FOTW says: "the blunt truth is that he was able to offer a legal rationale for some truly outrageous ideas - that the president's inherent authority essentially allows him to dispose of any legal restriction he finds inconvenient in a time of war."

The legal language which one uses to gussy up a bad opinion should not confuse the issue. The fact is that the constitution specifically gives Congress the right to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water", in the same clause as the right to declare war. This Yoo memo stood in direct contrast to a clause of the constitution which any lawyer would HAVE to know, especially when formulating legal opinions for administration officials on this issue. This congressional right guided the Hamdan decision and led to the MCA passed immediately prior to the 06 midterm election.

Don't be fooled by the Jedi Mind Tricks used by the Bush administration's lawyers. Legal language does not equal sound legal opinion, and Yoo's memo sets an all new low for acceptable legal backing of an obviously bad and unconstitutional policy.

Posted at April 3, 2008 3:08 PM in response to Yoo: I Thought Torture Was A Bad Idea, Really I Did

What happens if Pres. 28% vetos the intelligence funding bill because of the reaffirmation of FISA? I wonder if this tactic would allow the President to, in effect, retro actively veto FISA. If he vetos the bill... what then? The Congress will never override his veto, and the President would be able to point to his successful veto of the question at hand to justify continuing the practice... as I interpret this anyway.

What is the purpose of affirming a law which was passed, and never repealed? The constitutional remedy for this behavior is impeachment. I wonder if ever before in this nations history we have seen an example of a President defiantly breaking a law, and then having Congress respond by sending the law back for the Presidents signature?

I think the sentiment is right, but I hesitate to be all gung ho for a solution which our founding fathers would have scoffed at. The notion that the Congress would reaffirm a valid law in the face of Presidential defiance of that law seems to be too deferential to the Presidents lawlessness. It may blow up in our faces. Either take the constitutional remedy and impeach him for breaking the law, or roll over and let him steam roll you. But don't make it worse by trying to get all cutesy with the issue.

If I'm wrong in my reading of this, I'll take it all back. I want to be wrong! Prove to me that I am, and I'll hop on the reaffirmation of FISA in the intelligence bill bandwagon forthwith... Until I see that proof though, I will wonder at the consequences of a Presidential veto of a law which is already a law, but brought back for his consideration by a well meaning congress.

Posted at May 23, 2007 2:22 PM in response to Pulling the Plug on Warrantless Eavesdropping of Americans