Cheney Hints at Challenge to War Powers Act

Today, he told reporters:



How do you think the Roberts court would rule on that one?

It's a kangaroo court , mostly, now.

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/658010

Beautiful timing, Crashcart.

Just what the country needs at this point. A debate on whether the power of the pResident is "too constrained"

Last time I checked, the power to declare war resides in the Congress. I cringe thinking that the SCOTUS is going to tinker with the fundamental framework of our government. Its one thing to rule on legislation, but on the wording of the Constitution itself? *shudder*

seemingly thinks he is above the law and not bound to the Constitution or international laws and treaties. ;)

have worked toward expanding the power of the executive: from refusal to hand over papers, to wars, to spying, to all the talking points of "I'm President, this is my job", "Presidential prerogative", etc. - and a host of things in between.

This is Cheneys first real honest statement on their intent. The gloves are off...

Bush & Cheney have always felt that presidential power had been eroded, and have always sought more power. They both believe the president is above the law. In other words, they think Bush is a king, and Cheney is a co-king. This mindset must be understood if we are to properly asses the danger presented by this regime.

but there needs to be more attention to it. Bush and Cheney, with the help of some in Congress, have been eroding the powers of Congress, while expanding the executive. This has neutered checks and balances. It's centralizing power into one branch. It's how dictatorships are made - even if a Congress is allowed, it will only be to maintain the illusion.

for crimes against humanity? Saddam, George and Dick all have much in common, and they ALL belong on trial.

And, to think we have at least three more LOOONNNNGG years of this insanity?

and to defend the constitution.

If you haven't registered yet, now would be a good time to have a gun permit.

:scared:

But, you raise an interesting point.

and the discussion at TPM Cafe.

In today's post, Josh references a Pentagon Report, which was used by the WSJ in an article in 2004. Among other things, the Pentagon Report discussed then need to give underlings of the President immunity from prosecution, based on following the orders of the President. Then the report said this:

"To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

Josh goes on to opine:

So the right to set aside law is "inherent in the president". That claim alone should stop everyone in their tracks and prompt a serious consideration of the safety of the American republic under this president. It is the very definition of a constitutional monarchy, let alone a constitutional republic, that the law is superior to the executive, not the other way around. This is the essence of what the rule of law means -- a government of laws, not men, and all that.

Now, we know that presidents sometimes break laws and they frequently bend them, if only in cases where the laws don't seem to anticipate a situation the president finds himself confronting. There is even an argument that the president can refuse to enforce laws he deems unconstitutional.

But there is no power inherent in the president simply to set aside the law. Richard Nixon famously argued that "when the president does it that means that it is not illegal." But the constitutional rulings emerging out of Watergate said otherwise. And history has been equally unkind to his claim.

click-thrus on site: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_06_06.php#003046

fox news will be hurting for consultants. ;)

Some seriously creepy stuff is happening.