Josh Marshall says Bush argument is "limitless power" because of war.

[dutchdemocrat]

I was in meetings for most of the day today. And clearly a lot has transpired over the course of the afternoon. But I wanted to go back and clarify one point that I believe has become muddled a bit in the discussion of the White House's legal argument with these wiretaps.

As near as I can tell, they're actually not arguing that the Afghanistan War Resolution gave them the authority to override whatever laws or constitutional prohibitions exist against these warrantless searches/wiretaps. What they're arguing is that the Resolution affirmed the president's inherent power as commander-in-chief to do these things.

They really do seem to be arguing that the president's powers as a wartime commander-in-chief are essentially without limits. He's simply not bound by the laws the Congress makes.

For more on this, see this September 25th, 2001 memo by John Yoo, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and this Newsweek article from a year ago, which discusses it.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007285.php

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6732484/site/newsweek/

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

[DBoon]

1. Hail Caesar!

nt

[emulatorloo]

2. See this article in newsweek -- re Bush meeting w NYT to stop story

ON EDIT LINK: Du thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2322950


<snip>

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

<snip>

[Rocknrule]

3. So all he has to do to keep permanent unlimited power

is to keep us in a perpetual state of war

Which is exactly what he is doing

[shance]

4. There has never been a Constitutional Declaration of War.

We aren't at war.

[emulatorloo]

5. Oops! So much for Bush's defence then

Somebody needs to tell torture boy and ms miers

[robbedvoter]

6. And if we were, Mishun Accomplished! (we won - he said last night)

[NashVegas]

7. Lincoln Pulled a Lot of Shit During the Civil War

But I don't recall him hiding from it.

[liveoaktx]

8. Remember when Rice went before the Senate about a month ago

and told them (much to Chafee and Boxer's anger) that Bush could go invade Iran without needing to come back before congress for a resolution? I kept video of that

[peaches2003]

9. Martial Law

This is all a lead up to him declaring martial law sometime in 2008. The preparations are almost all in place- national terror 'emergency', he as President has unlimited powers over and above the Congress, the Courts, and the Constitution, we need him to save and protect us, etc. and most of the country seems to belief and want this.

You think I'm kidding about, but I'm not.

[teryang]

10. This is implicit in neo-con theory

Which in turn worships Machiavelli's idealization of the despotic powers of the Roman dictator appointed in time of war.

[LSK]

11. the Commander in Chief can only command the military

Read the Constitution, its plain as day.