The President Warns Democrats To Take The Offer Or Suffer The Embarrassing Consequences

"Their role is advise and consent, provided it does not interfere with the law amended by the Patriot Act in sec. 502." I am amazed at the blitheness of this statement. That provision of the Patriot Act was designed and intended to facillitate the appointment of USAs during a time of emergency. It was not intended(at least I hope not) as a means of circumventing the role of the Senate as codefied in the U.S. Penal Code. All politics aside, that's the part of this story that really stinks!!!

The Patriot Act amended 28 USC 545 in regard to the appointment of attorneys but mentions nothing with regard to emergencies. It was amendmended, we're guessing, not to circumvent the Senate's role, but rather to streamline it in cases where the term had expired, a replacement was needed, and the Senate was busy with other business. The president cannot wait on the Senate to determine when it has the time to address such issues, especially given their hostility towards his nominee choices.

The powers of the executive are still in place. The point of the piece was in regard to the president's challenge to the Senate Democrats, and their blatant atempt to steamroll Executicve Authority with regard to confidential communication between staff and executive departments, of which the Justice Department is a part of it. Justice is a part of the executive branch, and serves no other master.

The Democrats are out of line demanding testimony, under oath, by these people. Let them try the subpoena route, and see how confident they are after they are slapped down.

Marcie

is that since it was attached to the Patriot Act it was clearly meant as a tool to facillitate the war on terror. Are you defending the use of this provision for purely political reasons?

Fortunately for our system of checks and balances, as of today the President does once again have to wait on the Senate to perform their job.

As to Exec Authority I personally feel the President has overreached and hope he either capitulates or this goes to the Supremes for a ruling.

First off, we'd never agree to a damn thing on purely political reasons. We've explained this before: We're Constitutional Conservatives. That means we put the Constitution before party or even ideology, aside from it's interpretation.

The provision in the Patriot Act, whether you like it or not, is law. Is that the president's fault? No. He wasn't in Congress when they hammered out the renewal. If Congress had a problem with it, maybe they should've struck it, or made it more specific. The president's lawyers likely agreed that because it didn't state it, it didn't mean he couldn't use it.

Remember, this is the first time it's ever been used under the Patriot Act revisions. It's overall legality can be challenged, but until it is -- until the Supreme Court states it's illegal -- it is perfectly legal. Do we agree on how the firings took place? No, it was snafu from the word go. Was it wrong? No, it wasn't, and like the question of the subpoenas, that discretion is his.

Continuing on Exec Authority, he won't capitulate. As for the USSC, precendent shows they'll uphold his side.

Publius II

LoL...nice closing line, and yes, we would almost certainly disagree on the Federalist's Papers!

Seriously though, I recognize that politics is largely a game of what you can get away with, but sometimes you have to reach beyond what is legal, to what is right. S/Z, this stinks. There is no excuse for Miers and Sampson abusing the Patriot Act for such craven political gain.

Regarding the firings, we don't know what was going on, therefore neither you nor I can state unequivocally whether the firings are right or wrong. They are suspicous, and the explanations given so far, some to the Senate committee, have only muddled the waters. That is why I and others feel these questions should be answered under oath. Behind closed doors is fine, but under oath, and with a transcript.

As for the Supreme Court, they may well rule in favor of the administration, but I don't think it's certain. The most recent precedent was the Energy Task Force ruling which had to do with private individuals giving advice on energy policy. This case concerns the impartiality of the DoJ. The justices may well see a compelling public interest there, we'll see.

In closing, it is truly refreshing to debate the issues of the day with someone as informed and congenial as yourself. See ya.

And may I say the same goes for you. It is not often that Thomas and I are able to engage someone equally as congenial. All too often we are assailed by those that would rather froth and seethe, and stand by the idea that we are partisan.

Granted, many times we are, and we have ample reason to be so. However, there are times like these where we have the law to back us up. This is why we continually reinforce the point that we are, in fact if not thought, word, and deed, Constitutional conservatives.

We are not afraid to call our side on something out of line, nor are we ones to shirk our side when we know they are right even though many partisans who would rather cower wish we would simply shut up.

The best way to see us, in addition to our above political identity, would be to refer to us as "intellectually honest." THAT is a very absent variable in the world of politics today.

Marcie