"vice president stands by the view that Bush need not honor any of the new judicial and legislative

[Pirate Smile]

restrictions. "

From the Monday, Washington Post article

"Two questions remain, officials said. One involves techniques to be authorized now. The other is whether any technique should be explicitly forbidden. According to participants in the debate, the vice president stands by the view that Bush need not honor any of the new judicial and legislative restrictions. His lawyer, they said, has recently restated Cheney's argument that when courts and Congress "purport to" limit the commander in chief's warmaking authority, he has the constitutional prerogative to disregard them."

Another "high" point from the article:

"When a U.S. District Court ruled several months later that Padilla had a right to counsel, Cheney's office insisted on sending Olson's deputy, Paul Clement, on what Justice Department lawyers called "a suicide mission": to tell Judge Michael B. Mukasey that he had erred so grossly that he should retract his decision. Mukasey derided the government's "pinched legalism" and added acidly that his order was "not a suggestion or request."

Cheney's strategy fared worse in the Supreme Court, where two cases arrived for oral argument alongside Padilla's on April 28, 2004.

They tried to strong arm a judge to retract his ruling? In what kind of countries does that happen?

This is like court testimony, with plenty of people (including notably, Yoo) willing to point to who precisely in Cheney's office and the White House made what decisions. It seems to be something they have thought carefully about. One senses, not just with an eye towards history, but with an eye to possible future prosecutions.

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/006340.html

Another tidbit:

"On Oct. 5, 2005, the Senate voted 90 to 9 in favor of McCain's Detainee Treatment Act, which included the Geneva language. It was, by any measure, a rebuke to Cheney. Bush signed the bill into law. "Well, I don't win all the arguments," Cheney told the Wall Street Journal <...>

Eager to put detainee scandals behind them, Bush's advisers spent days composing a statement in which the president would declare support for the veto-proof bill on detainee treatment. Hours before Bush signed it into law on Dec. 30, 2005, Cheney's lawyer intercepted the accompanying statement "and just literally takes his red pen all the way through it," according to an official with firsthand knowledge.

Addington substituted a single sentence. Bush, he wrote, would interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief."

[aquart]

1. Where in the constitution is the executive branch call "unitary"?

And WTF does "unitary" mean, anyway?

[Pirate Smile]

4. Here are some explanations of the "Unitary Executive" Theory.

I googled for more specifics then my general understanding of the concept.

Raw Story:


Scholar says Bush has used obscure doctrine to extend power 95 times

Jennifer Van Bergen

The Bush administration has been using an extreme version of an obscure doctrine called the Unitary Executive Theory to justify executive actions that far exceed past presidents' power, RAW STORY has learned.

The doctrine assumes, in its extreme form, nearly absolute deference to the Executive branch from Congress and the Judiciary.

According to Dr. Christopher Kelley, a professor in the Department of Political Sciences at Miami University, as of April 2005, President Bush had used the doctrine 95 times when signing legislation into law, issuing an executive order, or responding to a congressional resolution.

The President announced in these signings that he would construe provisions in a manner consistent with his “constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.” While the President clearly has the authority to supervise the executive branch, it is unclear how far he might construe this authority under the unitary executive theory.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CanExecutive_Branch_Decide_0923.html

Here is more lengthy explanation - http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html

[Hosnon]

8. Article II, Section 1:

"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

The theory is that the President is the executive, which seems to be the case. That is what "unitary" means. The theory does not say anything about the relationship between the branches.

Edit: Syntax

[yourout]

9. It's missing a clause......

"The executive power shall be vested in a...REPUBLICAN....President of the United States of America."


Certainly would not apply for Clinton.

:sarcasm: off

[aquart]

18. "I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States..."

Does he think execute means 'kill'? What IS the "office" of the President of the United States?

"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."

Eff, eff, eff! Stupid oath says nothing about executing the laws, just the damn office. Where does it define the flipping "office"????

[Justpat]

11. Polite language for Dictatorship.

It doesn't sound so, well, you know, frightening.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Not at all

The reason the term "unitary" is discussed is because the founding fathers did toy with the idea of having more than one "president" so they wanted to make it clear that they decided on a single person to be the executive. It has NOTHING to do with interaction between the branches as much as Bush and Dick might want it to be.

[Kagemusha]

2. The constitution says Congress establishes the laws regulating the military.

Yes, that conflicts with giving the President a completely free hand to use the military as he pleases.

IT IS SUPPOSED TO.

[ashling]

3. Cheney is advocating

the overthrow of the American Government

[Lasher]

5. He's not just advocating

He's been taking steps to do it for 6.5 years. I don't know if this mess can ever bee straightened out.

[cassiepriam]

6. Cheney isn't advocating the overthrow of the US govt, he has already done it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. "Cheney turned his attention to the practical business of crushing a captive's will to resist"

There's the Cheney vice presidency summed up in a single phrase.

[Pirate Smile]

10. kick

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. As a pigeon would say, "coup, coup, coup."

[C_U_L8R]

What sort of bird

would sing "coup d'etat, coup d'etat" ??

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. A Pedantic bird.

[ljm2002]

17. A parrot, if you train it...

... :-)

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

14. Cheney HATES the constitution, HATES the democratic process and HATES,...

,...the American people because all three get in his way of being a mega-power: a dictator.

Cheney should be allowed to go *uck himself,...IN PRISON!!!

[WinkyDink]

16. Oh, I'd rather he be helped out a bit in prison, IYKWIM.