Administration to Bypass Reporting Law ("Much easier to be a dictator, so long as I'm the dictator")

[DogPoundPup]

Published: October 24, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has informed Congress that it is bypassing a law intended to forbid political interference with reports to lawmakers by the Department of Homeland Security.

The August 2007 law requires the agency’s chief privacy officer to report each year about Homeland Security activities that affect privacy, and requires that the reports be submitted directly to Congress “without any prior comment or amendment” by superiors at the department or the White House.

But newly disclosed documents show that the Justice Department issued a legal opinion last January questioning the basis for that restriction, and that Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, later advised Congress that the administration would not “apply this provision strictly” because it infringed on the president’s powers.

Several members of Congress reacted with outrage to the administration’s claim, which was detailed in a memorandum posted this week on the Web site of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/washington/25legal.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&oref=slogin

[Ian David]

1. "Bypass"??? Doesn't he mean "VIOLATE"?? n/t

[IDemo]

6. That makes it sound so....criminal

Yes, that's exactly what he means.

[alarimer]

2. Fuck you, Bush.

January cannot come soon enough, when we can undo all the damage you have done, you fascist piece of shit.

I hope you get cancer, or something equally painful and hopefully fatal. You suck.

[Bandit]

3. Several members of Congress reacted with outrage to the administration’s claim,

Big whoop...By not holding the Administration Accountable over the last eight years, what else could they expect? Reacted with "Outrage" ...what a joke...If I could wave a magic wand virtually every single member of Congress would be gone...They are nothing but a bunch of cowards that repeatedly allow themselves to be abused by this Adminstration and now they expect someone to care....Give me a break..

[ThomWV]

4. I hate to say this but it may be that Bush is correct on this one

The Department of Homeland Security is part of the Executive Branch and as such is subject to control by the President, not the Congress. If the President wishes to exercise his executive authority over the Departments and Agencies under his control it is his prerogative to do so and the Congress may not interfere with it. If the Congress wishes to have a report made it has offices under its control that can generate them. In short the Congress is infringing on the Executive's properly asserted right to control that for which it is responsible.

Just my opinion right now, I'd welcome any argument that might change my mind.

[redqueen]

5. Part of Congress' function is oversight.

These reports (IIRC) were agreed to as a way for Congress to fulfill that role.

Specter... he always talks a good game:

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the move “unconstitutional.” He said Mr. Bush should have vetoed the bill if he did not like the provision, and compared the situation to Mr. Bush’s frequent use of signing statements to reserve a right to bypass newly enacted laws.

“This is a dictatorial, after-the-fact pronouncement by him in line with a lot of other cherry-picking he’s done on the signing statements,” Mr. Specter said in a telephone interview. He added, “To put it differently, I don’t like it worth a damn.”

[ThomWV]

7. I would accept Specter's assertion that Bush should have vetoed the law

But he didn't and I still think the requirement itself is unconstitutional. Congress may deny Bush the money to run a Department but having given him the money they have no right tell him how to run it - they may watch and so be informed the next time they are asked to fund the Department but they have no business telling the President he may not control that for which he is responsible.

[redqueen]

9. What control are you referring to?

All this is is requiring that the reports on privacy, required to be submitted to Congress annually, not be interfered with by the White House.

[redqueen]

8. It's a crime that Bush has been allowed to politicize the DOJ to this extent.

The OSC, sure... but the entire DOJ?