When was it “normal”? The 1850s? The 1950s? Washington has been the nation’s capital for 213 years; Obama has been here less than nine. Even if he understood “normal” political environments here, the Constitution is not suspended when a president decides the “environment” is abnormal.
Neither does the Constitution confer on presidents the power to rewrite laws if they decide the change is a “tweak” not involving the law’s “essence.”And then George Will does the unthinkable, for a columnist of his stature. George Will evokes Nixon. The top Obama is like Nixon tag I have been waiting for.
In a 1977 interview with Richard Nixon, David Frost asked: “Would you say that there are certain situations . . . where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation . . . and do something illegal?”
Nixon: “Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”
Frost: “By definition.”
Nixon: “Exactly, exactly.”Here is a movie version of that...
Frost/Nixon (7/9) Movie CLIP
After watching clips of the real interview of Nixon with David Frost, I cant find the part where Nixon says "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal". That is frustrating. Almost as frustrating as the idea that most people will fail to see the connection between what essentially ran Nixon out of office and what Obama has done here.
10 comments:
I just busted a load to a video of tatooed papi thugz.
tits.
Here ya go,Lem.
I should have asked you for help when I was looking for it.
Here's a fuller excerpt from that interview.
The discussion was centered on the Cambodian incursion, and Nixon was addressing the president's role during war time:
Frost:...when you said, as you said when we were talking about the Huston Plan, you know, "If the president orders it, that makes it legal", as it were: Is the president in that sense—is there anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that suggests the president is that far of a sovereign, that far above the law?
Nixon: No, there isn't. There's nothing specific that the Constitution contemplates in that respect. I haven't read every word, every jot and every title, but I do know this: That it has been, however, argued that as far as a president is concerned, that in war time, a president does have certain extraordinary powers which would make acts that would otherwise be unlawful, lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the nation and the Constitution, which is essential for the rights we're all talking about.
Thanks, Mamie.
As much as it pains me to say it, Nixon is probably righter here than I'd care to admit.
Another example of war time "stretching" of Executive power was the interment of Japanese Americans without trial by Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor. While the internment of non-citizens from a "hostile" nation is constitutionally less problematic, Roosevelt also interned many American citizens, and their internment was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Korematsu ruling.
Inter armes enim silent leges remains as true as ever.
And it was thrown out by SCOTUS.
Presidents do not make law that supersedes the Constitution.
Frank Langella was brilliant as Nixon--should have won an Oscar for his performance.
Nixon helps Lem from the grave: cheerbit
Ironically, Obama has the same grasp of US history has the people who say "Obama is the worst President in US history".
Throughout our history, government has been dysfunctional more often than not.
Post a Comment