Executive Orders Can Be Changed Secretly

[20score]

One more thing to be on guard for. Obama has promised to go through Bush's executive orders for legality. This puts more of an onus on the staff checking the orders, as the actions of the administration will have to be looked at separately and the administration will try to claim legality, regardless of what an executive order says.

From Project Censored:


Sources:
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse website, December 7, 2007
Title: “In FISA Speech, Whitehouse Sharply Criticizes Bush Administration’s Assertion of Executive Power”
Author: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

The Guardian, December 26, 2007
Title: “The Rabbit Hole”
Author: Marcy Wheeler

Student Researchers: Dana Vaz and Bill Gibbons

Faculty Evaluator: Noel Byrne, PhD

On December 7, 2007, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, disclosed on the floor of the US Senate that he had declassified three legal documents of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) within the Department of Justice that state:

1. An executive order cannot limit a president. There is no constitutional requirement for a president to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the president has instead modified or waived it.

2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

Whitehouse discovered the OLC’s classified legal opinions while researching the Protect America Act legislation passed in August 2007, which Whitehouse warns will allow the administration to bypass Congress and the Courts in order to facilitate unchecked spying on Americans. He noted that for years under the Bush administration, the Office of Legal Council has been issuing highly classified secret legal opinions related to surveillance.

The senator warned of the danger of the poorly written Protect America Act legislation, which provides no statutory restrictions on government wiretapping of Americans and eliminates checks and balances from the legislative and judicial branches. The only restriction on government eavesdropping on Americans is an executive order that limits surveillance to those who the attorney general determines to be agents of a foreign power. However, in light of the first declassified OLC proclamation that the president can secretly change his signing statements at will, we are left exposed to the whims of a secret, unchecked executive agenda.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/8-executive-orders-can-be-changed-secretly/

[20score]

1. I know it's a year old, but this story slipped through the cracks. It is on this years top 25

censored stories. All 25 stories on Project Censored this year are incredible.

[trollybob]

2. The legal opinions of the Justice Department are not the existing law

in this country, nor have they ever been. This is the same stupid argument that President Bush has been making - "If I do it, then it must be legal". He needs to go back and reread the Constitution (if he ever did in the first place). Also, see U.S. v. Nixon (1974).

[20score]

3. I know it's not legal or constitutional, but the administration has been operating like it is.

That's why I wrote that Obama's team will have to look at actions, not just the orders themselves.

[trollybob]

4. Obama should just revoke every one of his predecessor's executive orders

But then again, you would think that out of a thousand executive orders, Bush must have been right once or twice. ( Not that I've seen any evidence to support this.) Once Obama gets his own people into the administration, he'll be able to straighten out the mess that's been created over the last eight years.

[20score]

5. Really expected this to garner more discussion.

The rec's are great, love 'em, but I thought this was interesting. One more, "oh, that bastard" moment. Something that should be more widely known.

[Rhiannon12866]

6. This is interesting, my friend, K&R from me, though I imagine you'll more appreciate the K... ;)

But I don't think most DUers are unaware of this, since they're a pretty plugged-in bunch. But it was worth posting anyway, since it reinforces what a lot of people believe about Bush* and informs the rest. As for me, it's come to the point that nothing I learn about a new low in the lawbreaking or trampling of the Constitution by the Bush* administration shocks or surprises me anymore. It still angers me, though, especially the brazenness of it, since they obviously expect to get away with anything...:grr:

[20score]

7. Yeah, it's been hard to shock anyone with their deeds for years.

Which is a bad thing. There is no depth to which they won't sink, and everyone knows it.
Oh, and thanks!

[Rhiannon12866]

8. You're welcome. And that's the way I feel, too...

Everytime they sink to a new low and you think that the latest misdeed has to be the one that will sink them, they do something even worse. My friend pointed out that everybody's focused on the most recent abomination, so they forget about the previous ones...:-(

Great article! Thank you!:hi:

[ihavenobias]

9. K & R