed by FISA on the President's powers to eavesdrop on Americans. This is how the DoJ responded, in relevant part:



Can that be any clearer for you - Congressmen, Senators, journalists? The President is bestowed by the Constitution with the unlimited and un-limitable power to do anything that he believes is necessary to "protect the nation." Thus, even if Congress passes laws which seek to limit that power in any way, and even if the President agrees to those restrictions and signs that bill into law, he still retains the power to violate it whenever he wants.

more at:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/administration-tells-congress-again-we.html

He basically says that he has no requirement to be accountable to Congress, whether to
protect the homeland or because such oversight would interfere with his executive privilege.
So let's see Arlen Specter and Pat Roberts digest that little nugget. Oh, by the way,
Pat Roberts resents being called a "lapdog of this admistration" by the bloggers. I
think he's right, his status should be elevated to "Power Poodle."

the wording went like this:

"in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority" . . .

"the executive branch shall construe" . . .

"The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority"

In the bill:

"The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."

and,

"The executive branch shall construe the provision in a manner consistent with the bicameral passage and presentment requirements of the Constitution for the making of a law."

"The executive branch shall implement these provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority"

The Defense bill 'signing statement' is on their website. That bill contained McCain's compromise torture amendments. Check it out:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060106-12.html

They don't believe they have to obey the law.

nominated