Friday, May 18, 2007

Who Makes the Laws?

In recent years the Washington Post editorial page has read as if it was written by the editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal. But with the news of what transpired at the hospital bed of then Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Post has finally realized that the President is the nations' chief law-breaker.

But what caught my eye in this morning's editorial was this graf:
Under the Constitution, the president has the final authority in the executive branch to say what the law is. But as a matter of presidential practice, this is breathtaking.
What Constitution are they reading? The former Soviet Union? King George III? Under our Constitution it is the Congress that makes law; the President signs it. The President can also veto a law he or she doesn't like, but the Congress has the authority to override a Presidential veto.

It is true, of course, that this President has routinely used signing statements to ignore laws written by Congress - even laws written by a Republican Congress and signed by him - and made himself into the final authority on what is the law of the land, but it is precisely this action that has turned him into a law-breaker and a criminal.

What kind of kool-aid are they drinking at the Post?

Update: And if anyone is the "final" authority it is the Supreme Court.


Anonymous said...

Did you even read the editorial? It says, "the president has the final authority in the executive branch to say what the law is." That simply means he is the one, over even the Attorney General, to interpret and execute the laws. It has nothing to do with the Supreme Court, who can only interpret laws and the Constitution when presented with an actual case or controversy.

You'll also note that Comey pointed out in his Senate testimony that DOJ certification was not a legal requirement. Rather, the DOJ process was part of the procedure that President Bush established by executive order. Thus, it was perfectly legal for the program to continue in the brief absence of DOJ certification, pursuant to the order of that same executive.

Are you deliberately obtuse and mendacious, or just plain dumb? Sometimes you liberals don't understand things because you just don't know how to read. The folks at the Washington Post do, and have immensely more experience in this kind of stuff than a hick Minnesota preacher who doesn't even believe what his denomination teaches.

What a maroon!

liberal pastor said...

Regarding the "executive branch" I stand corrected; a too hasty reading. Regarding the President's legal authority to act by executive order, if it was perfectly legal then why is the President rushing his attorney to the sick bed of a barely coherent Attorney General to get him to sign off on it? Why is Comey making the sure the FBI director makes it clear to his agents that Comey is not to be removed from the hospital room for any reason? Why will Comey not meet with the angry White House unless he has the Solicitor General present? Yep, it was all perfectly legal.

This will almost certainly be the final arrow that brings down the AG, and it could be the smoking gun that leads to the President's impeachment.

As for what my denomination teaches, what it teaches first and foremost is that we are to follow the dictates of our personal conscience; that pietistic strand is strong in our heritage. That is why we don't recite creeds; we have positions which state that "this" is where the majority of our denomination is at this moment. But we know from history that this position might eventually change. There is no doctrinal or creedal litmus test.

I could quite possibly be a "maroon" but since I am color blind I am not sure.