Skip to main content

View Diary: Inherent, Not Absolute Authority, Senator Specter (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I can see your point of view (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenreflex

    but the mere fact he gave air and credence to the Art. II argument is ridiculous.  Feingold is correct. There is no legal debate to be had. The law is clear.

    And I get the feeling Specter would be among the first to dispense with Feingold's motion. Lest we forget how he refused to swear Gonzales in.

    tracking the domestic spying scandal here.

    by Georgia Logothetis on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 06:24:58 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  sincere question: (0+ / 0-)

      do you think he knows that

      the art II argument is ridiculous

      ?  according to specter's wikipedia entry, he graduated from yale law school in '56.  

      I don't know law, and I don't know to what degree Senators interact with legal scholars/advisors on issues like this.  

      I guess I'm wondering if he's operating based on what he has been told, because that version is what he wants to believe, or if he knows his version is crap, and that's what he's sticking with regardless for some reason external to the truth.

      Warning: the above may contain far too much benefit of the doubt for today's senate.

      •  exactly (0+ / 0-)

        "he graduated from yale law school in '56"

        he's smart. he's read youngstown. he knows the program is illegal and has stated so repeatedly. and yet, he now claims that the president's arguments may have a basis in law.

        as you say, he knows it's crap, but proceeds anyway

        tracking the domestic spying scandal here.

        by Georgia Logothetis on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 06:51:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well this is the way I see it (0+ / 0-)

      I can see your point of view but the mere fact he gave air and credence to the Art. II argument is ridiculous.

      I am saying that his point of view is that since the key administration argument, in fact the only one that could possibly do what the administration wants to do, is a legal/constitutional one that has not been as fully explored by his committee as it could be, therefore the "regular order" way  to deal with the resolution would be to send it to his Judiciary committee for hearings.

      Feingold is correct. There is no legal debate to be had.

      I think that Feingold is correct but there clearly is a legal debate because the administration's top lawyer is pushing that argument.  Specter was saying that the proper forum to go further into that legal debate was his committee. 

      And I get the feeling Specter would be among the first to dispense with Feingold's motion.

      Well I didn't get that feeling.  I think he is too good lawyer not to see that there are real problems with the argument the administration is making.  For one thing it is not clear what limits would exist on such an inherent power and what it would do to the explicit power the constitution gives congress for law making.  I think he would love to have weeks of hearings with panels of  legal scholars and professors giving the question their best analysis.

      Of course I don't think that the other Republicans want something like that and so they will probably find some different way to dispose of the resolution. But I think that Spencer is a potential friend to the idea of doing something to place some limits on the President's actions.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site