Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace....the difference between us is clear.
As you have stated in the past, you think its ok to give the President the benefit of the doubt (and his actions are the "right thing to do" - as you stated above), in the name of national security, when he: * allegedly violates the FISA law as he did for 2+ years by authorizing wiretaps without a warrant and demands immunity for telecomms for their illegal actions during that same period. |
I would have done the same given the circumstances. I would not have risked asking Congress to publicly change the law letting those subject to the wiretaps become aware of our efforts. To date no American has come foward and shown any violation of their civil liberty.
Quote:
|
* issues a signing statement on the Patriot Act that unilaterally overturns the intent of Congress regarding several provisions of the law, including the FBI's use of national security letters
|
Intent of Congress??? Congress needs to be clear. When issues are open to interpretation the Judicial Branch can help sort it out. If there is an issue with intent - Congress needs to step up and exercise their power rather than sit back and complain. This is the kind of issue that has been at issue in many administrations with Congress throughout our history.
Quote:
|
* unilaterally interprets US obligations under the Geneva Conventions, without consulting Congress or the Judiciary
|
I think the role of the President is to interpret US obligations when it comes to treaties and international agreements.
Quote:
|
* allegedly violates the Presidential Records Act by destroying 5,000+ e-mails during the time when the WH was discussion the outing of a CIA operative and the use of intel to justify the invasion of Iraq
|
We know what happened with the Plame affair. If Congress thinks the President committed a crime, they should impeach him. Why haven't they?
Quote:
|
*uses the executive privilege argument to withhold information from Congress resulting from conversations between two EOB aides, when in the past executive privilege has been limited to information/conversations between the President and an aide.
|
I am not familiar with this issue.
Quote:
|
I'm not aware that FDR committed similar acts, without at least consulting Congress (your straw man argument)
|
You take my point out of context. Perhaps you don't understand the point or you just ignore it. I don't know which and don't know how to respond to you.
Quote:
|
And I still value the separation of powers and checks and balances.
|
I do to. I think for the system to work all sides need to be active and be willing to fight to maintain the balance. Passivity will cause the system to fail, I think Congress has been to passive relative to their level of complaint.
Quote:
My question to you:
Would you give Hillary the same benefit of doubt if/when she is President?
|
Yes.
I gave that benefit to Bill Clinton. Generally, I have a bias to the Executive Branch, the place where 'the buck stops'.