Thursday, December 22, 2005
Questions for the Keyboard Corps of Cryptologists
It's cool that everyone has an opinion on the NYT/NSA story. I'm having fun with the title of the post.
But seriously...
Are the president's powers to conduct war:
A. Unlimited
B. Limited
If you answer A, wow. I never would have expected anyone to say that.
If you answer B, then what is the instrument/process/mechanism that limits his power?
If you answer B and the Constitution, then does that include the Bill of Rights?
Please, no one bore me with the "but FDR/LBJ/WJC did it so the Republicans can" argument. I understand the importance of precedent as much as the next guy, but my mother always said, "If all your friends were jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?" Because those guys looked to violate the Constitution at the drop of a hat doesn't mean we have to.
But seriously...
Are the president's powers to conduct war:
A. Unlimited
B. Limited
If you answer A, wow. I never would have expected anyone to say that.
If you answer B, then what is the instrument/process/mechanism that limits his power?
If you answer B and the Constitution, then does that include the Bill of Rights?
Please, no one bore me with the "but FDR/LBJ/WJC did it so the Republicans can" argument. I understand the importance of precedent as much as the next guy, but my mother always said, "If all your friends were jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?" Because those guys looked to violate the Constitution at the drop of a hat doesn't mean we have to.
posted by Rob Booth, 12/22/2005
3 Comments:
Look, the Constitution is a guide, to be sure. The Bill of Rights is part of the constitution. And so are state constitutions, if you think about it the right way!
But in many ways, they are purposely vague.
For example, define "reasonable."
Is warrantless wiretapping a reasonable search permissible under the executive branch's inherent powers if it is used solely for national security and not criminal prosecution purposes?
Find me a single line in the constitution that answers that question definitively.
It can't be done.
And that's not a defect. Heck yeah, the President's powers to conduct foreign policy are limited. There are parchment limitations. There are institutional limitations (the Congress controls the money). But the biggest limitation -- and the reason we sometimes leave things vague in our governing documents -- is popular sovereignty.
Ultimately, we control our elected officials. If the NYT is able to mobilize large numbers of Americans by misleading them on the history and legality of NSA surveillance, then the policy will change. I don't see that happening, though, because I don't think large majorities are upset.
But in many ways, they are purposely vague.
For example, define "reasonable."
Is warrantless wiretapping a reasonable search permissible under the executive branch's inherent powers if it is used solely for national security and not criminal prosecution purposes?
Find me a single line in the constitution that answers that question definitively.
It can't be done.
And that's not a defect. Heck yeah, the President's powers to conduct foreign policy are limited. There are parchment limitations. There are institutional limitations (the Congress controls the money). But the biggest limitation -- and the reason we sometimes leave things vague in our governing documents -- is popular sovereignty.
Ultimately, we control our elected officials. If the NYT is able to mobilize large numbers of Americans by misleading them on the history and legality of NSA surveillance, then the policy will change. I don't see that happening, though, because I don't think large majorities are upset.
I stopped reading the first comment when I read, "Constitution is a guide" - um, try law of the land full stop. I don't trust anyone to bend the "vague" Constitution to suit their needs. Steps are in place to get exactly what Bush wanted legally - no need for this backdoor abuse. Can't stand the Democrats and wouldn't want them to have the same power so I don't have a problem denying Bush this one. Too many liberties are being eaten away in the name of "protecting the American people"- too much for this liberterian minded soul and a little too eerily close to Soviet speak...
Karl L.
Karl L.
Constitution is a guide? Holy cow.
Americans have the right to be secure in their homes and papers, pure and simple.
And you're wrong about massive numbers of people being upset as well. Those who AREN'T upset have taken cognitive dissonance to a new level.
It is a SHAME that all of America is not out in the streets about this. If it went down the way it seems to have gone down, it's an impeachable offense - a whole order of magnitude more impeachable than lying about teh sex.
Americans have the right to be secure in their homes and papers, pure and simple.
And you're wrong about massive numbers of people being upset as well. Those who AREN'T upset have taken cognitive dissonance to a new level.
It is a SHAME that all of America is not out in the streets about this. If it went down the way it seems to have gone down, it's an impeachable offense - a whole order of magnitude more impeachable than lying about teh sex.
