« Dance til You Are No Longer Afraid | Main | We Must Do Better Than This - US Only Nation at UN Not to Vote for "Right to Food" »
Cheney v. Nixon: On the Right to Dissolve the Constitution
I was reading this article about Cheney in the Atlantic and was reminded of Nixon, who has been talked about more recently because of the movie "Nixon/Frost" and the death of "Deep Throat" from the Watergate era. Here is an excerpt from 1977 Nixon/Frost interview in which executive power is discussed. FROST asked NIXON about the Huston Plan, which advocated wiretappings, burglaries (black bag jobs), mail openings and infiltration against antiwar groups and others. Nixon approved this, though it was illegal. Both links contain longer more excerpts, and consider when reading and looking at the photos that Cheney and Rumsfeld absorbed Nixon's ideas about power when they were relatively young.
FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
So now we have Wallace/Cheney (Cheney is not President, but is said to be "the man behind the throne" and took the job after being on the "search committee" for VP):
WALLACE: This is at the core of the controversies that I want to get to with you in a moment. If the president during war decides to do something to protect the country, is it legal?
CHENEY: General proposition, I'd say yes. You need to be more specific than that. I mean — but clearly, when you take the oath of office on January 20th of 2001, as we did, you take the oath to support and defend and protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The irony seems lost on him. How can the suspension of all laws into the power of the executive branch in wartime be seen as a defense or protection of the Constitution? Perhaps for a brief amount of time in a dire emergency, after which there would be a thorough accounting to the Congress and the Courts. But indefinitely? As inherent in the office? And with jurisdiction over the entire United States as well as the world? With "enemy combatants" defined as anyone the president calls an "enemy combatant" and no distinction between citizen and non-citizen? Including the right to torture? Indefinitely? What Cheney has advanced is that the president has the right to dissolve the constitution permanently. That he has the right to commit war crimes with impunity. That there is no legal authority to which he is ever required to pay deference in a war that is his and his alone to declare and end. Now when you consider that, in Cheney's view, these war-powers are limitless, and that war is declared not by the Congress but by the president, and can be defined against a broad, amorphous enemy such as "terrorism", and never end, you begin to see what a dangerous man he is, and how much danger we have all been in since he seized control of the government seven years ago.
3 Comments
Leave a comment
Not registered? Click on 'Sign-in' above and then select 'Sign up' in the lower right corner. Don't forget to click on the link in the confirmation email that will be sent to your email address.
Here Cheney defends tell Leahy to Go **** himself - saying he merited it at the time. Kristol defends it as how Cheney handles things, ie his sense of justice.
Now see article in "Open Thread" where Christy has posted more about the Connell plane crash. You don't cross these people.
More Cheney, from Chris Wallace interview - Cheney seems to be ubiquitous on FOX lately. & omnicient. I am much more up in arms about this stuff than who Obama has at his Inauguration or in his Cabinet. It is alarming too when Cheney claims he told many Dems about his wiretapping program and they wanted it kept secret. That may have something to do with why they would never impeach him.
from the interview:
Biden has said that he believes you have dangerously expansive views of executive power.
CHENEY: Well, I just fundamentally disagree with him. He also said that the — all the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch are laid out in Article 1 of the Constitution. Well, they're not. Article 1 of the Constitution is the one on the legislative branch.
Joe's been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, for 36 years, teaches constitutional law back in Delaware, and can't keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature and which provides for the executive.
Cheney needs a trip to The Hague. Seriously.