Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Your comparison is total bullshit.
MLK did not take an oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Those who take such an oath have a legal and moral obligation that is above and beyond their rights as private citizens to participate in passive resistance to laws they believe are unjust.
|
My point was in response to your morality stance on the "rule of law". You suggested that laws should be followed without question. I disagree.
Quote:
|
As I responded earlier with a link to her responses to questions on executive power, you have no basis for this. IMO, its a cheap excuse to rationalize Bush's immoral, unethical and in some cases, illegal behavior.
|
I look at one of her responses from your link:
Quote:
6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
I fundamentally believe that our constitutional system depends upon each branch striving to accommodate the interests of the other, and the President should seek to accommodate legitimate congressional requests for information. I also believe in an open transparent government that fulfills its obligation to share as much information as possible with the public. But it is settled law that certain limited "communications made by presidential advisors in the course of preparing advice for the President, come under the presidential communications privilege, even when these communications are not made directly to the President."
|
Her view is no different than most Presidents. In fact the Constitution provides no exemption for the Presidency from the legal processes of the other branches. As Clinton states executive privilege in the context above was an assumed power challenged and found in favor of the Presidency.
One area not covered by the source you gave is the use of Executive Agreements. These agreement are made by Presidents acting independently as a national negotiator and commander-in -chief. Dating back to the early 1800 these agreement have been used as instruments of foreign policy bypassing Congress' Constitutional authority to approve international treaties. Again as President, I doubt Ms. Bush would give this power away and strictly adhere to the Constitution. You can keep your head in the sand if you want.
Ironically, FDR used these kinds of agreements more than any President prior to his term.