Justice Department Lawyer To Congress: ‘The President Is Always Right’
Justice Department Lawyer To Congress: ‘The President Is Always Right’
The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday heard testimony from Steven Bradbury, head of the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel. When questioned by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on whether the President’s interpretation of the Hamdan case was right or wrong, Bradbury replied, “The President is always right.” Watch it:
Full transcript below:
LEAHY: The president has said very specifically, and he’s said it to our European allies, he’s waiting for the Supreme Court decision to tell him whether or not he was supposed to close Guantanamo or not. After, he said it upheld his position on Guantanamo, and in fact it said neither. Where did he get that impression? The President’s not a lawyer, you are, the Justice Department advised him. Did you give him such a cockamamie idea or what?
BRADBURY: Well, I try not to give anybody cockamamie ideas.
LEAHY: Well, where’d he get the idea?
BRADBURY: The Hamdan decision, senator, does implicitly recognize we’re in a war, that the President’s war powers were triggered by the attacks on the country, and that law of war paradigm applies. That’s what the whole case —
LEAHY: I don’t think the President was talking about the nuances of the law of war paradigm, he was saying this was going to tell him that he could keep Guantanamo open or not, after it said he could.
BRADBURY: Well, it’s not —
LEAHY: Was the President right or was he wrong?
BRABURY: It’s under the law of war –
LEAHY: Was the President right or was he wrong?
BRADBURY: The President is always right.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If it weren’t the scariest thing I’ve heard this week it would be absolutely hilarious.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:30 amOnly one entity is never wrong and his name isn’t George W. Bush.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:33 amWait, let me guess… because he hears the voice of god, right?
July 12th, 2006 at 9:34 amThese guys have a lot of faith in a C-student who can\’t even be bothered to read 1=page briefing papers.
Every campaign across the land should run this.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:34 amThis president is never, never, never right. Impeachment time before 2008.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:34 amWell, there it is, folks. The Doctrine of the Unitary Executive, or, in other words, ‘The King can do no wrong’.
Wasn’t there another president who believed all presidential acts are de facto legal? Didn’t that president come to a rather sticky end?
Seriously, folks…if you want to know precisely what is wrong with this country, just start here.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:37 am“Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
— Richard Milhous Nixon
Dubya has learned a lot from the master of “dirty tricks”.
Cheers,
July 12th, 2006 at 9:37 amPretzel– WRONG
Preznit– RIGHT
got– it— yaa
July 12th, 2006 at 9:37 amFollow up question: “Can you clarify that? Do you mean that all presidents have always been right in what they do or do you mean that only this president is always right?”
I will wait for your head to explode.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:40 amNixon: “When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal …”
Bush is out to grab more power than Nixon ever thought possible.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:41 amtranslation: Dick Cheney is always right
July 12th, 2006 at 9:43 amThat’s right, he Decided he was right because he’s the Decider and sometimes it’s hard work making tough decisions.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:44 amWhen bullshit exceeds logic one calls lawyers.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:49 am‘The President is always right’…bullshit.
Time to call in the clowns, er, lawyers.
Yep, Bush throws himself from the bycicle on purpose every time he wants.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:52 amI don’t know folks – I watched the clip, and thought he was clearly being facetious. He was just trying to get Leahy to back off, and – in essence, not answer the question.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:53 amWhen the congressional repubs begin to feel the heat from their voters, they might actually remember they don’t work for and have to protect the president from the consequences of his illegal actions. Then, perhaps, they might actually attempt to exercise the power of their office to control the the executive branch instead of requiring victims of presidential abuse to seek relief through the courts.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:53 amHow does “never right” become “always right”?
July 12th, 2006 at 9:54 amWhen did that skit play on Saturday Night Live?
July 12th, 2006 at 9:55 amEERRRRR!!!
OOOO SNAP!!!
July 12th, 2006 at 9:55 am#9~ Xcellent follow-up question!
July 12th, 2006 at 9:55 amI’d like to answer that: Ah, the answer is just this King is always right. Long live the King.
BRADBURY: The President is always right.
That’s the scariest thing I’ve heard in a long time.
I can’t watch the video at home. Did he say that with a straight face?
July 12th, 2006 at 9:55 am#15 – I kinda. I thought that last night when I watched the entire hearing when CSPAN reran it. Sen Leahy was being difficult and Bradbury threw it back.
The one I’m surprised didn’t get it was Sen Shumer.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:56 amI am sure he felt the same way when Clinton was President! Yeah right!
July 12th, 2006 at 9:56 am- Chase:
Sen Leahy was being difficult
‘Difficult’? Because he was looking for a straight answer? Isn’t that his job?
July 12th, 2006 at 9:59 am‘Difficult’? Because he was looking for a straight answer? Isn’t that his job?
Quit being difficult.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:02 amI’ve had Maureen Dowd up since last night and in “He Let the Dogs Out!“, Mo Do writes about the little-publicized judicial confirmation hearings of William Haynes, an advocate of using dogs to torture Iraqi detainees. I’ve departed from tradition and used some illustrations to help bring Dowd’s point home.
How come we haven’t been hearing more about this nomination to the second-highest federal court in the nation?
July 12th, 2006 at 10:05 am#24 – Sen Leahy was being a smart-ass (”cockamimie ideas”) and not accepting Bradbury’s truthful answer.
The Hamdan decision did in fact permit the President to keep GTMO open. That’s what Bradbury answered. Leahy wouldn’t accept that so the witness snapped back.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:05 am#26 – Because this guy won’t make it out Committee. I wouldn’t put to much worry into this one.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:07 amThe President is always right.
He was right about Iraq’s alleged cache of WMDs?
He was right about Iraq’s alleged ties with Al Queda?
He was right about Iraq’s alleged attempts at purchasing uranium from Niger?
He was right about being greeted as liberators in Iraq…flowers and all?
He was right about nominating Harriet Miers as a viable SC justice?
He was right about appointing Brownie to head FEMA?
He was right about ignoring the memos regarding OBLs idea of flying planes into buildings?
Need I go on?
I think it’s time to re-launch the failed “War on Drugs”…as it’s quite obvious that this administration, and the lawyers that speak for it, are quite strung out and hallucinating.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:09 am[...] Think Progress – Justice Department Lawyer To Congress: “The President Is Always Right” [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 10:10 amWhat kind of fascist, lemming mentality is that?
What kind of a stupid idiot thinks the other stupid idiot is always right?
Geez!
July 12th, 2006 at 10:14 amThe long war against humanity as anyone can be a terrorist as the definition continues to expand. Nevermind the skanks of the military industrial complex that has killed millions directly and trained or stood behind dictators killing 10s of millions, (both including torture and the slaughter of innocent lives), for corporations since the creation of the national security state under the National Security Act.
Moyers “The Secret Government” video can be found at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2397496401234089687&q=secret
Created in 1987, it shows that the NSA has been used for the expansion of the American Empire, operating outside of the legitimate part of the US government.
Also, a must read is Fisking the War on Terror at http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/fisking-war-on-terror-once-upon-time.html
The nebulous war, based on lies and deception is in reality a war on our rights and liberties that is following in the footsteps of totalitarian dictators of the last century. Any reason can be expanded as far as our current dictator and his sycophants want as the US has become a Secret State with little or no transparency.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:14 amOf course the President is always right! That is the reason why he is the President. Presidents, unless they are Democrats, are not able to be wrong. Jesus sees to that.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:14 amFYI
CABLE NEWS RACE
MON., JULY 10, 2006
VIEWERS
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 2,264,000
July 12th, 2006 at 10:16 amFNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,801,000
CNN LARRY KING 1,382,000
FNC GRETA 1,340,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,252,000
FNC HUME 1,197,000
CNN COOPER 1,132,000
CNN DOBBS 823,000
CNN PAULA ZAHN 679,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 360,000
CNNHN GRACE 354,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 349,000
sorry wrong thread
July 12th, 2006 at 10:16 amHe was merely quoting the American version of the Bible.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:18 amPresidents, unless they are Democrats, are not able to be wrong. Jesus sees to that.
Comment by Herman B. Hayes, favored pupil of Christ.
Thank heaven for Presidents and Jesus!
July 12th, 2006 at 10:20 amha ha ha. This guy gets paid to say things like that.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:24 amOur Dear Leader is always right.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:27 amJuan, Herman is a very talented joker. :)
July 12th, 2006 at 10:27 amOur Dear Leader is always right.
Comment by Bill Gant
Stop saying that! You’re creeping me out. :O
July 12th, 2006 at 10:29 am- Chase:
Sen Leahy was being a smart-ass (â€cockamimie ideasâ€) and not accepting Bradbury’s truthful answer.
Perhaps because the ‘truthful’ answer was perceived by Leahy as ‘cockimamie’? Perhaps because it doesn’t hold water?
The Hamdan decision did in fact permit the President to keep GTMO open. That’s what Bradbury answered.
No, Bradbury attempted to argue that the Hamadan decision amounted to a de facto admission that we were at war.
Ever since 9/11, republicans have been attempting to argue that we’re at war, despite the fact that only Congress can declare war, and to this date, they have not done so.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:29 amI wish I got paid to say things like that.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:29 amJesus Fu*king Christ, we are SO fu*ked.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:30 amWell, that really crumbles apart my conspiracy theory that the President was, in fact, a stupid asshole.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:30 amYou’ve got to be kidding. Did any of you actually listen to what was being said, or did you just latch on to the very last comment? Patrick Leahy is a belligerant, pompous ass. He’s not really asking a question, but rather making an assertion by the use of the word “cockamamie.” Bradbury attempts to respond, by giving an explanation, but is not allowed to finish—not that any explanation would have mattered to Leahy. The last question in this clip, Leahy kept demanding a “right” or “wrong” answer to a question that couldn’t be answered that way. Bradbury is clearly frustrated by this inquisition style of badgering, and responds with the equivolent of throwing his hands up in the air by saying, “The President is always right.”
All of you are making way too big of a deal out of this.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:31 amYou got that right. Thats the whole scam case.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:33 amAchtun! Mon Furor!! ….sorry bout the spelling…click heels very sharply!!!
July 12th, 2006 at 10:33 amAntagonist,
See my post above. I basically agree with you, though the reason Leahy comes across like that is he was having a hard time getting a straight answer.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:36 amAll of you are making way too big of a deal out of this.
Comment by Antagonist — July 12, 2006 @ 10:31 am
There are people dying out there, but youre right: we are making way too big of a deal out of this.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:36 am#34 – Oh Drudge.
Olberman may be funny at times, and he may be the darling of the Angry Left right now, but he can’t get anyone to watch him. I guess that goes for MSNBC in general.
Hell, they’ve changed their format dramatically, and to tell you the truth I like it more. I like the “news magazine” style shows. Hell, tonight there are shows about meth and San Quintin!
I’d much rather see that that Olberman or Scarborough.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:37 amWell, that really crumbles apart my conspiracy theory that the President was, in fact, a stupid asshole.
Comment by Juan C
Best laugh of the day, so far, Juan! Thanks.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:41 amOff to work…
the darling of the Angry Left
Comment by Chase — July 12, 2006 @ 10:37 am
What’s the “Angry Left”?
July 12th, 2006 at 10:43 amRight? So what was the answer?
That my friend, is not the answer the question, that is an attempt to move the question onto something else, such as the question of whether America is at war. A question the American courts are not actually allowed to answer, that is for Congress to decide and thus far they haven’t said so.
Leahy did a good job, he kept control of the interview, and didn’t stand for any bull.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:44 am#42 – Wait a minute.
This is a war de facto. I think you are confusing the concept of war de jure.
There have been eleven formal declarations of war in US history. There have been 13 instances when Congress explicitly authorized extended military engagements, short of a formal declaration (Vietnam, Gulf War I, Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom all fall here).
So in that sense, Bradbury is correct: this is a war de facto.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:44 amI believe the phrase “Walking lockstep with the administration” has now officially been changed to “Marching goose setp with the administration”.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:45 am#46 You may be right in how pompass Leahy was but for Bradbury to say “The President is always right” was irresponsible of him. He is the deputy Attorney General and advises the executive branch on the legal rulings of the day. To have the equivalence of throwing his hands in the air because of the “Badgering” by Leahy shows the lack of restraint someone at his level in the legal field should have mastered a long time ago. We all know the President (any President) is not always right.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:50 am#50, no doubt you refer to the poor dyeing freedom fighting terrorists
July 12th, 2006 at 10:52 amChase
For a state of war to grant anyone any special rights, it has to be official, this one isn’t.
Further, Bush’s rights even in a state of war are as Commander in Chief, not Emperor, he can’t claim the power to ignore the law, or to allow others to ignore the law as a war-time power, though he can take control of America’s armed forces, he is still restrained by the law. CMC is not a license to ignore the law, nor should it be.
Read section 2 again, his war time powers are not quite so grand as you may have been led to believe.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:52 amZooey:
If it walks like a duck…
July 12th, 2006 at 10:53 am- Antagonist:
You can’t be serious…
Did any of you actually listen to what was being said, or did you just latch on to the very last comment?
Watched the whole thing, thanks….even saved it on my hard drive for my friends to view.
Patrick Leahy is a belligerant, pompous ass.
Your opinion is your own, although DrSinker pegged it when he said it was because he was trying to get a straight answer out of Bradbury (which is his job…).
He’s not really asking a question, but rather making an assertion by the use of the word “cockamamie.â€
Funny…it sounded a lot like a question:
Sounds pretty straightforward to me…sorry you perceive it as ‘belligerent’ and ‘pompous’…
Bradbury attempts to respond, by giving an explanation
No…Bradbury attempts to push the Hamadan decision as a excuse to invoke the President’s war powers, by calling this an ‘implicit’ war, despite the fact that Congress still hasn’t declared war on anyone.
The last question in this clip, Leahy kept demanding a “right†or “wrong†answer to a question that couldn’t be answered that way.
It most certainly could have been answered…the issue is that Bradbury didn’t want to finger the President, but he didn’t want to commit perjury, either.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:55 amChase,
Do you advocate that the Executive branch has more power than the other branches?
If so, why do you advocate to diminsh your own voice in our government?
July 12th, 2006 at 11:02 amHe’s not really asking a question, but rather making an assertion by the use of the word “cockamamie.†Bradbury attempts to respond, by giving an explanation, but is not allowed to finish—not that any explanation would have mattered to Leahy. The last question in this clip, Leahy kept demanding a “right†or “wrong†answer to a question that couldn’t be answered that way.
You know, if it wasn’t for the fact that Antagonist typed in Senator Leahy’s name and the specific reference to “cockamamie,” I would have bet huge amounts of money that he (she?) was describing Sean Hannity’s “interview” style.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:02 am#27, While I agree that Bradbury’s answer seems to be facetious, I don’t think Senator Leahy was being a smartass at all. He asked how the President interpreted the Hamdan decision, and came up with the notion that it upheld his position on Guantanamo and detainee rights, when in fact, it specifically contradicted it.
Bradford then basically said that since the Hamdan decision acknowledged we are at war, that was enough to give the president authority to disregard detainee rights.
This does not really answer the question. The fact we are at war was not a question, obviously we are. He wanted to know how the Hamdan decision supported the President’s viewpoint on presidential authority over people’s rights.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:05 am#51,
Olberman may be funny at times, and he may be the darling of the Angry Left right now, but he can’t get anyone to watch him. I guess that goes for MSNBC in general.
Actually, Olberman’s ratings have gone up 30% over the past 6 months among people 25-55, while O’Reily and others have remained flat. I like his show and tend to watch it. His “most evil people in the world” segment is pretty funny. The fact that it ticks off Bill O’Rielly is just icing on the cake.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:13 amIf it walks like a duck…
Comment by Bill Gant
Ya got me there…*shudder*
July 12th, 2006 at 11:15 amEven if Bush were a man or morals, ethics and common intelligence (which of course he is not), there is no way he could always be right. Then again, he does hear the voice of God, and I suppose that gives him infallibility. With people like Bradbury in the law department, Bush has no fear – but we should!
July 12th, 2006 at 11:17 amI thought I made a mistake once, but it turned out I was right afterall.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:18 am/snark
#62 – No, I don’t believe the Executive has more “power” than the other branches. To what extent this power can be wielded independently rely entirely upon the circumstances.
The Vesting Clause of Article II states the “executive Power shall be vested in the President”. To me, this is a powerful statement. The structure alone suggests a more opened-ended authority than Congress (compare Article I, Section I: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States” which limits the legislature to enumerated powers).
The SCOTUS has expressed the President’s supremecy of authority over the subject of foreign affairs. How that plays out in each new case, of course, is less than clear.
Finally, in addition to the constitutional checks on the President granted to Congress, the legislative branch can constrain the president vis a vis his own constitutional obligation under the Take Care Clause (Article II, Sec 2) – see, again, Youngstown.
Does this answer your question adequately?
July 12th, 2006 at 11:20 am#64: I would accept the idea that Bradbury’s comment were facetious, if not for the context of his comment. He’s basically arguing that Bush is not subject to the law because the country is in a war against terrorism (a war that has no definite goal and therefore will end only when the President says it’s over). Essentially he’s claiming that we are living under martial law.
Bradbury attempts to use the Hamdan decision as cover, when in fact the decision says just the opposite of what he claims it says. The decision makes it clear that the President must obey the law, in spite of the fact that the country is at war. The scope of the decision, like any Supreme Court decision, is narrow, in that it makes no comment about Guatanamo Bay. The Bush administration is claiming that Hamdan “tacitly” recognizes the legitimacy of Gitmo, when in fact it does no such thing.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:20 amReminds me of Barry Goldwater’s campaign slogan “In Your Heart You Know He’s Right” (even THEY didn’t say “ALWAYS right)…
And the response was “yeah…FAR right.” (That USED to be more of a pejorative than it is today.)
[BTW, why does the NYTimes call Obrador a "Leftist" but Calderon is a "Conservative"...not a "rightist"...?]
July 12th, 2006 at 11:21 am#65 – Just look at the comparison of viewers from Monday. His viewership (across all demos) is a fraction of OReilly’s. Hell Nancy Grace, on HLN, beat him. That’s not good.
If you consistantly lose your timeslot, it’s only a matter of time until you’re cycled out and something else is tried.
You may like him but that alone won’t keep him on the air.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:24 amHe’s making a joke, and while it’s a poor one, easily taken out of context, etc, etc., it obviously wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. Look at his face when he says it (the transcript is misleading). And really, even if it weren’t a joke, it’s nothing we haven’t been assuming for the passt 5+ years anyway, so what’s all the hubub?
July 12th, 2006 at 11:24 am“I don’t know folks – I watched the clip, and thought he was clearly being facetious.”
I was watching it too and agree somewhat. It was not CLEAR to me he was being facetious…I found myself wondering, although he was seemed somewhat facetious, if he really believed it.
That’s the scary part….I don’t really know if he (and others) at bottom, think that whatever the President says or does, he’s “right”.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:27 amnext stop air america!
July 12th, 2006 at 11:27 amThe SCOTUS has expressed the President’s supremecy of authority over the subject of foreign affairs.
Really? Who ratifies treaties with other nations? Who enacts tariffs? Who declares war and peace with other countries? Who enacts trade agreements? etc.
I may be wrong but it ain’t the prez.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:27 amOMG – its like they’re stepford republicans…WTF??????
July 12th, 2006 at 11:28 amLeahy included, you know what the Democrats’ problem is? No sense of timing or a sense of opportunism. And the Lieberman/Lamont campaign is helping to draw attention to that fact. The other NE Democratic senators could put the final nails in his political coffin by withholding their support, as John Murtha has, but they won’t. They could use this election in CT to more sharply define and distinuguish themselves from the Republicans but they won’t. Once again, they’re throwing away what could prove to be yet another very valuable lesson in values and conviction.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:31 amActually, the full Constitution now reads:
“The President is always right — unless he’s a Democrat, in which case he’s always wrong.”
July 12th, 2006 at 11:36 am#72
That’s not necessarily true. No news network expects a show to immediately be at the top. The fact that his demographics show an increase in viewership over the past few months where most shows have remained flat or lost is enough to keep him on the air. The raw numbers are not the only factor in any shows success. If his rating show a flat or downward trend, then his show will likely be replaced.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:38 amSo John Dean is right after all that conservatives are impervious to facts, logic, reality, etc.
I still don’t understand why conservatives hate America so much…
July 12th, 2006 at 11:38 ambradbury’s resume
my country, right or wrong
July 12th, 2006 at 11:39 ammy party, right or wrong
my president, always right, never wrong
my ability to think for myself, um-, well-, er-, um-, he-, ah-, is-, that-
#76 – President makes treaties (with Congressional advice and consent). He, however, has an absolute “monoply” of power in negotiating them. No other officer (except his appointed ambassadors) can represent the US abroad. This is a nice primer on the subject.
The reality is the president has preternatural authority over foreign affiars. The Founders in fact, had a purpose for this. Imagine the confusion if Sentaors and Representatives, or states themselves, could negotiate treaties with other nations, enact unequal tariffs, etc. etc. A single American representative in negotiations with other nations was the purpose behind their vestments.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:44 amwhat an asslicker!
July 12th, 2006 at 11:47 am#80 – Your right, and I agree he is trending up. But at some point they are going to want him to move from dead last among the cable news networks in that timeslot. He has yet to deliver MSNBC from that position.
He’s been the host for more than 3 years now – shouldn’t that be enough to escape last?
July 12th, 2006 at 11:48 am#85
You are probably right. MSNBC in general does not fare well in the ratings. Too bad, I tend to like it, since they have commentators from both sides of the aisle. I’m a democrat, but I always like to see both sides before I make an opinion.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:53 am#83
July 12th, 2006 at 11:55 amI agree with you on the point that the Prez has the powers that you mentioned but he is not the “ultimate power” in relations to foreign countries that it sounded like you meant in the origional post. Anyway what does this have to do with the subject of this discussion topic? Are you saying that the president can do anything he wants when it comes to dealing with prisoners from foreign countries because the of his foreign relation powers? Even if it means breaking US law? Sorry if I am not following and I don’t understand but I don’t get it.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” -Teddy Roosevelt
July 12th, 2006 at 11:57 amF_ck me in the goat ass!!!! That is way f—ed up!
July 12th, 2006 at 11:58 am[...] No comment is needed on this pompous statement. Think Progress has the details. The Decider Rules [gag]: Justice Department Lawyer To Congress: ‘The President Is Always Right’ [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 11:59 amThe reality is the president has preternatural authority over foreign affiars.
Comment by Chase — July 12, 2006 @ 11:44 am
This is true. The president has the power to negotiate treaties and agreements. However, and as the link you provided explains, the president must have consent from the Senate in order to ratify such treaties. The Senate also has the authority to introduce amendments.
For a treaty to become legally binding, it must be ratified -which cannot be done without the Senate’s consent. Call it a limit to presidential powers, or checks and balances.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:00 pm#79, you are one of the few on here that gets it
July 12th, 2006 at 12:00 pmThis debate really has no basis in fact. The Constitution, in providing for the impeachment of the President for “high crimes and other misdemeanors,” clearly provides that the president is not above the law and is not automatically, by proclamation, “always right.” The easiest way to settle this debacle is to hold impeachment hearings and the final result be put to the citizens of this Country, not the criminals in Congress.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:03 pm- diet:
Are you saying that the president can do anything he wants when it comes to dealing with prisoners from foreign countries because the of his foreign relation powers? Even if it means breaking US law?
I believe that what the issue here isn’t U.S. law as much as it is our international obligations. The Hamadan decision means (if I’m interpreting this corrctly) that the Guantanamo detainees are entitled to treatment as outlined in the Geneva Convention. Basically, this means that if the President refuses to extend Geneva Convention standards of treatment to the detainees, he is violating the Geneva Convention (no more of this ‘enemy combatant’ gray area).
It’s unclear as to whether a President can unilatererally nullify a treaty without Senate approval (see Goldwater vs. Carter).
July 12th, 2006 at 12:06 pm#87 – Someone asked me earlier if I thought the President had unlimited power. I just was explaining my view. It is probably a little off topic (but not too far).
As to how his power extends to activities such as torture, detainment, etc, well that’s a matter for the Courts system. It much to complex of a calculation for a comment. I will say this – probably the most important thing to consider in those cases is Youngstown. The SCOTUS uses this almost exclusively when measuring pres. power vis a vis Congressional assent.
#91 – Absolutely correct. That is an enumerated Congressional check on the Executive.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:07 pmWait, I thought the CUSTOMER was always right?
July 12th, 2006 at 12:07 pm[...] Justice Department Lawyer To Congress: “The President Is Always Right”. Does anyone else see this disturbing claim analogous to the Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility? [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 12:08 pm#83
I agree, the president is the single representative for foreign policy, with the advice and consent of the Legislature. But the founders were extremely consistent on a System of Checks and Balances. They wanted to ensure that any person endowed with the power of the presidency, still has to look for consent of another branch of government.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that it was really important to keep the three branches of government equal and distinct, for fear that if there was a single branch with total authority, a single individual (like a president) could load up the government with friendly and potentially unqualified people and thus restore a monarchy-like system.
With the current situation of NSA spying, Detainee rights, etc., we cannot allow a single branch to be so secretive that the other branches cannot provide their own oversight. Our country is a Country of Freedom, war-time or not. In fact, the framers wrote the Constitution to account for both war-time and peace and make specific mention of both.
In fact, the Constitution does not differentiate between citizens and foreigners with respect to the rights we have. This is not an oversight since they do specifically mention citizenship when talking about who can be eligible for President, but not in the Bill of Rights.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:08 pmThose are the words of someone who hates Democracy.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:11 pm#94 –
The Pentagon announced yesterday that military detainees will be afforded protections pursuant Article 3 of the GC. They are still, however, labeled enemy combatants (a status, by the way, which is reviewed annually by a board. There are something like 200 individuals previously declared EC’s have been declared a no-longer posing a threat and eligible for release. The snag is their home countries might arrest and torture or excute them and we are unwilling to send them to that situation and are now working out agreements with thrid countries).
July 12th, 2006 at 12:11 pmHey, I thought that only the Pope is infallible. Now I’m surprsed to learn that the President is also. Or is he now Pope?
July 12th, 2006 at 12:11 pm#94
July 12th, 2006 at 12:13 pmSCOTUS also said in their decision that the actions at GITMO were against the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. So I would say if it violated the UCMJ then it broke US law also.
Wouldn’t that make him GOD, legally?
July 12th, 2006 at 12:15 pmChase
The question is, whether Bush can be held liable for the crimes already committed against those same detainees. The ruling wasn’t on whether new law was needed, it was on whether old law was broken, and it was. The question raised however is what now?
July 12th, 2006 at 12:16 pmThe Vesting Clause of Article II states the “executive Power shall be vested in the Presidentâ€. To me, this is a powerful statement. The structure alone suggests a more opened-ended authority than Congress (compare Article I, Section I: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States†which limits the legislature to enumerated powers).
How do you figure?
The president has the power to EXECUTE the laws passed by Congress. Period.
There’s nothing “open-ended” about that.
Here’s the laws…execute them. It doesn’t give the president the power to make laws or ignore those he chooses to ignore.
Article 1 – Section 8 clearly states:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
In other words, Congress determines what powers the President (AND ANYONE ELSE IN THE GOVERNMENT) has, by legislating it. FISA is an example of making law to limit the power of the executive.
Do you think the president has the power to ignore the laws passed by Congress?
July 12th, 2006 at 12:16 pmIt’s time for a new pledge of allegiance, one to the US Constitution rather to the Stars and Stripes. It perhaps could begin:
“I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, as all citizens from the President down to the newest citizens are sworn to do. I swear to work for social justice for all and opportunity for all, and that The United States of America be a responsible world citizen…….”
Not that’s there’s anything wrong with torture, preemptive war, rape of the environment, fiscal irresponsibility, and so on. After all, the world is going to end soon, and the Godly among us will be raptured.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:17 pm1. The President does not have a law degree, nor any particular interest in the law;
2. He has a vested interest in the outcome of all of these decisions.
3. He has been wrong before…on just about everything.
So…let’s me him King forever!
July 12th, 2006 at 12:20 pm[...] Always. america, asshole, news politics [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 12:23 pmI guess we really are changing from a democratic form of government to a theological form of government. The President, like the Pope is now infallible ;)
July 12th, 2006 at 12:25 pmof course he’s always right… he’s the decider!
July 12th, 2006 at 12:25 pmJustice Department: “The President is Always Right”…
Somewhere out there, the ghost of Richard M. Nixon is laughing….
July 12th, 2006 at 12:25 pm[...] Think Progress: Justice Department Lawyer To Congress: ‘The President Is Always Right’ [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 12:28 pmThe President is dead…Long live the King!
July 12th, 2006 at 12:28 pmVerily I say unto ye, only my Father is always right.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:29 pmPS My Father thinks George Bush is a horse’s ass.
Your saviour eternally,
Jesus H Christ
The president is always right. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:30 pmLeahy very cleverly backed Bradbury into a corner.
Bradbury could go one of two ways. The president is right or the president is wrong. With the Bill of Rights gone, the 5th amendment was off the table. So he chose the one that was more likely to get the “acting” taken out of his title. Point to Leahy, but it doesn’t really prove anything other than the administration’s position is still thinks that up is down.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:31 pmYes, the President is always right. He was right to brand people with a red-hot coathanger while in college, he was right to snort cocaine and drink to excess, he was right to go AWOL from the national guard for over a year (technically, a deserter after 30 days, but he was right to do that, too!), he was right to steal the office of the president from the two actual elected democrats, he was right to conspire with Ken Lay to totally rip off California and anyone else that the energy pirates could possibly steal from, Yes Indeed, always right
July 12th, 2006 at 12:33 pm#15 – Facetious, well, yes, a nice word for being an asshole, carrying the his little piece of the hubris of this administration. Leahy is SUPPOSED to be “difficult”, if that means asking direct, tough questions of these weasels. What was this little punk laughing about? I think this i is a somewhat big deal. He might’ve been saying “the president is always right’ because that’s probably a great big plaque on the wall in everybody’s office, as a warning.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:35 pm#15 – Facetious, well, yes, a nice word for being an asshole, carrying his little piece of the hubris of this administration. Leahy is SUPPOSED to be “difficult”, if that means asking direct, tough questions of these weasels. What was this little punk laughing about? I think this i is a somewhat big deal. He might’ve been saying “the president is always right’ because that’s probably a great big plaque on the wall in everybody’s office, as a warning.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:35 pmIf you want to find out who the 23 percent of the U.S population (according to John Dean) who will blindly follow Bush, you just found one.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:36 pmCongress is full of morons.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:36 pmThe Divine Right of Kings…
Long ago, in America’s history, there was a war. That war was called the American Revolution. While there were a myriad of reasons the people who lived in the New World decided to declare their independence from, and ultimately fight a war agai …….
July 12th, 2006 at 12:36 pm#105 – I have stated my view. I have presented some evidence to support my view. You have valid arguments, but I don’t see the value in continuing to debate on this. You won’t change my mind, nor will I change yours.
I will say, in closing, that with regard to FISA, the President has acted beyond the letter of the law. I’m virtually certain there will be no criminal proceedings that come from that.
Anyway, I’m moving on.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:39 pmIt is much, much, much later than we think.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:43 pmI have stated my view. I have presented some evidence to support my view. You have valid arguments, but I don’t see the value in continuing to debate on this. You won’t change my mind, nor will I change yours.
In other words, you present “some” evidence to support your opinioin, but rather than examine the “valid” arguments I provide, you choose instead to move on.
I examine the evidence you provide and counter with my own, which you validate, but then you refuse to let such little things as facts get in the way of forming your opinion.
Sad, sad little man.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:45 pmIt’s impossible to get someone to disagree with the President when his entire salary depends on him agreeing with the President … Do’h
July 12th, 2006 at 12:47 pmI think that was just a slip up – he seemed to mean something like, when the country is at war, the president’s power is at its zenith, and most of his decisions are always right (in the sense that they are given great deference, and many of the decisions made as incident to war aren’t even justiciable).
July 12th, 2006 at 12:51 pmMy God! Typical fundamentalist Christian argument – I’m right because I know I am in my heart I am…case closed.”
This from an administration that can judge other leaders simply by looking into their hearts.
We are in scary, scary times folks.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:51 pmWill they say the President is always right when there is a Democrat in the White House? I doubt it very seriously.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:56 pm[...] Think Progress also has the video available here. [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 12:56 pmcome on guys! i’m a true-blue liberal, but even i could tell it was a joke. let’s not get all “fundamentalist” here. if we lose our sense of humor we’ll be as bad as the rethugs. :P
July 12th, 2006 at 12:56 pmYou might be an authoritarian stooge if……
If you believe that George W. Bush has the inherent right to do whatever he pleases in order to protect you from “the terrorists…”…
July 12th, 2006 at 12:56 pmI have stated my view. I have presented some evidence to support my view. You have valid arguments, but I don’t see the value in continuing to debate on this. You won’t change my mind, nor will I change yours.
Comment by Chase — July 12, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Shorter Chase: There is no value in examining valid arguments.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:00 pmBecause this guy won’t make it out Committee. I wouldn’t put to much worry into this one.
He could well get a recess appointment.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:05 pm“The President is always right.”
Gee, somebody should have reminded the republicans of this fact in the ’90s.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:05 pmChase #55:
This is a war de facto. I think you are confusing the concept of war de jure.
OK, say it is a “war de facto“. If it is not a “war de jure“, then by law, it is not a war. IOW, it’s an illegal “war”. Glad you clarified that. But for the purposes of discussion, I’d say that if it is not a “war de jure“, it’s hard for the preznit’s representatives to argue that, legally, this state of affairs excuses the preznit’s actions on that basis (if you eve assume that a real war would legally make a difference, something I don’t concede).
Cheers,
July 12th, 2006 at 1:06 pm[...] As Think Progress reports in another post, Steven Bradbury, head of the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that when it comes to matters of war and law, “The President is always right.†Ironically, this profession of a classically Nixonian article of faith (“Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.†R.M. Nixon, felon-esque ex-president and The Pride of Yorba Linda, told David Frost during a TV interview in 1977) came up while Bradbury was being questioned about the Supreme Court’s recent Hamdan decision, in which the Supremes made it clear that the President is not always right when it comes the law and war. Apparently, someone isn’t doing a very good job of making sure lessons are learned. [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 1:10 pmMSNBC’s Number are skewed.
They are not tier-one channels in many markets as Fox/Faux News is.
This is not fully corrected for in those numbers.
“Stats can lie when no context is provided” K. Rove
July 12th, 2006 at 1:10 pmWhat planet is this guy from? Bush has been WRONG about everything!
July 12th, 2006 at 1:11 pmHe was wrong about WMD
Wrong about Rove not being involved in leaking the agents name
wrong about Iraq
wrong about being prepared for the hurricane.
Maybe he meant the president is
July 12th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
#133 – Because you must piss into the wind…
Congress is limited to it’s enumerated powers. Period. Disagree with that, we cannot move forward.
Congress does have the legislative power, to make laws, which the President is obligated to execute per the Take Care Clause.
The President has authority over all executive branch offices and agencies – allowing Congress to encroach would violate the separation of powers.
I have discussed my concerns about FISA previously and I don’t want to rehash them. I think the arguments on both sides are compelling – thus, I don’t think the constitutionality of the NSA program is as clear as some make it out to be.
I’ll write more in a moment (the reason I tried to walk away from this fruitless debate is that it’s killing my productivity at work. I’ll suck it up and carry on.)
July 12th, 2006 at 1:26 pm136 I am more a fan of this administration’s agreement with war du jour.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:28 pmHerman #142:
I am more a fan of this administration’s agreement with war du jour.
LOL. Good one! Say, do we have a “polling alert” coming up?
Cheers,
July 12th, 2006 at 1:34 pmCalm down people. I think GWB is an idiot, but this comment didn’t bother me at all, especially when I watched the clip. He’s Bush’s appointee, advisor and lawyer. In that role, it would be completely inappropriate for him to say that the president’s position on a legal question is wrong — maybe OK if he resigned first. Leahy knows that, and did not expect anything different. This answer was a polite way of saying, in a we-all-know-how-this-works kind of way, “Nice try Senator, but you know I can’t go there.”
July 12th, 2006 at 1:35 pmI listened to the tape several times and it sounds like he says “we hope the president is always right.” Now I may be wrong, but to me Leahy talks over the “we hope” part…
“We hope the president is always right” is a bit more palatable than “the president is always right” but either way the president is consistently wrong…
July 12th, 2006 at 1:35 pm“The President is always right.”
Just one of the “Conservative Quotes of the Week.”
July 12th, 2006 at 1:39 pmHow can you debate this? It does not matter if the phrasing was “George Bush is an idiot of epic measure, and he is in way over his head”. That mean that he is always right. Everything means that GWB is alway correct. Always.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:40 pmMaybe we should be calling him Pope Bush? After all, he’s infallible and he speaks for God.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:43 pmCongress is limited to it’s enumerated powers. Period. Disagree with that, we cannot move forward.
I never disagreed. I agree, Congress is limited to it’s enumerated powers…one of those being the power to legislate and control what the executive can actually execute.
Where we disagree, however, is in the President’s powers.
You seem to be arguing that in times of “war” (however you want to describe them), the President is not limited in his powers. I maintain that he is. His power to execute is limited by what laws Congress provides him.
FISA, and a plethora of other laws, are intended by Congress to limit the powers of the executive, which IS their constitutionally mandated power.
Disagree with that, we cannot move forward.
In our constitutional form of government the utmost power is given to the people…and the people are represented by Congress…not the president. We, the people, formed this government…we, the people, have the most power. Congress, as our representatives, has more power than any other branch of government. In a nation founded on the rule of law, the power to make law is the supreme power, not the power to execute the law.
The power to remove the executive and members of the judiciary lies solely in the powers of the Congress. There is no similar power maintained by the executive and the judiciary to remove members of the Congress. In other words, those with the power to remove others from power have the most power.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:43 pm#136 – A war de facto means that the conditions of war exist, hostilities, etc etc, without a formal declartion of war.
The SCOTUS ruled in the Prize Cases that when war exists de facto, and Congress has indicated its approval through funding or other declaration, the President exercises his power as Commander-in-Chief and all the powers incident to that.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:43 pmBest laugh of the day, so far, Juan! Thanks.
Off to work…
Comment by Zooey — July 12, 2006 @ 10:41 am
But, still your *cough* twat *cough remains unbeatable. :)
July 12th, 2006 at 1:45 pmHey, right wingers. The Constitution does not and never has given the president a blank check on power! The object was to preserve our rights and to prevent tyranny. So, those of you who think that the president has absolute power because we’re in a(n undeclared) war, you’re pleading for dictatorship. The president, like the other branches of government, has LIMITED powers which are enumerated. Executive power doesn’t mean dictatorial power. His job is to carry out and enforce the laws passed by Congress, within the confines of the Constitution as intepreted by the Supreme Court.
Got it?!
July 12th, 2006 at 1:50 pmUmm… Maybe we should read the entire statement again in its entirety. By law the president, not the congress, makes decisions concerning the execution of a war (congress approves a declaration). Whether we, or the congress disagree with him, ultimately the president’s decisions during war concerning the war are final. I’m thinking that is what he meant when he said the president is always right.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:51 pmWith legal advice like that, the President is always wrong. LOL.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:53 pmThe President of the United States is given his power by God. I am sure this is in our Constitution. Now, how can any of you say that a Holy Representative of Our Only Lord is wrong? George Bush is holy. My Bible tells me so, and everyone at my Mega-Giant-SuperChurch agrees.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:55 pmThose of you talking about the president’s “war powers”, what are they? And what are the limitation? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? What’s your source? And how does that preserve (or destroy) the rights of the people—which it is the purpose of the Constitution to protect?
July 12th, 2006 at 1:55 pmNo one said it did.
No one made the the claim he has absolute power in a war (this is a legitimate war – at least in the eyes of Congress who approved it).
The only branch with ‘enumerated powers’ is the legislative. Go read Article III and you decide what the Founders wanted from the judiciary. You won’t find judical review, no matter how hard you look.
All branches have an obligation to interpret the constitutionality of laws – the SCOTUS is merely the ultimate arbiter.
That was fun.
MPV, I’ll get back to our discussion in a bit.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:56 pmThe Hamdan decision “implicitly” says we are at war? Bullshit.
We are not at war unless Congress says we are at war.
This attorney has his head up his ass. Wiki him and you’ll see he has a history of crappy interpretations of the law. If he was my lawyer, I would sue him for malpractice.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:58 pmAll of that is supremely, irrelevant. The declaration of war has to be made by Congress in order for any special rights to lead from that declaration, further, such special rights would certainly not over-ride the constitution or any treaties America has entered into with other nations. The Geneva Convention, is a set of rules of war, and therefore it is only logical that a war would not override it.
The Geneva Convention has been found to have been contravened by some of the practices of the USA, with reference to Gitmo. The courts were not ruling on new law when the case came before them, it was old law, and the question now remains, what next? Does the president, who seems to have been quite clearly the guy who gave the order, stand trial for war-crimes? Does congress impeach over this issue, or does America’s justice system overlook it for now on the proviso that it doesn’t happen again?
The fact is that neither the president nor congress qualifies as the highest law of the land, the highest law of the land is the US constitution, which states:
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:58 pmDavid -
Congress DECLARES ware. It doesn’t simply approve (whose?) declaratioin of war. Of course, we haven’t HAD a declaration of war since WWII. This is a blot on administrations of both parties. And, as yet, I’ve seen no evidence either in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers indicating the huge cache of alleged special “war powers” that the right proclaims.
BTW – don’t you think if a war gave unlimited powers to the president, most presidents would always be at war?! Do you think the founders INTENED to put a strong incentive for perpetual war into the Constitution?
July 12th, 2006 at 1:59 pmdamn, orwell was a smart guy. this makes perfect sense in this current era. being absolutely, deathly wrong means you are always right. i mean cmon guys, do you live in the ‘reality community’ or something.
p.s. whatever pissant staffer who said that infamous ‘reality community’ phrase should be barred from ever working on anything that involves people
July 12th, 2006 at 2:02 pmFrom our Constitution, Greek to most of you:
Concerning Presidential Powers:
–The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
And concerning Congressional Powers:
–To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Pretty cut and dry. Congress has only the power to declare war. The POTUS, as Commander IN CHIEF, runs the war.
July 12th, 2006 at 2:05 pmDavid
Yep, but as commander in chief, he still cannot override the law. Just because he can take control of the armed forces, doesn’t mean he can break the laws governing those armed forces while doing it, it just means that when he gives them a lawful order, they have to do it.
July 12th, 2006 at 2:09 pmGod protect us from these morons…
July 12th, 2006 at 2:10 pmDavid -
Commander in chief is NOT dictator – he still has to run the law within the confines of the laws passed by Congress with the money allocated by Congress, etc. He still has to honor treaties and other laws.
Again, what limits do your recognize on the executive branch. Which additional powers does he have in case of undeclared war? What’s your source?
July 12th, 2006 at 2:11 pmuh, No declared war, David you genius. Just perpetual terra scrares……… BOOOO
July 12th, 2006 at 2:12 pmThe Fuhrer is always right!
July 12th, 2006 at 2:14 pmI am not frightened….God’s Only Cowboy has my back.
July 12th, 2006 at 2:17 pmThis was clearly a frustrated response from Mr. Bradbury to Leahy’s badgering. Leahy is firing off questions and then not letting Bradbury answer a one.
I don’t think Bradbury nor anyone else in the Bush administration would agree that the “President is always right” regardless of how the partisan twits at this site may wish to shape reality.
July 12th, 2006 at 2:20 pmRob
That wasn’t badgering. It was taking testimony from a hostile witness. If you have ever had to give testimony, you know as well as I do that what Bradbury was trying to do was evade the question. If he wanted to answer it, he could have just said “It is my understanding that Bush got the idea from his own reading of the court’s decision.”
Anything further was wasting everyone’s time. Oh, and I agree with you, in the end he didn’t actually answer the question.
July 12th, 2006 at 2:26 pmRob is correct. Bradbury was frustrated by the questions.
However, I think we don’t know what, if any limits, the Administration recognizes on its power. With the signing statements, Bush suggests that he can decide what each law means. He believes that he can’t ignore treaties that have been ratified (Geneva). (some on the right say he’s not violating Geneva; but would the administration say the they are bound by treaties? Hasn’t happened yet.)
The dangerous fact, aside from the overall power grab by the Executive, is that the administration and it’s supporters refuse to define ANY limitation on Executive power that they will admit to…
July 12th, 2006 at 2:28 pmWhat did Leahy say to that outrageous statement? Did he respond?
July 12th, 2006 at 2:29 pmer. Bush believes that he CAN ignore treaties…
July 12th, 2006 at 2:30 pmHere are some exerpts from a resolution signed by our congress:
You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President’s authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the “WPR”), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
THE PRESIDENT’S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM
The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.
The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President’s authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.
July 12th, 2006 at 2:31 pmWell, the burning question?
DO WE HAVE A DICTATORSHIP? DOES THE PREZNIT THINK HE’S HITLER OR STALLIN?
July 12th, 2006 at 2:38 pmDOES HE YEILD AT ALL? IS HE KING?
[...] http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/12/president-always-right/ [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 2:39 pmBut, still your *cough* twat *cough remains unbeatable. :)
Comment by Juan C
I save that one for super special occasions. ;)
July 12th, 2006 at 2:40 pmWell, David. There we have it. There are NO limits on presidential power; he can do whatever he wants, whenever he determines, by himself, that there is a threat.
The end of the Republic. Franklin warned us; he gave us a Republic “if you can keep it.” We’ve chosen to give it up…Or at least, you David, have…
July 12th, 2006 at 2:45 pmI must agree with thetoonguy….he ain’t the HE is NEVER wrong
July 12th, 2006 at 2:45 pmWell, David. There we have it. There are NO limits on presidential power; he can do whatever he wants, whenever he determines, by himself, if he personaly believes there is a threat.
The end of the Republic. Franklin warned us; he gave us a Republic “if you can keep it.” We’ve chosen to give it up…Or at least, you David, have…
July 12th, 2006 at 2:46 pmWhere’s the rest of the transcript, as in what was said to clarify afterward?
July 12th, 2006 at 2:50 pmPretty cut and dry. Congress has only the power to declare war. The POTUS, as Commander IN CHIEF, runs the war.
We aren’t at war…officially.
July 12th, 2006 at 2:56 pm#183 – MNW – Please. Read. This.
In light of the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the joint resolution, tell me again why we are not “officially” at war.
You might also want to refer to the War Powers Resolution, Section 8 (a)(1) for more on the idea of “officiality”.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:05 pmIn other words the Justice Dept. is saying “Screw the Supreme Court, and Screw Congress, we Make and Judge Our Own Laws.”
Mr. Bradbury has no right to wear that flag on chest. His actions are a disgrace to the flag of this great country and everything it stands for
July 12th, 2006 at 3:05 pmThere is no way this guy was serious
July 12th, 2006 at 3:14 pmDont you get it? David is correct. President of US (above every other presidents and superpowers of the universe, thank you Jesus) can do as he pleases, because he has the racial, intellectual and moral superiority over other lesser forms of life.
Bradbury´s response just reminded me an episode I had back in elementary school:
TEACHER: So, Juan Cristóbal, explain us how does the circulatory system works.
WHAT I SHOULD HAVE RESPONDED (instead of being the laughing stock of class): The president is always right.
Whenever in trouble…the president is always right.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:14 pmUnder the window Mussolini gave his speeches from:
The Duke is Always Right.
Glad to see that the ADAG wipes the Constitution against his arse with his LEFT hand, which will allow the Taliban to shake his hand without fear of being unclean.
The Taliban is Always Right. Salute, or we cut your arm off.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:16 pmDavid
Resolutions ain’t amendments. Sorry David, but the constitution itself is the highest law of the land. It will take more then that to keep Bush safe.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:17 pmWhere’s the rest of the transcript, as in what was said to clarify afterward?
Comment by imatt
The rest of the Transcript is too big to post. The final paragraph is in its entirety. There is no clarification following. That was the final statement of the document. It sounds as if they do not want to get their hands dirty. “This is yours, prez, don’t ask us to make any decisions.” Pretty good cop-out
July 12th, 2006 at 3:18 pm[...] Think Progress has video of a Justice Department lawyer making a remarkable claim: “The president is always right.” [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 3:18 pmAnd while we argue the details, our country is in the midst of a slow motion coup, our democracy is being sapped by right wing theocrats and our freedoms disappear every day. My response? It’s obvious what was meant by the statement, just take time to read the manifesto of the Project for a New American Century. These neo-cons and the like want a facist society ruled by the rich and powerful for the benefit of the rich and powerful. Any rebuttal to that, or do we stop wasting time and start working to throw these bums out in November?
July 12th, 2006 at 3:20 pm[...] INT. – MORNING – SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Hamdan v. Rumsfeld hearings (AmericaProgress has the video) [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 3:21 pmBruce,
–Resolutions ain’t amendments. Sorry David, but the constitution itself is the highest law of the land. It will take more then that to keep Bush safe.–
The resolution was passed and signed by all but one member of congress, and approved by the justice dept.
That is like saying there is nothing in the Constitution about speed limits, so I don’t have to pay this speeding ticket. Try that one in traffic court. HAH.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:22 pmAnyone who questions the wisdom of Dear Leader will be brought to the camps, comrade.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:23 pm[...] Think Progress has a clip of Steven Bradbury in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in which he answers Senator Leahy’s questions about Bush’s understanding of Gitmo and the Hamdan case by arguing for Bush’s infallability: [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 3:26 pm- Hardy Haberman:
Simply attempting to vote them out will most probably fail, as they are already hard at work insuring that the 2006 and 2008 elections will go ‘as scheduled’. After all, we’ve already let it happen in 2000 and 2004…we’ve given them no reason whatsoever to suppose that future elections will be any different.
What we’ll have to do is take a page from Mexico’s book and take to the streets. If we don’t we’ll fully deserve what we get.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:26 pmDavid
Read the bill of rights, those are amendments. Further, read what I posted on section VI. When all else fails, Bush can still get got on constitutional law. There is hope, you aren’t in a dictatorship just yet. The fight will be hard, but when was freedom ever easy?
July 12th, 2006 at 3:27 pm[...] Think Progress has a longer transcript: LEAHY: The president has said very specifically, and he’s said it to our European allies, he’s waiting for the Supreme Court decision to tell him whether or not he was supposed to close Guantanamo or not. After, he said it upheld his position on Guantanamo, and in fact it said neither. Where did he get that impression? The President’s not a lawyer, you are, the Justice Department advised him. Did you give him such a cockamamie idea or what? [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 3:28 pmThis guy is ridiculous.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:29 pm[...] Scary stuff. [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 3:31 pmActually, I have just read through the whole thing. Guys, unless he is willing to post a link to the actual document, there isn’t anything there contradicting the president having to obey the law. It authorises the use of force against terrorists, but it does not authorise torture. It gives him broad powers, but not powers that contravene the Geneva convention.
Indeed, according to those paragraphs, his powers are more or less precisely what they are in Article II, to control the armed forces of America, not to over-ride the constitution.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:32 pm#193 – I’m tired of hearing people talk about the PNAC like it’s some shadowy group on a shadowy plain. Let’s look at the relevant portions of a couple famous documents:
From the Statement of Principles, 6/3/97:
Sounds pretty good to me! Accepting our responsibility as the world’s hegemonic superpower, advocating the spread of democracy and free markets? The horror!
July 12th, 2006 at 3:32 pmBradbury was not being ‘facetious’, he was being evasive.
The question was simple–”who is advising the pResident?”
The not given answer is also simple–”no one!”
But Bradbury was in a spot, he is a lawyer and should have been
advising the pRes. Why wasn’t he doing that, or was he and did he
conclude that the pRes was not going to listen? Either way his responce
was cleary an admission that his fat government paychecks are going
to another court jester who would prefer to bow and scrape rather than
try to define the law.
It was a pragamatic responce–if the pRes wants the law will be reformed
July 12th, 2006 at 3:33 pmabout that want. A mirror image of the ‘hype to go to War’ and the folding of
intel into the policy wanted. This is a gross failure of this government and all
who enable it.
Bradbury is clearly irked at being challenged on his obfuscating spin, and takes a condescending tone to Leahy about answering a central question about a (typically) blatantly false statement by Bush. While Leahy may come off as a little cranky to his detractors, his question is directly on point, and Bradbury either doesn’t understand the Hamdan decision or is trying to spin it (or both). His answer that “The President is always right” is snotty and may be facetious on one level, but come on, really, does anyone have any doubt that he truly believes it?
July 12th, 2006 at 3:36 pm#206 –
Count me as “in doubt”.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:38 pmNOW HE THINKS HE’S THE POPE. JESUS CHRIST BETTER WATCH OUT! HE HAS COMPETITION.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:38 pmthe libs are on the wrong side of most issues that are important, and prove it everyday
July 12th, 2006 at 3:41 pm#185 – Chase
Your. Link. Does. Not. Work.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:43 pmWill someone please, please, please remind these people that, unless
July 12th, 2006 at 3:52 pmthey have rescinded the Constitution, we are NOT at war. Only Congress can declare war, and it hasn’t since WW II. Perhaps these yahoos believe that Commander
in Chief means Emperor.
[...] So it’s come to this… White House lawyers sitting in front of Congress arguing King Dubya rules via Divine Right of 9/11… If John Dean’s chilling new book Conservatives without Conscience is to be believed, we are edging dangerously close to 21st century fascism. Prinicipled Conservatism, if such a thing ever existed, has been replaced with a authoritarian cult of personality immune to logic, facts and reason. These leaders and their followers will do anything to maintain power, and they spread fear and hatred to keep the public obedient. [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 3:55 pm#210 – Well that steals the thunder, doesn’t it? I forget Thomas doesn’t let you do that.
Here is another copy.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:59 pm9-11 changed everything. Everything. 9-11 changed everything. Everything 9-11 changed everything. We must defend out nation. Live in fear. Live in fear. We will protect you, they won’t.
Just staying on message.
July 12th, 2006 at 4:04 pm[...] Think Progress has a longer transcript and video: LEAHY: The president has said very specifically, and he’s said it to our European allies, he’s waiting for the Supreme Court decision to tell him whether or not he was supposed to close Guantanamo or not. After, he said it upheld his position on Guantanamo, and in fact, it said neither. Where did he get that impression? The President’s not a lawyer; you are. The Justice Department advised him. Did you give him such a cockamamie idea or what? [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 4:08 pmWell, that’s all fine and dandy, Chase, but the War Powers Resolution is yet another example of Congress exerting it’s power over the power of the executive. Congress makes laws and the President is REQUIRED to abide them. Period. Thanks for providing more evidence for my argument.
One more thing…
The War Powers Resolution (Sec. 8) includes the following statement:
Nothing in this joint resolution–
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties.
Is the Geneva Convention an existing treaty?
By what authority does the president ignore the Geneva convention? If we are at war, as you claim, then are the prisoners being held captive from this “war” considered or not considered to be “prisoners of war”? Is this only a “war” when the president deems it convenient?
July 12th, 2006 at 4:13 pmNow that explains why he thinks he has the right to cage peaceful protestors and force book outlets to drop the book “America Deceived” by E.A. Blayre III in violation of the 1st Amendment.
July 12th, 2006 at 4:13 pmThat also explains why he violates the 4th Amendment (with the help of Verizon) by tapping every phone without ‘probable cause’.
In fact, that’s why he violates the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on a false-flag operation known as 9/11.
Support indy media, in spite of big gov’t):
Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
#216 – I don’t doubt for a second the US is bound to treat detainees pursuant Article 3 of the GC. I also don’t think the President has ever made the claim “we don’t have to abide by the GC because this isn’t an ‘official’ war.”
The rest of your points are strawman arguments.
Will you concede, at the very least, calling this an “illegal war” is incorrect?
July 12th, 2006 at 4:23 pmThe president doesn’t get off that easy, Chase.
GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR
Article 12
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.
In other words, the crimes of Abu Grahib and GITMO rest solely on the United States, not the men and women who committed the crimes. As such, the president of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief, is responsible for every single action taken against those he holds as prisoners. The president is to be held accountable for such crimes of war…AND NO ONE ELSE.
July 12th, 2006 at 4:28 pm…one more thing…
I never claimed this was an “illegal war”.
I claimed this was an “unofficial” war…and I maintain that verdict.
War is declared by the Congress…and this war has not be declared.
July 12th, 2006 at 4:29 pmAlso, the War Powers Resolution has a dubious constitutional foundation. Every President, Republican and Democrat alike, since 1973 has argued the WPR is unconstitutional.
Check again, the War Powers Resolution, Section 8 (d)(1).
“(d) Nothing in this joint resolution–
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties”
July 12th, 2006 at 4:32 pmI think your complaint is the Democratic Caucus of both houses of Congress.
They acquiesced to the President, and that upsets you.
Sure, we shouldn’t be abusing those we have captured. I don’t see any problem with that.
And I don’t think Article 12, as you have referenced it above, applies to our detainees, as they are not “prisoners of war” under the Geneva Convention. I have seen no compelling argument to the contrary as of yet. Care to provide some professional evidence of this?
Further, even if Article 12 were to apply tomorrow, I don’t believe the intent of the treaty was to hold the Head of State responsible for the behaviors of bad-actors who would abuse or torture POWs as you claim it does.
In every war there are war crimes. In every prison, jail and detention facility there are abuses. Do you suggest we try every head of state of every war or conflict that is a signatory to the GC for war crimes?
July 12th, 2006 at 4:40 pm“Unofficial war” means nothing. You obfuscate the issue everytime you say it.
This war is legal, legitimate and authorized. Nothing less. If you have a problem with the fact we are at war, “throw the bums out” who authorized it this November.
July 12th, 2006 at 4:42 pmChase
If they aren’t POWs, they are criminal suspects, and actually get even more rights. By calling them POWs we are actually giving the administration an in to holding them indefinitely, if we call them just plain common garden variety criminals, there is a limit to how long they can be held without charge.
July 12th, 2006 at 4:48 pmYou’ve heard of the concept of the infallable Pope, this is the concept of the infallable Anti Christ. Sweet Jesus, maybe these are the end times!
July 12th, 2006 at 4:57 pmBunch of political prostitutes
July 12th, 2006 at 4:58 pm#224 – A fools choice. They don’t have to be either: they can be ‘enemy combattants’.
From Rosa Brooks (a much wiser and eloquent Constitutional scholar than I – plus she’s a liberal):
July 12th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
[...] Think Progress [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 5:02 pmTime to start a web site called “The Dean’s List” after what John Dean is reporting about the authoritarian nature of conservatives and their [lack of] conscience.
Today, Steve “The President is always right” Bradbury makes the Dean’s List!
July 12th, 2006 at 5:05 pmDo you suggest we try every head of state of every war or conflict that is a signatory to the GC for war crimes?
Comment by Chase — July 12, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
Thats easy. Yes.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:14 pmWait till we all learn what else Bush and the Criminal Empire has been up to…..then we’ll see what this nutcase has to say about that! He sounds like the rest of them…..in need of those little pills for those who are delusional! This is becoming more laughable as time goes on!
July 12th, 2006 at 5:17 pmBottom line: Do we want a Republic or a dictatorship? Did the founders intend to give us a Republic or a dictatorship? And, if we have a Republic, what constraints are there are the behavior of the Executive. Hint—if there are insufficient restraints on him, then we have a dictatorship…
Those of you who are so keen on paying attention to the intent of the founders (and I’m one of such people), take note—an unrestricted executive is a dictatorship, and the founders believed they were giving us a Republic.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:19 pm[...] Lastly, proof that the studies detailed in John Dean’s new book are correct. (video linkage) LEAHY: The president has said very specifically, and he’s said it to our European allies, he’s waiting for the Supreme Court decision to tell him whether or not he was supposed to close Guantanamo or not. After, he said it upheld his position on Guantanamo, and in fact it said neither. Where did he get that impression? The President’s not a lawyer, you are, the Justice Department advised him. Did you give him such a cockamamie idea or what? [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 5:25 pmMajor premise: All human beings are fallible.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:28 pmMinor premise: the president is a human being.
Conclusion: Therefore, the president is fallible. QED.
The President’s war powers? What war powers? The Constitution grants ALL war making powers to Congress. The president is, as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, obliged to execute the will of Congress. There are no executive war powers that are triggered by an attack on the United States declared anywhere in the Constitution except those given to Congress to suspend hideous corpus in case of rebellion, invasion or public emergency. Just WTF is this “law of war paradigm” anyway? Do these clowns just make this stuff up as they go along? Is this “the President is always right” little fascist Mr. Bradbury really an acting deputy attorney general of the United States, whatever the hell that is? Cockamamie indeed.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:32 pmI would like to point out to the supporters of this administration that historically, all regimes that have consolidated most, if not all power with a small group of people (who also discredit and/or actively eliminate dissent, whether it be right or wrong) and go to the extreme of preaching in infallability of that regime, have all failed miserably. To paraphrase, absolute power fails absolutely. This country did so much better and was a “shining city on the hill” when it allowed political dissent and didn’t aggresively imposed it’s values on others, but instead, offer support to those who aspired to what we represented. Now, our walk doesn’t match our talk. We, in lying our way to war with a country that was not a threat to us (Even Bush admits now that Iraq had no connection to 9-11), has resulted in more terrorists, and a weakened and overstretched military incapable of doing anything to address real dangers to us right now. No country is full of lemmings. Every society has discourse. It is when that discourse is allowed to freely exchange information and develop consensus, does greatness and security come. The opposite of diverse thinking can be found in old societies like Germany, Italy and Japan in the 30’s and 40’s, the Soviet Union for most of the 20th Century, and Islamic Theocracy (the Bin Laden types). We need to get back to our roots and build consensus and allow debate from diverse group if we are ever going to survive what is happening to us right now and get the entire world to join us against the terrorists. Neither side is absolutely correct, neither Neo Con, true Conservative, Liberals, progressives, independants. But if all groups can come to a consensus, we can solve any problem.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:38 pm“The President is always right”…well, I guess that explains why Bush couldn’t think of any mistakes he might have made…. Oy.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:39 pmIt’s always difficult for people like Bradbury to talk about how great Bush is when they have his dick in their mouths.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:42 pm[...] They’re also citing Think Progress Think Progress has a longer transcript: [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 5:45 pm238 — Just a guess, but wouldn’t the sound be a bit muffled?
July 12th, 2006 at 5:46 pmI think you have to look at the context of the “The President is always right” comment. Sure he was being facetious, but if you read the Washington Post daily and read Dana Milbank’s columns, the Federal Diary, etc, you’ll see this is pretty much par for the course by Bush administration officials when they appear before Congress. They hold Congress in contempt. They have no respect for our elected leaders. A couple of Bushites actually walked out of a hearing despite the *Republican* chairman’s efforts to keep them there.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:51 pmNo respect for democracy.
The only right GWB is or has is the right to remain silent and go to jail for treason where a sane society would hang him as a war criminal who commited crimes against humanity.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:55 pmZeig Heil!!!!
July 12th, 2006 at 6:30 pm[...] In the conservative cult, dear leader can never be wrong. Even when the law and the facts say he is, he’s right. He is infallible The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday heard testimony from Steven Bradbury, head of the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel. When questioned by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on whether the President’s interpretation of the Hamdan case was right or wrong, Bradbury replied, “The President is always right.†[...]
July 12th, 2006 at 6:35 pm[...] Please find entire piece and transcript here. [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 6:36 pmHow did he say that AND keep a atraight face at the same time?
Bush is never right… not even on accident.
“It’s a heck of a place to bring your family.”
—George W. Bush, on New Orleans, New Orleans, La., Jan. 12, 2006
July 12th, 2006 at 6:38 pmWas he right to ignore the 8/6/01 PDB indicating that bin Laden was to strike inside America?
Dick Cheney thinks so.
July 12th, 2006 at 6:39 pm[...] And then of course there’s this gem from Think Progress: LEAHY: The president has said very specifically, and he’s said it to our European allies, he’s waiting for the Supreme Court decision to tell him whether or not he was supposed to close Guantanamo or not. After, he said it upheld his position on Guantanamo, and in fact it said neither. Where did he get that impression? The President’s not a lawyer, you are, the Justice Department advised him. Did you give him such a cockamamie idea or what? [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 7:05 pmIn Nazi Germany, Hitler was always right too.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:09 pmTechnically accurate, as in right wing DESPOT!
July 12th, 2006 at 7:11 pmDivine right of kings? Papal infallibility?
July 12th, 2006 at 7:14 pm#223; Actually this IS an illegal war and those who started it ARE war criminals in accordance to the rulings of the Nuremburg tribunal AND in violation of the UN Charter.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:26 pmDo you people not understand sarcasm? This was clearly a sarcastic remark.
Perhaps you are hunting for ways to nail Bush. Thtat’s exactly what I get from this.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:28 pmSure Der Fuhrer is always right.
Didn’t you know that?
July 12th, 2006 at 7:50 pmNext, Bradbury would have accused Leahy of treason … that’s what this administration likes to do.
The S.C. didn’t rule re: Gitmo – one way or the other. The S.C. did rule that Bush, his two A.G.s, his Solicitor General and his VP are all wrong – prisoners have rights under our Constitution and under the treaties approved by the U.S. Senate. PERIOD!
Was Leahy sarcastic? Sure! Just like every other member of Congress, the smart-ass president, his incompetent vice president and damn near everyone else in D.C.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:53 pmWell, of course the president is always right. I mean… Well, hell, whenever he’s wrong, he just gets the boys at the Department of Education to tweak history to make him right.
July 12th, 2006 at 8:00 pmIt’s pathetic when a supposidly intellegent grown man is totally controlled and robotic. This is what the Bushies are like. And why thier minions are so hateful in thier beliefs.
July 12th, 2006 at 8:23 pmJohn Dean has a new book out detailing the mind of why these people allow themselves to be so controlled and the people who control them.
This is what this Administration (and Bush and cheney in particular) are trying to do to this country and it’s population. They are dangerous.
They all must be “Drinking the kool aid.” How the hell can anyone always be right?
July 12th, 2006 at 8:59 pm[...] In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Acting Deputy Attorney General Steven Bradbury testified as the “head of the Justice Department’s legal counsel,” writes Amanda of Think Progress. When pressed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) during questioning on “whether the President’s interpretation of the Hamdan case was right or wrong,” ADA Bradbury said that “the President is always right.” [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 9:21 pm[...] In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Acting Deputy Attorney General Steven Bradbury testified as the “head of the Justice Department’s legal counsel,” writes Amanda of Think Progress. When pressed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) during questioning on “whether the President’s interpretation of the Hamdan case was right or wrong,” ADA Bradbury said that “the President is always right.” [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 9:26 pmWhen he’s right he’s right. Dear Leader is always right.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:29 pmEven the trolls are amazed at this one….
July 12th, 2006 at 10:05 pm[...] Justice Department Lawyer To Congress: ‘The President Is Always Right’. ok, i officially give up. No wonder Bush thinks he can do anything, he employes the fucking lawyers who invented doublespeak. ARRRRRRRGGGGH!. via funkaoshi. [...]
July 12th, 2006 at 10:26 pm“No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will. … When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say “Heil” to him, nor will they call him “Fuhrer” or “Duce.” But they will greet him with one great big, universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of “O.K., Chief!” – Dorothy Thompson – 1935
July 12th, 2006 at 10:33 pm“The president is always right.”…
Here’s an exchange Tuesday between Pat Leahy and the head of the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel, Steven Bradbury:LEAHY: The president has said very specifically, and he’s said it to our European allies, he’s waiting for the Supreme Co…
July 12th, 2006 at 10:49 pmWhen he’s right he’s right. Dear Leader is always right.
Comment by Mash —
Just make sure you’re eyes are glazed over when you say that.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:46 pmlet me get this straight…
…so, a resolution that specifically states that it does not alter constitutional authority is somehow unconstitutional?
and you’re surprised that presidents wouldn’t like something that says ‘no, in fact you don’t have any more power during wartime’ when presidents have historically used wars as opportunities to expand presidential power?
the thing we’re not talking about here is vice-presidential power — or lack thereof, according to the constitution. clearly we’re in a situation now where instead of “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” (as stated in article ii, section 1 of the constitution), we have the executive power being exercised by the president and vice president.
we do not elect co-presidents! the constitution is quite clear on delineation of vice presidential powers, and for good reason: before the 12th amendment was passed, the vice president could in all likelihood have been a political rival of the president. therefore the vice president is delegated a very simple role in the constitution — president of the senate and tie-breaking vote there — and that’s it!
i think it’s clear what the intent of the founding fathers was in this case. they never envisioned a vice president that would wield executive powers, not to mention influence policy on military, intelligence, and foreign affairs.
sure, that ignores the realities of today. fine — amend the constitution to reflect that reality. otherwise we have a tacit breach of the constitution, and a very bad precedent being set right now, with respect to exertion of executive powers by the vice president, who clearly is not granted that authority under the constitution.
July 13th, 2006 at 12:17 amThe Smirk
My favorite part is in the last few frames. If you look closly, notice the two mens face’s that are in the background. Before the “Funny Hour Phrase” was mentioned they have a dead pan stare…but once he utters the “secret word” they get such a grin on their faces. It speaks volumes really. Perhaps one of these can be read off their lips, which are slightly drawn back and gently pursed:
1. We’re gonna be on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
2. Horray for the team
3. Ah, job security
4. Master will be pleased
5. Touché
Either way, CSPAN is looking more and more like “Dictator Pee-Wee’s Playhouse”.
July 13th, 2006 at 1:11 am[...] Another hand picked stooge in the Justice Department thinks that no matter what Bush, and we would assume a future President Hillary Clinton, does is always right. Just in case Bush may be wrong about something a sure way to to dodge an inquiry is to have Pat Roberts (R-KS) stall any investigation into wrong doing. Senate intelligence committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) announced new deadlines for his panel’s fabled “Phase II” of its now-epic investigation into prewar Iraq intelligence — but the final report is still unlikely to come until after the November elections, Congressional Quarterly reports today. [...]
July 13th, 2006 at 2:20 am[...] BRADBURY: The President is always right..–Think Progress [...]
July 13th, 2006 at 1:26 pm[...] Justice Department Lawyer To Congress: The President Is Always …Think Progress, DC - Jul 12, 2006… Where did he get that impression? The President s not a lawyer, you are, the Justice Department advised him. Did you give him such a cockamamie idea or what? … [...]
July 13th, 2006 at 10:06 pmHitler was “always right”, Idi Amin was “always right”, Mussolini was “always right”, Stalin was “always right”. My, my, how GW fits right in.
July 14th, 2006 at 12:26 amBaloney. He was being sarcastic. Anyone could see that. Save your typing fingers for something important.
July 14th, 2006 at 12:40 amThe Deputy Attorney General’s comment concerning ‘Our Dear Leader’ sounds alot better in the original German. A slight variance in dialect, preferably Bavarian, would also give it a certain nostalgic glow. Fuhrerprinzip politics has come to America.
July 14th, 2006 at 12:11 pm[...] Enough Said: Justice Department Lawyer To Congress: ‘The President Is Always Right’ [...]
July 14th, 2006 at 12:58 pmWhat astonishes me about this entire thread is that the folks who are defending Bradbury or noting that his comments are taken out of context are missing the entire point. The point is that the majority decision of the Supreme Court finds that the President is in violation of the Geneva Conventions. There is nothing ambiguous about that. There is no “the President is always right” about that. There is no complexity about that.
I have two responses to Bradbury’s comments that the Supreme Court decision implictly recognizes that we are in a war. First, the Supreme Court is not given the constitutional authority to determine whether or not the country is de jure at war. The Congress is the only body authorized to make this legal determination. (Of course, we are de facto at war, but if you need anybody, let alone the Supreme Court, to explain that bombing a city is war, I recommend caffeinated coffee.)
Second, is the question we should be asking in response to Bradbury’s claim about being at war. “What does it mean that the President is in violation of the Geneva Conventions in a war?” It means that he is a war criminal, by definition, and should face the appropriate sanctions and punishments. It also means that he is in violation of the Constitution, by definition, and needs to be removed from office.
Perhaps Bradbury’s comment about the President being always right is being taken out of context here, but the context is not amenable to Constitutional government or rule by law, no matter how you slice it. THAT is what should frighten all of us, left or right. Once you lose the rule of law, you usually don’t get it back cheaply.
July 14th, 2006 at 2:12 pm#144 – Calm down people. I think GWB is an idiot, but this comment didn’t bother me at all, especially when I watched the clip. He’s Bush’s appointee, advisor and lawyer. In that role, it would be completely inappropriate for him to say that the president’s position on a legal question is wrong — maybe OK if he resigned first. Leahy knows that, and did not expect anything different. This answer was a polite way of saying, in a we-all-know-how-this-works kind of way, “Nice try Senator, but you know I can’t go there.â€
SF – Persons who work in the Attorney General’s office are NOT Bush’s attorneys. Alberto Gonzales is no longer Bush’s attorney (although he continues to conduct himself in a manner which suggests that he is). He is supposed to be OUR Attorney General. This is one of the many problems with this illegitimate and idiotic administration; they place loyalty to George W. Bush above all else. As for whether Mr. Bradbury was kidding when he gave his ridiculous answer to Senator Leahy’s legitimate question, nobody testifying in such a capacity should give such a ludicrous response. If he’s kidding, he certainly shouldn’t audition for Comedy Central. If he’s being serious, we should all be very concerned.
July 15th, 2006 at 3:54 pm[...] Think Progress » Justice Department Lawyer To Congress: ‘The President Is Always Right’ LEAHY: The president has said very specifically, and he’s said it to our European allies, he’s waiting for the Supreme Court decision to tell him whether or not he was supposed to close Guantanamo or not. After, he said it upheld his position on Guantanamo, and in fact it said neither. Where did he get that impression? The President’s not a lawyer, you are, the Justice Department advised him. Did you give him such a cockamamie idea or what? [...]
July 16th, 2006 at 5:03 am[...] Three Senate Judiciary Committee members will block the confirmation of Steven Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel, to protest President Bush’s move to squash a probe into the NSA wiretapping program by denying investigators security clearances. [...]
August 4th, 2006 at 10:27 amInscribed on a souvenir plaque from the “Self Sufficiency Show of Italian Minerals” in Rome on January 13, 1939: MUSSOLINI HA SEMPRE RAGIONE, translated as Mussolini Is Always Right.
The plaque is on display in the Imperial War Museum in London.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:18 am