Lindsey Graham: ‘The Inherent Authority Argument…Seems To Have No Boundaries’
By on Feb 6th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Lindsey Graham: ‘The Inherent Authority Argument…Seems To Have No Boundaries’
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) explains the danger of the administration’s legal position:
All I’m saying is the inherent authority argument in its application to me seems to have no boundaries when it comes to executive decisions in a time of war, it deals the Congress and courts out, Mr. Attorney General.
The problem isn’t that the administration is monitoring communications with al Qaeda. That is not only appropriate, it’s essential. The problem is that the legal underpinnings of this particular program, if accepted, would allow for unchecked executive authority.
No president should have unchecked authority, especially not this one.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
51 Responses to “Lindsey Graham: ‘The Inherent Authority Argument…Seems To Have No Boundaries’”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
There are times I disagree with graham but today he and I are on the same page. he was a military lawyer and co sponsor the bill to outlaw torture on POW's and yes as far I am concern all people on any battle field that is capture is to be treated under the Geneva Conventions same as this president has to abide by the consitution .
February 6th, 2006 at 2:32 pmKnows no BOUNDARIES, either.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:35 pmSee how simple and easy to understand the truth is. It took one sentence and it says it all. The lies and run-arounds for justifying domestic spying are the confusing ramblings of liars to justify something that is wrong.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:42 pmThat is indeed the way the thugs see thing. No limit on their powers. They control the Military and thus the country. We are in deep trouble my friends.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:48 pmThe "War on terror" is effectively an open-ended matter.
First, Sec. Rumsfeld famously acknowledged there are no "metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror". Maybe I missed them, but I haven't heard the administration developing said "metrics".
Then, we now know the Pentagon has developed plans for a "long war" against extremism. Again with no milestones or benchmarks for measuring progress.
With no end in sight for this so-called "war on terror", what the Bush administration is seeking is an excuse to extend the executive powers beyond and above any checks and balances -making the authority of this and any future president limitless.
The problem is not just the lack of "boundaries when it comes to executive decisions in a time of war", but that this administration is pushing for no boundaries at all.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:52 pmWell, another Republican may be waking up.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:03 pmMaybe bushco isn't planning on leaving the Oval office if the war or rather gonzo just said it wasn't a "War" but a military force on terror... does that make any sense ,I think bush has said many times its a War On Terror and many others in his cabal has said the same thing.
Leahy is now confronting gonzo and gonzo just said I'm not comfortable talking about this........
give the gonzo his banana .........perfect dodging...pefect deflecting....screw this America The Lost Country...
February 6th, 2006 at 3:03 pmSen, Lehe all but caught AG Gonzales in a lie concerning conceptual start up and aproval process.
Gonzales should be under oath.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:03 pmUm...when did Congess declare war? Did I miss that?
February 6th, 2006 at 3:04 pm#7 BINGO that has been my thought for quite some time, including prior to the 2004 election.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:05 pmOur Senators should also add this to each question:
"Mr. Gonzales, would your answer be different if you had been sworn in for this hearing?"
February 6th, 2006 at 3:05 pm#9 the Congress didn't vote to declare or go to war.
The congress voted to give bush the right to use Force ,then bushco twisted it into War and now a war without end but gonzo just said , we are not at or in war but using military force. Its a word game...
February 6th, 2006 at 3:11 pmI can't stand Oral Hatch (aka Uriah Heep)!!! Glad he finally brought up the "Clinton did it, too" defense...
For those who need a refresher, here are TP's debunking administration talking points on warrantless spying
Why do republicans always put their party before their country??
February 6th, 2006 at 3:12 pmSen Feinstein is doing just that right now
February 6th, 2006 at 3:15 pmI see Amy just beat me to it.
Hatch knows he's lying, he's just hoping America is stupid. He already knows his talking points are false, but it's all he's got left.
Time to nail his lying ass to the wall.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:15 pm.
I was surprised in this morning's SF Chronicle to see an Op-Ed piece by Pat Buchanan lambasting Bush43 and Bushco for their rhetoric & actions.
Surprised isn't as good as shocked. I know Pat is a libertarian more than a republican, but to see someone who is arguably "Hard Right" come out and say that bushco shouldn't have invaded Iraq and is breaking the law now.
Made me think of our resident bush apologists. Hey Bushies, take a minute and see what REAL CONSERVATIVES are saying about your cokehead/alcoholic/draftdoging Leader.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:18 pm#15 It's SO maddening how intellectually dishonest these people are. I'm so glad Feinstein tried to correct their lying right away. Here's another TP link to what she's talking about (Clinton, FISA and Aldrich Ames):
In Desperation, Gonzales Smears Gore
February 6th, 2006 at 3:19 pmThe Neo-Cons keep trying to reframe the War On Terror. They tried "global struggle against extremism", but that was too long. Then they tried the "long war". I suspet they will drop this because it sound hopeless.
Now looks like Gonzo is using "military force on terror". That dosen't even sound like correct English. Since congress never declaired war I guess they are trying to cover their asses just in case it ever goes to trial.
"We never called it a war" I can hear them now.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:19 pmTrolls are turning on Graham as we speak.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:21 pm#12, I understand that. My point is that it's hard to make the "we're at war" argument when we're not technically "at war". It invalidates the Article 2 argument completely.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:27 pmLindsey Graham is soft on terror. As our heroic president has said, you're either with us or against us. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, traitorous Lindsey Graham.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:30 pm#20 - That is EXACTLY what I keep arguing with everyone. I ask them to show me the Declaration of War.
Of course then their reply is that this is not a traditional war. I say, OK..... Then what country are we at war with? Then they can't answer that.
This "war" will never end. We have had terrorists since the creation of this earth.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:31 pmthis is sort of a parallel point, but i would love for Judd or anyone else at think progress to pick this up.. I think this goes to the very heart of the times we are living in.: At its birth, our new nation found the right balance between freedom and national security, between the need to act with swift purpose in times of danger and the need to keep those hungry for power from abusing freedom of the people. That balance is now badly out of kilter.
Today, too many of us take our freedom for granted, and that's a mistake. While we are the longest-lasting democratic republic in the history of the world, we are bucking history's odds. We have seen in other nations of the world how quickly democracy can evaporate when the people do not vigorously protect it.
The question we must ask today is whether we — you and I, everyday Americans — are prepared or even equipped to stand up to modern-day threats to our freedom. A poll several months ago by the American Bar Association suggests that we are not.
this goes in with what Sen. Graham is saying.. at least about dealing out congress and the courts.
the tide against freedom is at it's tipping point i think that things will pass the point of no return before the mid-terms..
February 6th, 2006 at 3:39 pmhttp://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/dailystar/114345.php
February 6th, 2006 at 3:40 pmYes, amazingly enough, when it comes to collecting surveillance on enemy communications, which is a fundamental incident of war (See the Hamdi case), the President has the inherent power under the Constitution to act wihtout congressional or judicial oversight.
To argue otherwise, one would have to identify powers of the "commander in chief" that are delegated to Congress or the Courts by Articles I & III. Anyone with eyeballs and a brain can see there is no such delegation of those particular powers. So they reside entirely with the President, who is acting with the full authority of the Constitution, plus the added authority of the AUMF. There is no other way to read these authorities.
I hope this goes on for weeks, frankly. The voters understand that it is the Dems who wiull get us all killed, if they get their way. The more this reverberates in the fever swamp echo chamber, the more damage it will do to the Dems in the fall.
Keep it up, TP. You're the best friend a Republican candidate could have.
BTW, I'm still waiting for TP to join me in calling for an up-or-down vote on the NSA program. Whatsamatta? Afraid to have your friends in congress go on the record on this one?
February 6th, 2006 at 3:53 pm#24,
That says it all, I have always felt the real problem here is there are too many people who just don't care.
If you overstimulate the public with material possessions, advertisements, financial responsibilites, allow just enough drugs, make more "legal" drugs, dumb down the educational system, make it harder to survive, yes more people will not care.
The 150 million Americans who don't know, don't care, will end up caring about it when its too late.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:55 pm#25 Hey, BS-R, are you by chance affiliated with Pajamaline?
February 6th, 2006 at 3:58 pm#24, Great read! I do wish he had mentioned the Supreme Court's role in the theft of the presidency in 2000, though, as another sign that we are in serious trouble.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:00 pmThe administration is saying it wants unchecked authority for what? What does it want to do Think Progress? Does it want to come after Think Progress because it disagrees with you?
I don't think so. That's why the left making this whole affair out to be some Nixon thing or McCarthyism thing doesn't fly. Nothing the administration is saying applies to anybody but those who are terrorists or are communicating with terrorists. And then what?
How many Americans do you think that is?
February 6th, 2006 at 4:02 pmJust follow your orders Mr. Lyle
February 6th, 2006 at 4:07 pmHey Lyle..... It's about power. Why do you think that many people join the police department? Because they feel more powerful than the other person. I'm not saying ALL police, just a few.
You just don't get it. If you want to live in a country that the police or government can do what ever they want, then I suggest perhaps you should move to Russia or China. This is the type of government you desire, I doubt it would be that hard for you to move their.
Otherwise, you need to support our Constitution. The president took an oath "to uphold and DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION". No where in there do I see anything about the American people or the American land. One can argue that they are one in the same, but they are not. One is a physical item, while the other is a belief, or way of life.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:11 pmThe US is no more at war now then during the years of the "War on Drugs", or the "Cold War".
During those times, the US also sent its troops to invade, and exact "regime change" on those countries whose leaders failed to comply with the whims of the White House.
With the current administration full of the same people who set foreign and domestic policy back then, it is not surprising Bush & Co are following the tried and true: govern through fear, overwhelm the public with misinformation and half-truths ("catapult the propaganda"), and always strike first.
Now, in addition, they are seeking power with no limits for one of their own.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:25 pmPower without limits. Well, I guess ANYBODY who is willing to ignore the law can claim that, now can't we? Me too. I claim that power for myself. I can ignore the law if Bush does. I proclaim myself the final arbiter of law in my sphere. Anyone who comes inside my home and says something I don't like is history. That's going to be my law, ok? I feel empowered already! Uncle George had better look out!
February 6th, 2006 at 4:35 pm#25 How do you know they are enemy communications? Were they labeled E or T in the phone book? You sound really ignorant to what folks are actually thinking. No one believes you when you speak of this site being a republican gift. She dost protest too much.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:48 pmUnfortunately, Graham is only half way there. He later said that he did not want to question whether or not anyone had violated the law, but rather he only wanted to see how the law could be changed. I sure wish we could do that. "Oh, you mean it's illegal to rob banks? Well, why don't you just make it legal so I can be on my merry way?" That works for the shepard but not for his flock.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:51 pm[...] Think Progress nails it (link via AMERICAblog): The problem isn’t that the administration is monitoring communications with al Qaeda. That is not only appropriate, it’s essential. The problem is that the legal underpinnings of this particular program, if accepted, would allow for unchecked executive authority. [...]
February 6th, 2006 at 5:24 pmIf the Democrats were in power, would the Republicans give them unchecked power? That's what I'm wondering - is it a one-way street or a two-way street? Can a Democratic president use this "unchecked power" to, let's say, outlaw the Republican party beause of its contribution to terrorism, i.e., the entire Iraq debacle and the creation of more terrorists than you can shake a stick at?
February 6th, 2006 at 5:31 pm#37, Wondering Girl, you probably already know the answer to your rhetorical question. If there is ever a president elected who is a Democrat and Dems ever have a majority again in Congress, republicans will revert back to their whiney, cry-baby, victim-mentality ways and develop a whopping case of Alzheimers as they have in the past 5 years forgetting all of the lies and trouble they caused when Clinton was president. Such hypocrites.
Oh, wait, they won't have to revert back because even though they are in the majority they still act like whiney, cry-baby victims...
February 6th, 2006 at 5:56 pmDear Wondering Girl - No, it's a one way street. There hasn't been a Dem I'd trust with national security since JFK...Dems love to tell us why we need to fall on our sword.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:16 pmspeaking of presidents being elected.. as far as i am concerned the last legal presidential election was in '96.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:18 pmSee also: Supreme Court Decides 2000 election, and GAO report on Electronic Voting Machine irregularities in the 2004 election
#22 - "That is EXACTLY what I keep arguing with everyone. I ask them to show me the Declaration of War. "
*****It's the same declaration that Truman and Kennedy would show you, were they alive, of course.
"Of course then their reply is that this is not a traditional war. I say, OK….. Then what country are we at war with? Then they can’t answer that."
*****Are you as stupid as you are pretending or has an evil lib hijacked your name just to make you look (more) foolish? Non-traditional war = war with Islamofascists. P. S - The capital of Islamofam is IslamoBAD - look it up.
This “war†will never end. We have had terrorists since the creation of this earth.
*****But not with airplanes and cell phones.
- by RemoveBush — February 6, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
February 6th, 2006 at 6:32 pmLooks like the "Unitary Executive" does whatever he wants.. this simple-minded moran (Emperior Dumbya) should be called the "Urinary Executive"...he pisses on everybody or anything that gets in the way..! When is Congress going to get some courage..and get PISSED OFF enough to do something about this illegal power grab ? Hasn't this DUMMY done enough damage to this country, both here at home, and our reputation abroad? When are these congress-people going to take back thier lawfully given power from these power-mad imperial loonies who reside in the Executive Branch..?
Gene Campbell
February 6th, 2006 at 8:18 pmCentral Florida
President Bush, the Facist who thought he was King.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:26 pmSenator Graham was once a judge, but he voted with the other 9 GOP Senators to NOT have Alberto Gonzales testify under oath, which means Lindsey was NOT a good judge! Any judge worth there salt knows that someone who is NOT under oath can fabricate their answers, and their testimony is worthless in a court of law! Graham has seriously damaged his reputation and integrity by allowing Alberto NOT to be sworn in under oath!
February 7th, 2006 at 12:00 amWhy isn't anyone contrasting this "inherent authority" argument with the "strict constructionist" arguments? They are completely inconsistent.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:39 amI became very angry when Gonzales repeatedly said that the Gang of 8 was informed. No one, until very late in the day, spoke to this - that they were told that they COULD NOT talk to anyone, could not even consult a lawyer about this program. And then, when that was finally said, Gonzales said, "Well, they should have spoken out if they thought it was against the law. They have that requirment" (not an exact quote but pretty close). And why, why, why did he not speak under oath? I'm readying myself to leave this country. Not much difference between the two parties, members in both parties worship the corporate god. The slippery slope to fascism is frighteneing.
February 7th, 2006 at 9:07 amAlberto Bush was not under oath so he can't be accused of lying under oath [PERJURY].This is another smoke screen to cover up some other big lie from bushco.About the time these so called representitives of the people wake up we will be headed to Iran due to intel gathered by this administration.These guys are always a day late but never a dollar short when it comes to the smoke screens Rove & co put up.
February 7th, 2006 at 9:26 amPower without limit, inherent power. These are frightening words at any time but particularly with this gang in charge. What's the next thing George will do with his absolute power - declare the next presidential election invalid?
February 7th, 2006 at 9:36 amI believe that Bush WILL say that because we are "at war" (The Long War!!) he must stay in power (didn't Roosevelt? There's the precedent). All he needs is the Air Force, which is inundated with evangelicals waiting to do his bidding. Are people aware that NORTHCOM (created right after 9/11)is ready for martial law and not just in America but in Canada, too? The Patriot Act II is a very dangerous law, expanding government powers and reducing our civil liberties to dust. We are being governed by a bunch of thugs. Who will stop them? We, the People, MUST stop them if America is to be saved.
February 7th, 2006 at 9:48 amThe bottom line is that the hearings are nothing but a show. Otherwise Gonzales would be under oath. Sen. Specter has proven that he's a hypocrite and a liar by claiming to be a pro-choice Republican and then voting to confirm Alito.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:28 amThis is more of the same. You have Hatch, Cornyn, Sessions acting as cheerleaders for Gonzales and Bushco. The Republican actors are Specter, Graham, and Brownback pretending to care about the separation of powers. The Democrats are trying their best but they only have secondary parts in the play. It's an example of the theater of the absurd because the Republican's only desire is power at any cost which they have now with them controlling all branches of government. When it's all done, Bushco will continue doing what they want when they want and nothing will change. The only hope to save our democracy is to take back congress in November, try the criminals, and put them in prison.
King George and the neocon foot soldiers claim that because he is the commander and chief in a time of war he can do anything. Well, I wonder if the country would allow a Dem. President all this power? And would the rightwing allow it without squawking? Probability not.
The needs to swear in anyone that comes before them . People in power always lie, there needs to a way to hold them to there word exspecially the Bush Crime Family
WE NEED TO RISE UP, "WE THE PEOPLE"
February 7th, 2006 at 7:07 pm