Alito: "The president has not just some .... powers, but the whole thing"

[bettyellen]

Reason to Filibuster #1, with thanks to Wordie.

Wordie (1000+ posts) Thu Jan-19-06 05:18 PM
Original message
Alito's speech to the Federalist Society (2000) contradicts his testimony.
Edited on Thu Jan-19-06 05:35 PM by Wordie

JUDGE ALITO'S VIEW OF THE PRESIDENCY: EXPANSIVE POWERS
Court Pick Endorsed Theory of Far-Reaching Authority; Tenet of Bush White House

A Debate Over Terror Tactics

By Jess Bravin

...The Constitution "makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that," Judge Alito said in a speech to the Federalist Society at Washington's Mayflower Hotel. "The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing."

Judge Alito was describing the theory of the "unitary executive," an expansive view of presidential powers that he and his colleagues set forth while working in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Reagan Justice Department. Although the Supreme Court has not always agreed, he said in his speech, "I thought then, and I still think, that this theory best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure."

In 2000, Judge Alito referred to the unitary-executive theory of presidential power as "the gospel according to OLC," a reference to his office in the Reagan Justice Department. The theory has since become the foundation for the current administration's assertions that it has the power to interpret treaties, determine the fate of enemy prisoners, and jail U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without charging them.

While serving on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, the president's first Supreme Court appointee, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined a June 2005 decision that gave Mr. Bush broad authority to try foreigners before military commissions. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal, and if Judge Alito is confirmed, he will help decide the case.

In written statements issued when he signs legislation, Mr. Bush routinely cites his authority to "supervise the unitary executive branch" to disregard bill provisions he considers objectionable. A statement Mr. Bush issued on Dec. 30 when he signed Sen. John McCain's antitorture amendment, for example, said in part that the executive branch "shall construe" a portion of the act relating to detainees "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." The statement raised questions among critics of the administration's policies about the extent to which the White House considers itself bound by the legislation.

"At its core, the unitary executive is the notion that the Constitution gives the president the executive power, and it includes the power to superintend and control subordinates in the executive branch," says Northwestern University law professor Steven Calabresi, who helped develop the theory in the Reagan Justice Department and has written extensively on its historical basis.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/news/article_full.cfm?eventid=2372

[Straight Shooter]

1. "It would be a heckuva lot easier, as long as I'm the dictator."

I always bear in mind the eventual outcome of Little Boots and his tyrannical ways.

[KansDem]

15. I remember that quote...

I always thought it was said as a joke--a sick joke--but now I beginning to believe it was said as Bush was looking to the back of the audience and saw Alito.

It appears that, if given the chance, Alito will oblige him.

[Canuckistanian]

18. Don't challenge mah authoritah!

[C_U_L8R]

2. When did all this "Unitary Executive" nonsense roll in

First I heard of it was at the Scallito rubberstamp meetings...
but it seems that the idea has been kicking around fascist
groups like the Federalist Society for years.

Whatever.... it's unconstitutional nonsense....it's treasonous nonsense.... it's nonsensical nonsense.
Urgh... when will these assholes read the constitution ?
Oh right.. it's just a damn piece of paper.

Poop.

[DrDebug]

4. It is a euphemism for dictatorship

Just like fascism is spelled neo-con nowadays...

[napi21]

6. From everything I've read, it began with Reagan.

There's some good info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_Executive

I bet this baby is going to the SCOTUS! Shrub isn't going to back off, and it seems this is the justification he's going to use for wire taping and data mining. That's why the admin has been so sure they're right in advising Shrub that he did nothing wrong!

[mcscajun]

14. There's a good article on the FindLaw website that discusses this

the origins, the background, the Who's Who of who is behind it all. The author is Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree, and the author of THE TWILIGHT OF DEMOCRACY: THE BUSH PLAN FOR AMERICA (Common Courage Press, 2004).

What Does the Administration Mean When It Refers to the "Unitary Executive"?

Dr. Kelley notes that the unitary executive doctrine arose as the result of the twin circumstances of Vietnam and Watergate. Kelley asserts that "the faith and trust placed into the presidency was broken as a result of the lies of Vietnam and Watergate," which resulted in a congressional assault on presidential prerogatives.

(snip)

According to Kelley, these congressional limits on the presidency, in turn, led "some very creative people" in the White House and the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to fight back, in an attempt to foil or blunt these limits. In their view, these laws were legislative attempts to strip the president of his rightful powers. Prominent among those in the movement to preserve presidential power and champion the unitary executive doctrine were the founding members of the Federalist Society, nearly all of whom worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan White Houses.

(snip)

The Unitary Executive Versus Judicial Supremacy

The coordinate construction theory counters the long-standing notion of "judicial supremacy," articulated by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison, which held that the Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not the law. Marshall famously wrote there: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

(snip)

However, Bush's recent actions make it clear that he interprets the coordinate construction approach extremely aggressively. In his view, and the view of his Administration, that doctrine gives him license to overrule and bypass Congress or the courts, based on his own interpretations of the Constitution -- even where that violates long-established laws and treaties, counters recent legislation that he has himself signed, or (as shown by recent developments in the Padilla case) involves offering a federal court contradictory justifications for a detention.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html

Ms. Van Bergen goes on to say that Bush's actions constitute a form of presidential rebellion against Congress and the courts, and quite possibly are a violation of his oath of office. (Not to mention his unilateral, arbitrary overturning of a bedrock constitutional precedent, Marbury v. Madison.)

[donkeyotay]

3. All Hail the Unitary Executive, or can we just call Him Your Worship?

In written statements issued when he signs legislation, Mr. Bush routinely cites his authority to "supervise the unitary executive branch" to disregard bill provisions he considers objectionable.

Don't need no congress. Don't need no court. Now we know where to make the next discretionary spending cuts.

[sui generis]

7. you'd better. Lord Pissypants could have you summarily

executed if he doesn't like you. Be sure to bump your head three times on the ground while bowing and scraping.

[bettyellen]

5. Pls K+ R people....

tks
:hi:

[suffragette]

9. Glad to do it

K&R

[Marleyb]

8. K&R

:wtf:

[mom cat]

10. And where would Alito come down on domestic spying? We must

FILIBUSTER!

[gkhouston]

11. great quote, be. K&R. n/t

[bettyellen]

12. tks! Wordie posted it in GD P, i just rewrote the subject line is all...nt

[Kurovski]

13. All hail his royal presidentness!

Alito is a one of our more creepy idiots.

Keep urging folks to call Senators to filibuster Alito, and if you haven't called or faxed yet yourself--what'cha waitin' for? An engraved invitation maybe? :-)

[Disturbed]

16. Any Dem that votes for Scalito's nomination...

should be thrown out of the Dem Party.

[glitch]

17. What a maroon.

No wonder Mrs. Alito is quick to tears.

[annabanana]

19. Here it is gang:

Keep phoning, faxing and emailing..We can let this one get away.

[Wordie]

20. K&R

[BrotherBuzz]

21. A brief primer on the new streamlined American system of government

Jon Carroll



Monday, January 2, 2006


A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system of government.


Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?

Not if they're scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/02/DDG5TG01E31.DTL

[bettyellen]

22. whoa. this is where we are, isn't it?

[BrotherBuzz]

23. That's what my road map says...

and that's why I need to keep fighting.


NGU

[bettyellen]

24. tks. brother B!

NGU

[bettyellen]

25. ...

[Kurovski]

26. Kick(nt)

[Nikki Stone 1]

27. kicking it

:kick: