presidents, war, and *statutes*
bobsheridan at earthlink.net
Tue Dec 20 06:41:54 PST 2005
Richard Dougherty wrote:
"...that courts take laws to be repealed or amended when there was no
specific mention of it in the new statute (or Amendment)?..."
Absolutely, but how often have we seen words to the effect that 'if
Congress had intended to repeal the xyz statute it could, would, or
should have expressly so stated and we will not reach such a drastic
result where the record is ambiguous,' etc?
What gives the president authority to rush in interpretively where fools
would fear to tread (other than, as Mr. Toobin of the NYer observed in
an interview last evening, the president's conservative supporters are
trying to 'restore' the power of the presidency by having him exercise
it vigorously under a claim of right)?
Strikes me as a new road to hell, that's all...
>A sound observation, Bob -- but doesn't that happen routinely, that courts take laws to be repealed or amended when there was no specific mention of it in the new statute (or Amendment)? (I'm not endorsing the position, only asking.)
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: Bob Sheridan <bobsheridan at earthlink.net>
>Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:26:53 -0800
>>"the AUMF impliedly repealed the well-wrought scheme in FISA,.."
>>Odd that there can be an implied repeal without a knowing, voluntary,
>>and intentional decision to repeal, either in the text or the
>>legislative history, such as in the case of a waiver of a
>>constitutional right in criminal court, but I suppose it could happen...
>>marty.lederman at comcast.net wrote:
>>>Both of the Administration's arguments here are quite radical: (i)
>>>That the AUMF impliedly repealed the well-wrought scheme in FISA, with
>>>its prohibition on warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. persons (a repeal
>>>that only the Executive knew about: neither the public, nor even the
>>>Congress that enacted the AUMF, was aware that it had performed such
>>>radical surgery on the U.S. Code); and (ii) even if the AUMF did not
>>>repeal/amend FISA, there's a Commander-in-Chief override.
>>>I actually think the /former/ argument is more preposterous than the
>>>latter, although I'm sure others on the list will disagree.
>>>But for now, I simply wanted to note this: /If /the Administration is
>>>correct about the legality of its wiretaps, then the President's
>>>impassioned scolding of the Congress this morning for failing to
>>>reenact the PATRIOT Act is entirely misguided: After all, the
>>>President /already has the authority/, under the AUMF and Article II,
>>>to do virtually everything the PATRIOT Act authorizes -- which means
>>>that the PATRIOT itself was largely superfluous in the first instance.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 73 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051220/e3f9bfdc/bobsheridan.vcf
More information about the Conlawprof