He Said It Better
Last week I gave the back of my hand to the 110th Congress for giving DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff the power to "waive" laws in order to facilitate the building of The Wall. I was wrong, at least technically. It was the GOP-led 109th Congress that did so. Still, however, the 110th Congress has done absolutely nothing to repudiate that law, or the dozens of other laws that violate the Constitution when it comes to the tri-partite system of government we have, or at least used to have.
In Adam Liptak's brilliant column in today's NY Times, he points just what the long-term effect of those laws will be.
Securing the nation’s borders is so important, Congress says, that Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, must have the power to ignore any laws that stand in the way of building a border fence. Any laws at all. ...
The secretary of homeland security was granted the power in 2005 to void any federal law that might interfere with fence building on the border. For good measure, Congress forbade the courts to second-guess the secretary’s determinations. So long as Mr. Chertoff is willing to say it is necessary to void a given law, his word is final. ...
No one doubts that Congress may repeal old laws through new legislation. But there is a difference between passing a law that overrides a previous one and tinkering with the structure of the Constitution itself. The extraordinary powers granted to Mr. Chertoff may test the limits of how much of its own authority Congress can cede to another branch of the government. ...
It is the combination of those two factors — the broad granting of power to the executive branch and cutting the judicial branch out of the process — that makes the 2005 law so pernicious ...
It is true, of course, that Congress gave up its powers here voluntarily. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy had a response to that point in his concurrence in the line-item-veto case.
“It is no answer, of course, to say that Congress surrendered its authority by its own hand,” he wrote. “Abdication of responsibility is not part of the constitutional design.”
Justice Kennedy made a broader point, too, one perhaps more apt today than it was 10 years ago.
“Separation of powers was designed to implement a fundamental insight,” he wrote. “Concentration of power in the hands of a single branch is a threat to liberty.” [Emphasis added]
The abomination known as the Unitary President has no place in the US Constitution, and deliberately so. And the fact that Congress willingly ceded its power to the Executive branch does not matter. It cannot do so. Nor can it nullify the power granted by the Constitution to the judiciary, the third branch of our tripartite system.
Mr. Liptak's column should be emailed or faxed to every member of Congress and to every candidate running for national office in November as a fundamental primer in Constitutional Law 101.
Brilliantly done, Mr. Liptak.
In Adam Liptak's brilliant column in today's NY Times, he points just what the long-term effect of those laws will be.
Securing the nation’s borders is so important, Congress says, that Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, must have the power to ignore any laws that stand in the way of building a border fence. Any laws at all. ...
The secretary of homeland security was granted the power in 2005 to void any federal law that might interfere with fence building on the border. For good measure, Congress forbade the courts to second-guess the secretary’s determinations. So long as Mr. Chertoff is willing to say it is necessary to void a given law, his word is final. ...
No one doubts that Congress may repeal old laws through new legislation. But there is a difference between passing a law that overrides a previous one and tinkering with the structure of the Constitution itself. The extraordinary powers granted to Mr. Chertoff may test the limits of how much of its own authority Congress can cede to another branch of the government. ...
It is the combination of those two factors — the broad granting of power to the executive branch and cutting the judicial branch out of the process — that makes the 2005 law so pernicious ...
It is true, of course, that Congress gave up its powers here voluntarily. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy had a response to that point in his concurrence in the line-item-veto case.
“It is no answer, of course, to say that Congress surrendered its authority by its own hand,” he wrote. “Abdication of responsibility is not part of the constitutional design.”
Justice Kennedy made a broader point, too, one perhaps more apt today than it was 10 years ago.
“Separation of powers was designed to implement a fundamental insight,” he wrote. “Concentration of power in the hands of a single branch is a threat to liberty.” [Emphasis added]
The abomination known as the Unitary President has no place in the US Constitution, and deliberately so. And the fact that Congress willingly ceded its power to the Executive branch does not matter. It cannot do so. Nor can it nullify the power granted by the Constitution to the judiciary, the third branch of our tripartite system.
Mr. Liptak's column should be emailed or faxed to every member of Congress and to every candidate running for national office in November as a fundamental primer in Constitutional Law 101.
Brilliantly done, Mr. Liptak.
Labels: 109th Congress, 110th Congress, The Unitary President
posted by Diane at 4:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home