Idea of Coronated Instead of Inaugurated President-Dealt Sharp Rebuke-WaPo

[kpete]

A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed
Ruling Emphasizes Constitutional Boundaries

By Peter Baker and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 30, 2006; A01

For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit. If intelligence officers needed to eavesdrop on overseas telephone calls without warrants, he authorized it. If the military wanted to hold terrorism suspects without trial, he let it.

Now the Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country. In rejecting Bush's military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the high court ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within constitutional confines significantly tighter than this president has believed appropriate.

...............

"There is a strain of legal reasoning in this administration that believes in a time of war the other two branches have a diminished role or no role," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who has resisted the administration's philosophy, said in an interview. "It's sincere, it's heartfelt, but after today, it's wrong."

Bruce Fein, an official in the Reagan administration, said the ruling restores balance in government. "What this decision says is, 'No, Mr. President, you can be bound by treaties and statutes,' " he said. " 'If you need to have these changed, you can go to Congress.' This idea of a coronated president instead of an inaugurated president has been dealt a sharp rebuke."

...............

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062902300_pf.html

[Gabi Hayes]

1. only one problem, Mr. Fein. the president you helped put in place

will IGNORE this ruling

[Jim Sagle]

2. "Mr." Fein is confused in more ways than one.

:-)