Bush Fought the Law, and The Law Won
Eugene Robinson has a very good opinion piece on the Supreme Court's decision to not let President Bush overinterpret what most people believe to be fairly common-sense laws. Specifically, the SCOTUS said: "Just because you have the title of 'Commander in Chief' it does not mean that use that title to create your own tribunals."
One has to wonder what this means for the rest of Bush's policies, both past, present and future. So far, every outrageous thing he's done has been defended with the phrase "we're fighting the war on terror." This includes actions that have raised concerns abot the privacy of American citizens, the powers of Congress and the Courts, and our overall security. But as Robinson puts it:
"Perhaps the greatest impact of the 185-page ruling is that it rejects Bush's claim that the necessity of waging the 'global war on terror' gives him extraordinary powers that lie beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. The ruling reminds him of 'the court's duty, in both peace and war, to preserve the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty.'"
Sounds like a swipe against the President's signing statements, which he has slyly used to interpret the constitutionality of many bills/laws that have gone through Congress.
Nevertheless, this all goes back to the AUMF. Until the constitutional boundaries of this resolution are defined, it will be used as Bush's security blanket again and again.
One has to wonder what this means for the rest of Bush's policies, both past, present and future. So far, every outrageous thing he's done has been defended with the phrase "we're fighting the war on terror." This includes actions that have raised concerns abot the privacy of American citizens, the powers of Congress and the Courts, and our overall security. But as Robinson puts it:
"Perhaps the greatest impact of the 185-page ruling is that it rejects Bush's claim that the necessity of waging the 'global war on terror' gives him extraordinary powers that lie beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. The ruling reminds him of 'the court's duty, in both peace and war, to preserve the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty.'"
Sounds like a swipe against the President's signing statements, which he has slyly used to interpret the constitutionality of many bills/laws that have gone through Congress.
Nevertheless, this all goes back to the AUMF. Until the constitutional boundaries of this resolution are defined, it will be used as Bush's security blanket again and again.
Comments