February 11, 2006

Jimmy Carter -- Hypocritical SOB

Jimmy Carter falsely linked Democrat-authorized, politically-motivated, warrantless domestic spying on Dr. & Mrs. King with national-security-imperative listening to terrorist-connected telephone calls that originate outside the US during Mrs. King's funeral this week. It was shameful and wrong of him to do so.

But now we find out that warrantless surveilance for national security purposes was conducted by President Jimmy Carter -- with his personal authorization -- in 1977.

But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.

The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.

In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."

Notice -- that is "inherent authority". Authority which exists as a part of the authority granted each and every president by Article II of the US Constitution, independent of any statute or law. It is power that Congress cannot restrict or eliminate, and that the courts must recognize.

That is why all of the discussion of the FISA law is irrelevant, and the position of the Bush administration is correct.

That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S.

The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.

Democrats and some Republicans in Congress say FISA guidelines, approved in 1978 when Mr. Carter was president, are the only way the president may conduct surveillance on U.S. soil.

Administration officials say the president has constitutional authority to conduct surveillance without warrants in the name of national security. The only way Congress could legitimately curtail that authority, they argue, is through an amendment to the Constitution.

The administration's view has been shared by previous Democrat administrations, including Mr. Carter's.

I realize that must stick in the craw of a lot of liberals, but the Constitution trumps any statute. Congress cannot limit the constitutional powers delegated to the other two branches by statute, any more than the president can issue an executive order ending a filibuster or preventing the courts from hearing a case. Congress cannot prevent the exercise of such inherent powers of the Executive branch, any more than the Judicial Branch could issue an order prohibiting ta declaration of war or preventing the president from vetoing a bill.

Let's look at what the Carter Administration had to say about FISA.

When Mr. Bell testified in favor of FISA, he told Congress that while the measure doesn't explicitly acknowledge the "inherent power of the president to conduct electronic surveillance," it "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution."

Did you get that -- the position of the Carter administration was that the FISA law permitted exactly the sort of activity Carter so inapproriately criticized at Mrs. King's funeral. He climbed on to her corpse to deliver a political attack that he knew was false. He condemned activity that he himself engaged in and defended -- and he knew it. That makes him a hypocritical SOB of the first order. Too bad we cannot impeach him retroactively.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters & Powerline.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Stuck On Stupid, Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, third world country, Everyman Chronicles, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bullwinkle Blog, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 04:07 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 630 words, total size 5 kb.

1 This must be the lamest excuse ever for non-patriotic Americans such as yourself to support the overthrow of our constitutional democracy. If you had shame, you would be feeling it now.

1977 - No FISA.
1978 - present - FISA.

Inherent authority where no congressional action - broad.

Inherent authority where congressional action - restricted.

Jimmy Carter - great American.
George Bush - Worst. President. Ever.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Feb 11 12:06:34 2006 (aSKj6)

2 Also, did you notice that the Bush administration only took this constitutional-authority position after they were caught lying about whether they violated FISA? There's no need to lie about something or change your story unless you know what you're doing is wrong.

Posted by: Left Behinds at Sat Feb 11 12:36:39 2006 (jznhN)

3 Actually, Congress may not restrict an inherent power, as argued by Jimmy Carter when FISA was passed. Congress may not strip the President of such powers, any more than it can strip him of the pardon power or the veto power.


After all, there are three co-equal branches, and no branch can strip or limit the inherent powers of the others.

If either of you believed in the Constitution, you would not have made the arguments you din.

And as far as Jimmy Carter goes, historians have already weighed his presidency in the balance and found it lacking. They will no doubt find him to be even mor eof a mediocre American than he was a president.

On the other hand, Bush 43 will likely rank nearly as hugh in the pantheon of presidents as America's two greatest 20th century presidents -- FDR and Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Feb 11 13:58:44 2006 (ViQia)

4 Oh, and Left Behind, had the NY Times committed a similar act of treason in 1943 or 1944 by disclosing details of our espionage operations against Japan and Germany (AKA The Enemy -- the WWII analog of al-Qaeda and its associates), I don't doubt that FDR would have initially tried to minimize the damage to national security by denying the whole thing.

The major difference would have been that in the 1940, the NY Times would have been closed by executive order and the publisher, editors, and reporters involved in reporting the sotry would have been arrested and put on trial for their misdeeds. Today's seditious media get book deals and television interviews. I guess the major difference is that in the 1940s, the party out of power was still loyal to the US -- the party out of power today is not.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Feb 11 14:07:07 2006 (ViQia)

5 Your argument is childlike in its lack of constitutional understanding. Please do a little reading on zones, etc., so you don't embarrass yourself again.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Feb 11 14:46:18 2006 (aSKj6)

6 I have done more than a little reading in the area -- enough to earn a Masters degree in political science and to teach US Government on the college level (high school is the day job -- the college is adjunct work).

And the argument I make on the matter was made by both the Carter and Clinton administrations, not just the Bush administration.

I realize that you prefer different standards for failed presidents you like (Clinton & Carter) and successful presidents you dislike (such as GWB), but the same rules apply to both -- and since we not only have the executive branch making the inherent power argument, but also a court ruling to that effect (what Al Gore would call "controlling legal authority), your argument is pretty weak.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Feb 11 15:06:26 2006 (ViQia)

7 All Things Beautiful TrackBack America's Useful Idiots

Posted by: Alexandra at Sat Feb 11 21:40:42 2006 (9JKJs)

8 Dan, it seems that you're the one avoiding arguing the issue here. You claim that Rhymes With Right should "not embarrass" himself yet he's made very strong points about the President's Constitutional authority while you have made none. Looks like you're the one who needs to do some research on the Constitution. As with anything with you liberals it's okay when your man does it but God forbid Bush do the same thing.

Posted by: everyman at Sun Feb 12 13:33:00 2006 (vUjvd)

9 Dan, being a Democrat, doesn't really need to make a logical argument -- emoting on the issue and slinging unsupported insults is sufficient.

I mean its not like the Democrats really believe in the Constitution or rule of law,

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Feb 12 13:52:52 2006 (uaG9l)

10 Everyman - that's a fair criticism - I haven't laid it out as well as I should. I outlined it in my original comment, but haven't explained much beyond that. I'll try to pull together a better analysis this evening . . .

RWR - I believe in the Constitution and the rule of law.

Posted by: Dan at Mon Feb 13 06:40:42 2006 (aSKj6)

11 Like I said -- when it suits your purposes.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Feb 13 06:52:45 2006 (vNSjC)

12 The Constitution and rule of law always suit my purposes, thank you.

Posted by: Dan at Mon Feb 13 08:08:40 2006 (y9xzG)

13 Thanks for this...people will be linking back to it as things move forward....I was surprised at the attack on your credentials, but obviously that's misplaced...liberals don't know how to think anymore. They've given it up for ad hominem attacks and vitriolic emoting.

I listened to the reverend who attacked Pres. Bush at the funeral as he tried to defend his position. I was embarrassed for him: he might as well have been out there wearing gauze veils...

And, boy, do I wish we could retroactively impeach Carter. He did so much damage in office, it's amazing to see how he continues to leave a trail of misery, still. What a small-minded, mean little man.

Posted by: dymphna at Wed Feb 15 05:35:13 2006 (JWD86)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
17kb generated in CPU 0.016, elapsed 0.0368 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0244 seconds, 42 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]