Great... this guy couldn't be as big a wack-job as the last attorney general, but he's about as bad on the specifics of his job...
Pressed for an answer, Gonzales concedes, "I do believe there may come an occasion when the Congress might pass a statute that the president may view as unconstitutional," and therefore the president may ignore it
Um... no, he can't; let's review the basic structure of our country. Three branches, legislative, judicial, and executive. They, in order, legislate, judicate, and execute. The president's in the "execute" part, not the "execute if I like it, but can skip it if it's not something I'm interested in" part.
But even worse...
Then comes the question of the day: "Now, as attorney general, would you believe the president has the authority to exercise a commander-in-chief override and immunize acts of torture?" Leahy asks. That's "a hypothetical that's never going to occur," Gonzales says, because we don't torture people. He continues, "This president has said we're not going to engage in torture under any circumstances, and therefore that portion of the opinion was unnecessary and was the reason that we asked that that portion be withdrawn." Translation: Yes, I think the president has the legal authority to immunize acts of torture, but he doesn't want to, so I'm not going to bother with defending the idea.
Ah. So, since the president will always be a "good guy", forever and ever, it's OK to give him ultimate power.
Geez, where do they find these guys, through mail-order law school lists?
Posted by Ted Stevko at January 7, 2005 03:02 AM | TrackBack