. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Friday, August 25, 2006
Gold medal!

"Dr. Taigen Dan Leighton" writes in The Daily Planet:
Our Constitution and American way of life are under assault from an arrogant, authoritarian regime in Washington with no respect for the values of our founding fathers. Senate Bill 2453 would give them more room to violate the Constitutional checks and balances, and the rule of law.
The bill being referenced is one on spying or something, I guess to give Bush more leeway to do the stuff he's already been doing, but legally. I dunno, really, it doesn't matter for what I want to point out.

The good doctor is angry because the passage of a law to allow the feds to do something is, in effect, allowing the feds to violate "the rule of law." Good call.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 8/25/2006 06:01:00 PM #
Comments (2)
. . .
Not that I'm a raging hippie or anything, and not that I agree with the good doctor on his underlying point, but it strikes me that passing a law that violates the supreme law, ie the Constitution, would still mean violating the rule of law. Say the Constitution, a set of laws, prohibits Congress from passing Law X, and they pass Law X anyway, that seems like a violation of the rule of law. That you're using a law to do it doesn't really change much.
I dealt with this bill at my summer job, and I think Beetle's point is a little off too. Part of this bill would permit the administration to do things they probably can't now, but other parts were about reducing review of their surveillance activity. In particular it would transfer a large number of pending cases challenging NSA programs from the ordinary courts to a secret federal appellate court that consists of three judges chosen by the Chief Justice, and which has already adopted a more expansive view of the President's powers than other courts. I think screwing around with the legal procedures like this threatens the rule of law.
Post a Comment

. . .