Aberto Gonzales Quotes
The Constitution … provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during warfare.
Aberto Gonzales, White House Counsel (George W. Bush), Justice, Texas Supreme Court, Attorney General of Texas (Republican), Speech, Georgetown University Law School, September 29, 2006
Sourced by: Eigen's Political and Historical Quotations
In the early 18th century, the succession to the Scottish and English Crowns was unclear. As a safety valve and check, this clause was adopted by the Scottish Parliament. This was one of the most radical and anti monarchy laws ever passed. It took the unilateral power of making war and peace from the king & established the principle of ratification of ALL treaties. The law did not last long. It was nullified by the Union between England & Scotland (1707), and the English Parliament specifically repealed the clause in the “Repeal of Certain Scotch Acts of 1707”. This clause, which only remained in force for 3 years, had a profound effect on the modern democracies. The American founding fathers were totally familiar with the recent English history & this law. So the American’s at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, built the principle into the new Constitution giving the Congress the power to Declare War and the Senate to ratify treaties as a check against Presidential power.
President George W. Bush had ignored a federal law and tapped the phones of Americans without probable cause and a warrant issued by a court. The President’s defenders argued that the President, as Commander in Chief, has the Constitutional responsibility to lead the military and protect the nation. Intelligence gathering is part of military activity. Therefore the intelligence gathering is a Constitutional duty and the Congress, under the separation of powers doctrine, may not interfere with the President’s Constitutional Duty to conduct intelligence. Under this doctrine, the President need not obey laws that he believes impinge on his management of the war effort and the defense of the nation. Most legal scholars believe that this argument is nonsense, but the George W. Bush administration has stated the doctrine and it was the subject of much litigation.
The Attorney General had taken the position that the Congress could not pass laws in time of war that the President was required to follow if in his judgment as Commander in Chief, the war effort and safety of the nation was at stake—that he could instruct the military to ignore laws passed by Congress. The legal theory of the George W. Bush administration was that the President had “inherent powers” under the Constitution and that Congress could not supersede these by legislation.
President George W. Bush, during the War on Terror, asserted the authority to contravene laws passed by Congress and signed by a previous president. He further, argued that he did not have to inform Congress when he ordered steps that broke the existing laws. His position was based on his claim that there were inherent Presidential powers in wartime granted by the Constitution and the Congress could not override the Constitution.
President George W. Bush had ordered NSA agents to bug the phones and email of American citizens who might have been talking with an overseas party or e-mailing them out of the country. The administration thought that American citizens might be part of terrorist sleeper cells or unwittingly were aiding terrorists. The law prohibited such activity—where American citizens were involved—without getting a court order. However, the President claimed that he had the inherent power as commander in chief of exempting the court requirement. Others maintained that even the President is not above the law. What was the big puzzle was that there was a secret court Congress had established just for such cases, but the administration instead decided to bypass the court.
On why the President should not be given the right to go to war without the approval of Congress:
In a 1949 dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago Jackson claimed the majority view would “convert the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
