Next Show: ...loading...

The Supreme Court Tells Bush He's NOT Above the Law!

July 5, 2006

(Unfortunately, the archive of this show is not working. Too bad it was a fascinating show.)
Mark debates guest George Landrith, President of Frontiers of Freedom Institute
In the last check and balance left in our system — and by the closest of margins, the United States Supreme Court delivered a shocking rebuke to George Bush saying that despite Bush’s claims to have virtually unlimited power to ignore the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the nations’ other treaties and laws, the President actually must follow the law!
It was surprising yet heartening to see, by the slenderest of margins, that at least five justices on the Supreme Court still believe that the President must uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
Of course, if Justice Stevens, aged 86, dies in the next two years, the last barrier to Presidential unlimited power will be removed.
This case should remind us all how close to one-man rule we really are…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Seek more legal protocol for Gitmo July 7, 2006 9:29 am

    Now Bush knows he doesn’t have the Supreme Court quite stacked enough to run roughshod over the rule of law

  • Mark Levine July 3, 2006 5:29 pm

    Only a lawless President is more dangerous than a terrorist, simply because he can do more damage if his goal is to dismantle American freedoms.
    If this President had only decided to follow the law, then these kind of things wouldn’t generally be leaked. Most leakers don’t do so to damage national security: they leak when they feel the Government for whom they work has run amuck.

  • Vicky July 3, 2006 5:13 pm

    Why did Keller “agonize” (his exact word) over whether or not to run the story?
    Should we draw maps, complete with arrows, to show the terrorists where the factories are that are making arms/ammunition?
    I’m not condoning the illegal act but I also cannot agree that the President is more dangerous than any terrorist. That’s crazy.

  • Mark Levine July 3, 2006 12:40 pm

    This is also a good spot to discuss the controversy whereby Republicans are insisting the New York Times was wrong in publishing details of the President’s illegal surveillance program (which every legal scholar and this Supreme Court opinion makes clear was illegal).
    The Republicans rarely denounce the Wall Street Journal — which published the same article as the New York Times — because they like its editorial page.
    But a writer on The Politics of Dignity blog stated the NYT was wrong to publish the story. Here was my response there:
    You’ve got to be kidding me. You do NOT want newspapers to expose when the President breaks the law? If it were classified AND LEGAL, then the newspapers should generally let it lie. But when it’s classified and ILLEGAL, then the newspapers have an obligation to expose it.
    A lawless President is far more dangerous than any terrorist.
    Let this be a lesson to any U.S. President. If you want a program to be secret, make sure it is LAWFUL first. And the only way to do is to have legal authorization by law (passed by Congress) or by court (i.e. a search warrant authorized by the Constitution).