Senator introduces bill to ban practice allowing Bush to secretly change meaning of laws
Nick Juliano
Published: Wednesday September 17, 2008


The Bush administration's practice of relying on classified legal "opinions" from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Council to reinterpret laws to mean whatever the president needs them to mean has produced such gems as "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation."

With George W. Bush just a few short months from returning to his Texas ranch full time, two Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation that would prevent the White House's next occupant from engaging in similar efforts to rewrite the law.

“This administration has used OLC opinions to develop a secret set of binding rules that fly in the face of laws passed by Congress on matters ranging from torture to warrantless wiretapping,” Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) said in a news release. “By hiding these opinions from view, the administration prevents Congress from restoring the rule of law through oversight or legislation. This bill represents an important step toward curbing secret law and restoring the balance of power between the White House and Congress.”

Feingold, who has been among the fiercest critics of the administration's power grabs, introduced the OLC Reporting Act in the Senate, with Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) introducing companion legislation in the House. It's unlikely the bill will be passed this year -- and even if it was, Bush would almost certainly veto it -- but the legislation provides a starting point for the next Congress to begin undoing Bush's damage.

According to a release from Feingold's office, the bill would:

· Require the Attorney General to notify Congress within 30 days when the Justice Department issues a legal opinion that:
o concludes that a federal statute is unconstitutional;

o relies on the “doctrine of constitutional avoidance,” which was used by Yoo and his colleagues to justify strained interpretations of the law;

o relies on other interpretive tools to avoid applying the law to the executive branch; or

o decides that a federal law has been repealed by a later statute when the later statute does not say so explicitly.
· Retain existing statutory protections for privileged information, while ensuring that Congress receives the information necessary to perform its legislative and oversight functions.

· Protect national security through special procedures for the submission of classified information.
Feingold recently held hearings on Bush's reliance on secret law in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, which he chairs.

The Wisconsin Democrat is among the Senate's fiercest civil libertarians and was an outspoken opponent of the Foreign Intelligence Service Act amendments Congress adopted earlier this year. In keeping with his focus on instituting corrections in the next administration, Feingold held a hearing Tuesday on restoring the rule of law.

Maybe you could call a talk radio station.

This is an extremely important issue, or should be, to all Americans.

I saw a bumper sticker not long ago that said, "If you aren't extremely alarmed you aren't paying attention"

I've been alarmed for sometime.

This country in part derives it's greatness (as flawed as we are it is still a great nation) from adherence to the rule of law. Absent that we are no better than the ugliest dictators and despots.

Please, I beg you all to support this legislation.

What I find amusing, is that this legislation isn't likely to take effect until after the election, but it's been mentioned that Bush would most likely veto it. Why?
Would Bush like to be responsible for potentially delivering the same broad executive powers off to Obama? That would just add to his anti-Constitution legacy, IMO.

any President that signs such a bill is forfeiting executive privilege and abrogating the checks and balances of the constitutional requirements for seperation of powers.

This is a treasonous act.

My observation: Congress is treasonous in this act of attempting to abrogate the U S Constitution.


Proof of the lunatic libtard left presenting idiotic distractions through their emotionally distraught confusion which is nothing but conspiratorial collusion and complicity committing High Treason as an act of war against the American people.


nobama 2008.

But is Bush not violating his oath to the Constitution, everytime he takes a law that was passed by Congress and with a stroke of his pen, changes the scope, size and effect of what the law was supposed to stand for? All that and without any oversight...behind close doors.

nope.

He is acting only on the opinion of White House council.

He is not culpable, in that regard, and is merely exercising executive privilege.

That's why we have a judiciary.

Congress forgets that when the libtards are running the legislative branch.

but they do like to play house, huh?




nobama 2008

Except he has put other extremist NeoCons in the Judiciary and there has been an obvious purging of those in the Judicial branch who choose to continue obeying the constitution.

Start looking at the Bush signing statements and tell me they are okay. The president does not have the power to make law but Bush has ignored that and has acted and continues to act outside the law.

He has been warned by Congress and the SCOTUS on numerous occasions but he continues on. I can see, if you support Bush, you might think this is just fine but when the tables turn and a new president, one who you do not support, uses Bush's actions as precedent I bet you will sing a different tune.

Please, read the Constitution!! Here's a little refresher for you.

In regards to Congress, from Article I "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

In regards to the President, from Article II " Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States."

Notice there is no Constitutional permission for the president to make law? "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" The president is not above the law, well in theory.

if all laws are set in stone then why do we need lawyers and judges and courts to interpret them. you can take two dif people and they will tell you 2 dif meanings of a law

To generalize...

Congress makes laws that act as guidelines. Because life is a complex affair laws can only really be guidelines.

Can you imagine how long congress would be tied up if it had to legislate each small detail of say a banking bill? That's why, after some debate and disagreement (see your history books) congress was given the authority to created agencies to deal with the details.

Every day us imperfect human animals come up with some new muddle. That's where the courts come in.

For a little refresher look up common law and statutory law.

Take a moment and look at the increasingly common experience of divorce. Each state has it's own laws that address divorce. That's the law right? Just follow it? But each divorce that comes before a court is unique and requires, if the parties cannot resolve things between them, a judge to look at each unique case, it's circumstances and merits and then apply the law.

It would be grand if life was so simple that we could easily say, that's the law, follow it, but life isn't at all like that. It is messy and not black and white but shades of gray. That is why law is ever changing and evolving.

There you go and to those that declare the Constitution to be a living document (in some cases a G'Da**ed piece of paper) I sense treason afoot. Only those that would want to excuse certain activities would see the Constitution as a living document, open for interpretation.

Bush is doing his job.

Let the judiciary deal with Congress' angst over executive privilege.

All this hype crying foul is immaterial and irrelevant to the conduct exhibited by the president of the United States of America in exercising executive privilege as given the office.

It is not the man, but the powers of that office which are being dutifully executed by the CEO and CIC.

Bush gets it.


Mc Cain gets it.

Palin gets it.


nobama and bidet and their "esteemed handlers" have just made a lousy investment and are drawing at straws and fighting the wind.


I love it.

hillaryus couldn't defeat nobama in her own camp because of the money of the "handlers" and their benefactors which expect a return on their investment.

They didn't count on facing Mc Cain in November when they invested in nobama.

They were in agreement with Sean Hannity in that the best choice for defeating the democrats was Hillaryus. Hannity has been saying this for years.

The idiots bought it hook line and sinker.

They never expected that Mc Cain would come to the front of the pack without the big money.

Nor could they have envisioned their nightmare of Palin being with him.


sweet.