How far does this 'inherent power' extend? Is every agency deputized?

[bigtree]

"These inherent authorities vested in the President by the Constitution include the power to spy on enemies like al Qaeda without prior approval from other branches of government."-Gonzales before the Judiciary committee 2/6


Just how far down the chain of command does Bush's blanket authorization of the warrentless spying of Americans extend?

Who decides whether actions taken by the president's agents actually fall within his 'authorization'?

What body independent of the Executive offices of the Justice Dept. determine if their actions are consistent with the law, or even the authority that the administration claims they are observing?

If the White House does not make its actions subject to full and open review to Congress, and if Congress doesn't effectively exercise that oversight, there cannot be any reasonable expectation that the Executive branch and its agents will adhere to the laws that Congress passes. Any law.

The White House is set to declare themselves the ultimate and legitimate arbiter, interpreter, and executor of whatever they aspire to. If Congress does not execute an effective check on this manufactured authority they will find themselves confronted in the future with their own dereliction of duty - presented as precedent - as a power hungry administration justifies the next round of additions to, and interpretations of, congressionally adopted law.

It's just a matter of time before they trot out another law they claim Bush has the 'inherent power' to disregard, interpret, or create additions to. They need to step up and put Bush back in his 'inherent' place.

[bigtree]

1. .

[mikelewis]

2. James Otis posed this same question in his arguement against the Writs...

of Assistance.

Your Honors will find in the old books concerning the office of a justice of the peace precedents of general warrants to search suspected houses. But in more modern books you will find only special warrants to search such and such houses, specially named, in which the complainant has before sworn that he suspects his goods are concealed; and will find it adjudged that special warrants only are legal. In the same manner I rely on it, that the writ prayed for in this petition, being general, is illegal. It is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer. I say I admit that special Writs of Assistance, to search special places, may be granted to certain persons on oath; but I deny that the writ now prayed for can be granted, for I beg leave to make some observations on the writ itself

In the first place, the writ is universal, being directed "to all and singular justices, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and subjects"; so that, in short, it is directed to every subject in the King's dominions. Every one with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, or murder any one within the realm. In the next place, it is perpetual; there is no return. A man is accountable to no person for his doings. Every man may reign secure in his petty tyranny, and spread terror and desolation around him, until the trump of the Archangel shall excite different emotions in his soul. In the third place, a person with this writ, in the daytime, may enter all houses, shops, etc., at will, and command all to assist him. Fourthly, by this writ not only deputies, etc., but even their menial servants, are allowed to lord it over us. What is this but to have the curse of Canaan with a witness on us: to be the servants of servants, the most despicable of God's creation? Now one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient. This wanton exercise of this power is not a chimerical suggestion of a heated brain.

http://douglassarchives.org/otis_a34.htm

[bigtree]

5. I heard the question asked here, 'why should we obey laws

when the government who enforces them is not accountable to them?

Free will . . . but we have consequences. The Executive has, so far, been spared any significant consequence for their actions.

[ComerPerro]

3. Moreover, what proof could we possibly have that he is only spying

on terrorists and terror suspects?

If he is accountable to no one and needs to approval, how can we trust that he won't abuse the power?

[mikelewis]

4. Faith.