http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060103/news_mz1e3hirsch.html


Informant: Kev Hall

Excerpt from
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=97220;show_parent=1

Jon Roland
Jan 3, 2006 01:17


-------- Original Message --------
Presidents, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:39:56 -0600
From: Jon Roland
jon.roland@constitution.org
Constitution Society
7793 Burnet Road #37,
Austin, TX 78757
512/374-9585
http://www.constitution.org

The following is an actual transcript of an interview with the president:

INTERVIEWER: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations … where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.

PRESIDENT: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

INTERVIEWER: By definition.

PRESIDENT: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

INTERVIEWER: So, that in other words, really you were saying in that answer, really, between the burglary and murder, again, there's no subtle way to say that there was murder of a dissenter in this country because I don't know any evidence to that effect at all. But, the point is: just the dividing line, is that in fact, the dividing line is the president's judgment?

PRESIDENT: Yes, and the dividing line and, just so that one does not get the impression, that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind, that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress. I don't know whether it can be done today or not.

INTERVIEWER: Pulling some of our discussions together, as it were; speaking of the Presidency … you stated, quote, "It's quite obvious that there are certain inherently government activities, which, if undertaken by the sovereign in protection of the interests of the nation's security are lawful, but which if undertaken by private persons, are not." What, at root, did you have in mind there?

PRESIDENT: Well, what I, at root I had in mind I think was perhaps much better stated by Lincoln during the War between the States. Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly, he said, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."

Now that's the kind of action I'm referring to. Of course in Lincoln's case it was the survival of the Union in wartime, it's the defense of the nation and, who knows, perhaps the survival of the nation.

INTERVIEWER: But there was no comparison was there, between the situation you faced and the situation Lincoln faced, for instance?

PRESIDENT: This nation was torn apart in an ideological way by the war in Vietnam, as much as the Civil War tore apart the nation when Lincoln was president. Now it's true that we didn't have the North and the South—

INTERVIEWER: But when you said … you know, "If the president orders it, that makes it legal", as it were: Is the president in that sense—is there anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that suggests the president is that far of a sovereign, that far above the law?

PRESIDENT: No, there isn't. There's nothing specific that the Constitution contemplates in that respect. I haven't read every word, every jot and every tittle, but I do know this: That it has been, however, argued that as far as a president is concerned, that in war time, a president does have certain extraordinary powers which would make acts that would otherwise be unlawful, lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the nation and the Constitution, which is essential for the rights we're all talking about.

Those with long memories have probably already figured out that the interviewer was David Frost and the (former) president was Richard Nixon.

Nixon was forced from office, though, not because of his view of the breadth of the president’s constitutional powers but because the nation became convinced that he was using those powers (whether or not they were constitutional) in bad faith for craven purposes. In the current situation, though, it appears (from all external clues, at least) that the president is using his power (whether or not in accordance with the constitution) in good faith, in the sense that he appears to believe that the actions he is taking will benefit the security of the nation. I am curious whether list members think that this apparent good faithNote will make a difference in adjudication of the president’s actions, and whether it should make a difference.

NBC
________________________________________

Neil B. Cohen
Jeffrey D. Forchelli
Professor of Law
Brooklyn Law School
250 Joralemon Street
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Telephone: (718) 780-7940 Fax: (718) 780-0375

Note from forwarder: Not discussed here is the position of those who follow the orders of the president. If the presdient lacks authority, and the actions are illegal, then so are their actions, and it is not a defence that they were "just following orders", even if the president is not impeached for it. Of course, they might expect protection from a presidential pardon, or from the statute that forbids prosecutions in federal court by private parties, leaving only presidential appointees to prosecute them. But in principle, they are subject to prosecution, especially if the president, to avoid blame of himself, decides to throw some of his underlings overboard as a ritual sacrifice.


-- Jon

==========================================

Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Released: Friday, December 23, 2005

1984 Justice Department memo Alito wrote expressing the view that the Attorney General should be immune from suit over illegal wiretaps [PDF text]. The memo was written in connection with a Reagan-era case involving wiretaps ordered by former Attorney General John Mitchell during an investigation into a suspected plot to kidnap National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger.

THIS CASE REF'S FISA AND WIRETAPES ETC... (IMPORTANT)
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/memoAlito-1984.pdf

A Year of Living Dangerously
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis10.html

Hegemonic Hubris

Gabriel Kolko on the unstoppable decline of the empire.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/kolko2.html

Local organizations have planned over 70 Out of Iraq events around the country on or about January 7th. (See list at bottom.) Most of the events are town hall forums, and several will feature members of Congress, including Bobby Scott, Diane Watson, Jim McDermott, Adam Smith, Bob Filner, Martin Sabo, Jim Moran, and John Murtha. Several other events will feature congressional staff, congressional and senatorial candidates, local elected officials, and leaders of the peace movement, including Gold Star Families for Peace founder Cindy Sheehan, and After Downing Street Co-Founder John Bonifaz.

While all of these events will focus on ending the war, many of them will also address Congressman John Conyers' new resolutions to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney and to create a select committee to investigate and make recommendations on impeachment.

To sign up for an event near you, go to:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/event


National Call-In Day on Accountability January 9th

Tens of thousands of members of Progressive Democrats of America and other organizational members of the After Downing Street Coalition will phone Members of Congress in their district offices on January 9, urging them to cosponsor three bills: H.Res.635 to create a select committee to investigate and to make recommendations on grounds for impeachment, H.Res.636 to censure Bush, and H.Res.637 to censure Cheney. More about these bills:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5768

Congress Members' phone numbers:
http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/dbq/officials/?lvl=C


International Commission Taking "Indictments" to White House January 9th

On January 9, the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity By the Bush Administration will serve indictments on the White House for its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its actions and policies on torture and illegal detention, its promotion of abstinence-only in the midst of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, its fueling of global warming, and its response to Hurricane Katrina. This is in preparation for its January 20-22 hearings at Riverside Church and Columbia Law School in New York City (where the Administration will be invited to present a defense). For more details, see:
http://www.bushcommission.org


ImpeachPAC Forms Citizens Impeachment Commission

On Monday, ImpeachPAC announced the formation of a Citizens Impeachment Commission to make 2006 the "Year of Impeachment."

Members of the commission include distinguished national activists, business leaders, elected officials, former government officials, historians and legal scholars, and talk show hosts, editors, bloggers, pundits, and authors.
http://www.impeachpac.org/citizens


Get "Enraged & Engaged" to Stop Alito

The National Organization for Women needs your help to keep abortion safe & legal. There is work to be done, both in Washington, DC and throughout the country. As a part of Freedom Winter 2006, NOW and Feminist Majority Foundation are working together to bring grassroots activists to DC between January 3 and January 20. We're also encouraging activists to organize in their communities.
http://www.now.org/defeatalito


Demand Strict Inspection of Diebold Software

It has been proven that Diebold electronic voting machines use code that is prohibited by federal law, but that hasn't stopped them from selling their machines and states from using them!

Please let Federal Election Commissioners know that citizens want the FEC to uphold the law and insist Diebold comply. You can use this one link to send an email to all commissioners. Please let them know that we are paying attention!
http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=VTUSA&hotissue=4

FORWARD THIS INFORMATION



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=impeach
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Downing+Street+Memo

With help from the US Justice Department and state prosecutors, corporations are getting away with serious crimes by using their executives as cannon fodder, according to a new report, which questions whether this new legal strategy is hindering or enabling corporate malfeasance.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010306G.shtml

Remember the "nuclear option" compromise? When the group of 14 Senators reached their agreement last May, they said they'd support a filibuster only under "extraordinary circumstances," presumably if Bush nominated Attila the Hun. Paul Rogat Loeb suggests these circumstances apply not only to Samuel Alito's track record but also to his nomination's entire political context.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010306F.shtml

The maligned punch cards that snarled the 2000 count are all but gone. But with electronic machines under attack as unreliable and vulnerable to hackers, there is little consensus about what the new technology should look like.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010306P.shtml

Support for President George W. Bush's Iraq policy has fallen among the US armed forces to just 54 percent from 63 percent a year ago, according to a poll by the magazine group Military Times.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010306O.shtml