http://www.theagitator.com/2008/05/22/now-secret-laws/


Go read Nat Hentoff on the Bush administration�s fondness for secret laws.

It�s really difficult overstate the hubris and lust for power of this administration. Once again, I�ll plug Charlie Savage�s terrific book Takeover, which delves into this stuff in frightening detail. But basically, Bush believes he can sign a bill passed by Congress in a public ceremony, then later issue a secret signing statement stating he intends to completely ignore the law�and he believes he can keep the whole thing secret from the public, the courts, and the Congress.

Like most of Bush�s executive power grabs, he relies on findings from the Office of Legal Counsel to give him cover. The OLC�s opinions are considered binding on the executive branch. If you work in the executive branch, you�re essentially immune from prosecution if the OLC has signed off on whatever you�re doing. Which is why John Yoo�s OLC memos on torture and detainment are so devastating.

Thing is, over the years Bush (actually, Cheney) has staffed the OLC with lackeys like Yoo and Jay Bybee (now a federal judge). The Bush administration has treated the OLC not as an office from which to get a considered, scholarly opinion on the constitutionality of some power they�d like to claim; rather, they tell the office the power they plan to claim, and ask the OLC to come up with a way to justify it. Yoo�s memos would frequently contain footnotes supporting his theories of executive power and secrecy. Unfortunately, those footnotes frequently would refer to previous writings by John Yoo.

What�s worse, though these opinions on the constitutional limits on executive power (essentially, that there are none) represent a minority of constitutional scholarship so small you could make a good case that they�re not really serious positions at all, unitary executive theorists have managed to put like-minded people in positions of power, including several seats on the Supreme Court (thanks in no small part to the spineless Democrats in Congress). That gives the ideas of people like Yoo, Bybee, and David Addington a de facto legitimacy, despite the fact such ideas have almost zero support in academia (and that would include most conservative constitutional scholars).

Remember that next time conservatives talk about �activist judges� and about retaining respect for �original intent� and �strict constructionism.� The all-powerful, unchecked executive embraced by Cheney, Yoo, & Co. was explicitly and repeatedly denounced by the founders. We had just fought a bloody war to remove the yoke of a king. There�s no historical record at all supporting the idea that they�d have then intended for us to have an elected monarch. It sort of defeats the whole purpose of the idea of checks and balances.


-------------------------------------------
Here's the link to the Hentoff Op-Ed piece.

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/932705.html

This is going on, but we're a free and open society? Bring on the Jackboots!

Hey, WM, i enjoy reading your post's,,,,,,,,but it still does'nt change the fact that i'm just a slave or sevent to the "F"-up people in power,,,,,,people that want to make a real change or difference in this world wind up dead in the back of a car with a black water licence plate, and get buried in some desert just out side of Las Vegas!!!!!!!!!

Only because there isn't enough of us banding together. If we could get people to pass on ninnying issues and focus on defending the Constitution, Freedom and Liberty, we could run these criminals into the ocean. Too bad the propaganda offered by the T.V. seems to work so well.

If enough of us open our eyes and get off our butts long enough to speak up in unison, we might be able to avoid what seems like an inevitable civil war.