home

The Decider of All Things

We know that our Unitary Chief Executive is The Decider of all questions in the executive branch. Now it appears that President Bush is also The Decider of issues before the legislative branch.

President George W. Bush said Friday that Congress must stay in session until it approves legislation modernizing a U.S. law governing eavesdropping on foreigners. ... The president said that lawmakers must not leave for their August recess this weekend as planned unless they "pass a bill that will give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect the United States."

They must, must they? What constitutional provision empowers the president to order the legislature to remain in session so that it can enact another one of his bad laws?

< Bush Insists Gonzales, Not FISA Court, Review Surveillance Program | FISA Amendment Update >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Article II (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    Section 3.

    I think he can convene them (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:04:40 PM EST
    But not decide when they adjourn.

    He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper . . .

    I do not think he can keep them there but he can call them back.

    Parent

    I think you're wrong there, BTD (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:16:47 PM EST
    As I read Art. II, sec. 3, if the two houses disagree as to the time they'll adjourn until, or maybe its when they adjourn - the text is unclear - then Bushie gets to pick a time.

    Which time can be whenever he pleases.  As some have suggested over at FDL - could be December 15, 2008.

    So, this is why it appears the Republicans are trying really, really hard, right now, to get a disagreement over the time for adjournment between the House and Senate.

    Subpoena power ain't much good if you're not in town to use it.

    So, for that reason, I say, please, cancel the August recess.  No recess appointments, and plenty of time to do things like, pass legislation, investigate, etc.  From what I've read elsewhere, on the Pelosi/Reid press conference from earlier, it seems like they were talking proudly about having accomplished most, if not all, of the legislative agenda (save appropriations, which always waits until after the break), leaving them little save, um, investigatin' to do with their time.  And Bushie knows it.

    Parent

    Then you misinderstood my comment (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:20:58 PM EST
    Since they do NOT disagree, nothing in the text gives him the power to decidee the time of the adjournment.

    Parent
    not really - (none / 0) (#11)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:32:45 PM EST
    A lot of the Repug efforts today were directed toward creating a disagreement, so Bushie could step in.  Which is why I said:

    So, this is why it appears the Republicans are trying really, really hard, right now, to get a disagreement over the time for adjournment between the House and Senate.

    He can call them in for extraordinary session - Truman did it in July, 1947.  He can, if they cannot agree as to the time of adjournment, send them home and pick the time for them to come back.  I do not think the latter power has ever been used as the Congress and Senate can agree as to that one thing.

    The issue is in how one defines "time of adjournment" - whether that's the time to go home, or the time to come back.  And, for that, I have no answer.

    Parent

    Gee, it's like a whole new Unitary (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:36:59 PM EST
    Executive fight and it's going to mess with their vacations.  I think I like it unless they wuss out on me......than I'm likely to just completely loose it!  If presidents play with fire they had better get burned Congress.  Wakey wakey eggs and bacey.

    Parent
    sorry - July '48. (none / 0) (#17)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:37:44 PM EST
    47 and 48 (none / 0) (#27)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 06:14:29 PM EST
    I don't think so (none / 0) (#21)
    by LarryE on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:44:18 PM EST
    Seems to me that's a forced reading of the passage. First, note that this is in reference to the president convening Congress "on extraordinary Occasions" and that it may be "both Houses, or either of them." Because of that latter phrase, the reasonable reading is that "them" refers to the president and Congress, not the Senate and the House.

    Further, "adjournment" refers to a break in or a suspension of proceedings, not a continuation of them.

    What this comes down to is that the passage is saying that in the "extraordinary" event that the president calls Congress into special session and the two sides can't agree on when and until when that special session should be adjourned, the president gets to decide. The net effect is not that Congress can't leave without the president's permission (How would the president stop them, anyway?) but that Congress can't stay in special session longer than the president who called it wants them to.

    And this doesn't apply to the normal sessions of Congress.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:53:35 PM EST
    I think that reading is clearly wrong.

    Them is the House and the Senate.

    Parent

    But. (none / 0) (#30)
    by LarryE on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 06:58:15 PM EST
    First, I thought it would be clear that the instance of "them" to which I referred was in the phrase "in Case of Disagreement between them." Perhaps it wasn't.

    The question is, what is the antecedent of that use of "them," the House and Senate or the president and the house(s) of Congress? Well, if only one house is convened in the extraordinary session, who is the "them?" Who is the second party? And does it really make sense to say that the president can call a special session but has no say in when or for how long it will be adjourned except as a referee?

    The passage clearly says that the president decides in the event of a disagreement. By your reading, if the House and Senate agree on adjournment (or, by necessary extension, if the one house declares it) the president has no say.

    Show me constitutional and/or historical scholarship that says that reading is correct and I'll agree - otherwise, I stand by my reading as reasonable.

    Parent

    A little more (none / 0) (#32)
    by LarryE on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 07:12:13 PM EST
    Let me clarify a little more. I originally emphasized "either of them" to note that it's undeniable that a president can call a single house rather than the whole Congress into a special session.

    The phrase "disagreement between them" needs to be considered in that light, i.e., that there may be only one house and so no possibility of disagreement between houses. Since it would have been so simple to just say "between the houses" as opposed to "between them," I'm doubtful that was the intention.

    It just still seems to me that the most reasonable reading is that

    a)"on extraordinary Occasions," the president can call either or both houses of Congress into special session

    and

    b)if the president and the house or houses can't agree on when the session should be adjourned, the president decides.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:56:11 PM EST
    You think the more reasonable reading of "either of them" is President/Congress and not House/Senate?  The most straightforward reading, IMHO, is that the section allows the President to convene either both Houses, or just the Senate or House, and to set the time for adjournment if the Senate and House cannot agree on one.

    Parent
    Really a distinction w/o a difference (none / 0) (#10)
    by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:31:50 PM EST
    If we agree he can convene them, then all he has to do is wait for them to adjourn, perhaps wait a day, then declare this an "extraordinary" situation requiring that both Houses reconvene.  Same result in substance as keeping them in session.

    Parent
    A Few Rounds Of That (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:34:33 PM EST
    Scenario, and we will have the 17 R votes to impeach the f*ck.

    Parent
    Wish it were true (none / 0) (#14)
    by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:36:37 PM EST
    I long ago gave up on counting on any GoOPer, even a supposedly "moderate" one, to cross Herr Dubya on any issue of import whatsoever.

    Parent
    Agreed Of Course (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:40:15 PM EST
    But ya know how little those guys like to work, and in August.....

    C-Span meets the Marx bros.

    Parent

    Ha! (none / 0) (#20)
    by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:42:22 PM EST
    It would be delicious to have do-nothing gasbags like Coburn and Bunning leading the impeachment charge from the GOP side because they missed some quality time on their yacht.

    Parent
    I think the point is (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:36:19 PM EST
    he's trying to get to a scenario where he can send them home, and pick a conveniently far-in-the-future date for them to come back, so as to avoid nasty things like subpoenas, hearings, etc.  And then run propaganda on a "Do nuthin' Congress" while depriving them of their bully pulpit and media access.

    George Bush, trying to do like every other banana-republic dictator - dissolve parliament and rule directly.

    Parent

    Probably true (none / 0) (#19)
    by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:40:24 PM EST
    Though I think his motivation there is separate (and perhaps at odds) with the threat to keep Congress in session until a FISA "fix" is passed.  I think Bushie can orchestrate that, too, by convening them immediately after they adjourn.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:52:24 PM EST
    Then let him do that.

    Parent
    I'm sure he will (none / 0) (#25)
    by Categorically Imperative on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:58:40 PM EST
    If the Dems don't cave first.  What's he got to lose?  Go down to 20% approval?  Have Feinstein stop caving on judicial appointments?  Impeachment?  Defunding?  

    Worst case scenario, Arlen Specter sends him a sternly-worded letter.

    Parent

    I think you mean... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 04:37:04 PM EST
    Section 4.

    The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


    i agree with Bush (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TomK on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:07:47 PM EST
    Our congress should not go on vacation until pressing intelligence issues are addressed so our agencies can protect us.

    Like removing Alberto and getting to the root of leaks of CIA agents and vice presidents who send goons to hospital beds of deathly ill people to get authorization that underlings wouldn't approve.

    No vacations until this mess is sorted out.  I agree with Bush.

    This could be great theatre at Gonzo's expense. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:11:03 PM EST
    Vacation Man... (none / 0) (#3)
    by garyb50 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 04:56:22 PM EST
    Tells others not to take one. How amusing.

    OT: is everyone in the world but me taking a vacation now?

    fraid so. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 04:59:48 PM EST
    The President may call extraordinary sessions of one or both Houses of Congress.

     See also one of my favorite speeches (or better yet listen)

    I called a special session of the Congress in November 1947--November 17, 1947--and I set out a 10-point program for the welfare and benefit of this country, among other things standby controls. I got nothing. Congress has still done nothing...

    There is a long list of these promises in that Republican platform. If it weren't so late, I would tell you all about them. I have discussed a number of these failures of the Republican 80th Congress. Every one of them is important. Two of them are of major concern to nearly every American family. They failed to do anything about high prices, they failed to do anything about housing.

    My duty as President requires that I use every means within my power to get the laws the people need on matters of such
    importance and urgency.

    I am therefore calling this Congress back into session July 26th.

    On the 26th day of July, which out in Missouri we call "Turnip Day," I am going to call Congress back and ask them to pass
    laws to halt rising prices, to meet the housing crisis--which they are saying they are for in their platform.



    This is indeed an emergency situation (none / 0) (#15)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:36:42 PM EST
    They should stay in town and have Harriet Miers and Karl Rove arrested, then try them under their Unitary Inherent Contempt authority.

    This is a desperate stunt by Bush (none / 0) (#28)
    by space on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 06:19:32 PM EST
    Unfortunately, all signs point to Reid and Pelosi acting like idiots on this.

    who is in control? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sumner on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 06:31:20 PM EST
    Whether you call it the 5th estate, fascism, government/corporate partnership, corporate welfare, unholy alliance, or whatever, there are enormous financial interests driving this thing.

    NSA's sea change plan for this government/corporate alliance came about when:

    The reform-minded NSA director, Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, took the ground-breaking step of looking outside the NSA's razor-wire gates for new ideas. The NSA has since hired contractors to provide everything from nonsensitive office phones and desktop computers to sophisticated - and classified - eavesdropping and code-breaking gear.

    "When you're dealing with information technology, you've got to be able to buy stuff very quickly," says Harry D. Gatanas, the NSA's senior acquisition executive from July 2000 to February 2002. At the Pentagon, he said, "it's a very bureaucratic process which takes 15 years to develop a fighter plane or 15 years to field a tank."

    For most of its 50-year history, the NSA designed and built much of its computer equipment in-house, [such as manufacturing its own computer chips at Ft. Meade] both because of concerns about espionage and because few companies understood its complex niche technologies.

    But the 1990s saw a high-tech boom and, with it, an explosion in new challenges for the agency. Cell phones and e-mail accounts meant a surge in global communications. Hard-to-tap fiber-optic cables and encryption software available free over the Internet offered new tools for foreign agents to hide or encode messages.

    Hayden's ambitious plan to break the agency's Cold War mold - [was] labeled "100 Days of Change", [and became] the NSA's well-publicized effort to turn to private industry for new - and potentially cheaper - technology.

    The first, GROUNDBREAKER, is a 10-year, $2 billion project to farm out the purchase and maintenance of computer and phone equipment.

    The second, TRAILBLAZER, has awarded at least $480 million to contractors since 2001 to overhaul the NSA's collection and processing of the millions of phone calls, e-mails and other electronic data it rakes from the skies each day.

    Some of the NSA's biggest contractors under its Groundbreaker and Trailblazer projects are Science Applications International Corp., Booz Allen Hamilton, Computer Sciences Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp. Spokesmen for those companies declined to comment.


    Early reports on GROUNDBREAKER said:

    "[To] cover four areas: distributed computing, enterprise and security management, networking, and telephony, an NSA spokeswoman said. NSA wants to award the Project Groundbreaker contract by spring.

    Although AT&T would take the network and telephony lead on its team, subcontractor IBM Corp. would handle distributed computing, said Larry D. Spilman, AT&T's vice president and chief operating officer for government markets. AT&T and IBM would share enterprise management duties. Lockheed Martin Corp. and Science Applications International Corp. of San Diego would provide overall support.

    From the National Security Agency's own Web site:

    National Security Agency Awards Concept Studies for TRAILBLAZER:

    The National Security Agency (NSA) awarded three prime contracts on 29 March for concept studies, launching the Agency's transformation efforts. The studies will define the architecture, cost, and acquisition approach for TRAILBLAZER 1, the NSA program to develop analytic capabilities to meet the challenge of rapidly evolving, modern telecommunications. The prime contracts were awarded to Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc. (Annapolis Junction, MD), Lockheed Martin Corporation (Hanover, MD), and TRW (Systems & Information Technology Group, Columbia, MD). These prime contractors will have over thirty industry partners, in total, associated with their efforts.

    The award of these contracts culminates a process that began last August when over 130 potential industry partners participated in a TRAILBLAZER Industry Day at NSA Headquarters. Suggestions from industry, together with definition of the Agency's requirements, led to the subsequent release in October of a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) to obtain detailed industry inputs. The final RFP was released in early December and proposals were submitted in January. The NSA Program Office completed this initial phase with the evaluation of seven proposals from a very broad cross-section of industry, including over 100 enterprises in the sectors of defense and intelligence, advanced information technology, internet dotcoms, commercial business process re-engineering, and academia.

    The evaluation of the proposals reflected the Agency's emphasis on innovation to rapidly apply commercial information technology while at the same time providing overall program management through a disciplined acquisition process. The evaluation of this best value procurement took a few weeks longer than planned, due to the complexity of the proposals and the large response from industry. These contracts include a base period of performance and an option for analysis and integration of the results of the studies from all three contracts and other on-going NSA programs and architecture efforts.

    The kick-off for these studies will be conducted in early April and subsequent analyses and deliverables will be focused on preparing for a limited production decision in 2002.



    that psyops kind of pressure (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sumner on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 07:09:09 PM EST
    Most are aware of the data mining implications of the surveillance society, but not the operational side, and seem to be a bit in the dark about why information is collected in the first place: IT DRIVES OPERATIONS.

    The marriage of Intelligence to Corporations precedes the Bush Administration.

    Sheesh, can you imagine Wayne Madsen, Arlington, VA, (LT, USN, National Security Agency 1984-85), getting intimidated by CACI? Now that's Operations.

    CACI runs psyops operations around the world. And they are just one of many. Most will not even know this stuff is going on, but congress members are probably quite spooked by the threat.

    How knowledgeable is Wayne Madsen? An excerpt where Madsen lists some contract areas of the Eagle Alliance:

    The Eagle Alliance consists of CSC, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, CACI, Omen, Inc., Keane Federal Systems, ACS Defense, BTG, Compaq, Fiber Plus, Superior Communications, TRW (Raytheon), Verizon, and Windemere.

    [...]

    The Eagle Alliance is involved in a number of systems that impact on other members of the U.S. intelligence community, foreign SIGINT partners, and national command authorities. These systems include INTELINK, Common Remoted Systems, National SIGINT Requirements Process, Overhead Tasking Distribution, RSOC (Regional SIGINT Operations Center) Monitoring Tool, RSOC Modeling Tool, Speech Activity Detection, Network Analysis Tools, Network Reconstruction Tools, Advanced Speech Processing Services, Automatic Message Handling System, CRITIC Alert, Cross Agency Multimedia Database Querying, Message Format Converter, Central Strategic Processing and Reporting, Collection Knowledge Base, Language Knowledge Base and Capabilities, K2000 Advanced ELINT Signals, Speech Content Services, Speech Information Extraction, Dominant Facsimile Processing System and DEFSMAC Support, Data Delivery (TINMAN), High Frequency Direction Finding (HFDF) Database, Satellite database, Protocol Analysis Terminal, Global Numbering Database, Intercept Tasking Databases, DEFSMAC Space Systems Utilities, Message Server, Extended Tether Program, Language Knowledge Services, Trend Analysis in Data Streams, Signal Related Database, SANDKEY Support (SIGINT Analysis and Reporting), and the SIGINT interception database ANCHORY and the ELINT database WRANGLER. In fact, the document states that the contractors' plans foresee the inclusion of NSA's intelligence community partners (foreign and domestic) in the contractors' revamping of NSA's operational systems.


    SAIC has had a heavy hand in psyops too. The TOTAL AWARENESS PROGRAM is said to be an early brainchild of Admiral John Poindexter and SAIC executive Brian Hicks.

    Is congress going to wake up NOW... (none / 0) (#33)
    by DawnG on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 08:15:35 PM EST
    ...and realize that the president is NOT president?  He's a dictator (in the most literal sense of the word).  He thinks he can stand on his pulpit and throw a temper tantrum to get his way and congress will bow to his might.  He has the RNC asserting executive privlage (as if it were an arm of the executive branch of freaking government!).  It has Current and former Bush Administration officials DEFYING supeonas and refusing to stand before congress to testify.

    We need someone to bring this maniac back to reality.

    seriously, it's time to start hauling people before congress in CHAINS if neccessary (inherent contempt is perfectly doable).  For all these years Bush has been asserting his authority over the legislature and judiciary.  Now it's time for congress to assert IT'S authority.

    If it doesn't, Bush wins by fiat and we have lost our country.  Maybe not to him, maybe he won't have time to ruin us, but to the next president that thinks he can pull this garbage again.

    This is not acceptable.

    Bush the Decider (none / 0) (#34)
    by sab on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:25:20 AM EST
    Bush the Decider, although he has probably never made a decision that wasn't signed off by either Cheney or his mother, unless it was objected to by his father. My dog has more guts and judgment than our president.

    Obviously (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:33:10 AM EST
    It is not saying much that your dog has more guts and judgment that the Chimp.

    Dogs are much better at some things than humans. If anything your comparison is a put down for dogs.

    Parent