« Two Questionable Arguments, Part I | Main | Exams Are Over »

Two Questionable Arguments, Part II

In discussing the present Bush wiretapping scandal, Marty Lederman and Prof. Kerr make one curious assertion. One of the Bush administration's arguments is that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act doesn't apply because Congress authorized the President through the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after 9/11, thus placing any wiretapping within the "except as authorized by statute" language of 50 U.S.C. 1809. In his rather detailed discussion, Prof. Kerr says in passing:

Note that Congress passed the Patriot Act about a month after passing the AUMF; if Congress had intended the AUMF to give the president wide authority to conduct domestic surveillance against Al Qaeda, I don't think they would have spent so much time amending FISA for terrorism investigations.

Lederman takes the argument even further:

In any event, if the Administration is correct about the legality of its wiretaps, then the President's impassioned scolding of the Congress this morning for failing to reenact the PATRIOT Act is entirely misguided: After all, the President already has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to do most of what the PATRIOT Act authorizes -- indeed, to override statutory provisions that would prohibit such Executive acts -- and, as if that weren't enough, Congress has already (in the AUMF) authorized the President not only to do whatever it takes to defeat Al Qaeda, but also to ignore any preexisitng legal restrictions.

(emphasis mine) Will Baude calls this argument savvy. "If the President and his attorney general are correct that the AUMF and Article II provide an implied repeal of other pesky procedural laws where national security demands, it is hard to imagine why they need the Patriot Act renewed at all--presumably the AUMF already implicitly does everything they need it to." Yet arguments that "If X did Y, he had no reason to do Z" are particularly pernicious: the fact that no reason springs immediately to mind does not mean no reason exists.

(I agree that the Article II assertion is a bit rich, but it is also to be expected. Every constitutional actor expresses their authority to its most colorable limits, and backs off only when pushed. That's checks and balances, and I don't think we need take the argument too seriously.)

The idea that AUMF under the President's argument rendered the Patriot Act unnecessary rests on an unspoken--and I'd wager unrealized--assumption. AUMF by its terms applies only to "those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. . . ." Hence, even if one credits the President's argument, the Patriot Act would be necessary with regards to against any terrorist group not allied with Al Quaeda, or even one that allied with them after September 11. The Patriot Act would apply to Hamas even if it later joined with Bin Laden, or a terrorist group with different motives for attacking the US (e.g. the IRA, the Tamil Tigers). AUMF would not, and thus presumably would not override FISA.

Both authorizations thus seem like sensible executive policy: ask immediately for a limited authorization on force that can be passed quickly , then ask Congress to pass more wide-ranging structural change at a later date. Kerr, Will, and Lederman implicitly assume that the President sought authorization for, and Congress only intended the Patriot Act to apply to, terrorist organizations that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. Are those the only terrorists in the world?

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.threeyearsofhell.com/cgi-user/mt/mtPleaseLinktoMe.cgi/2970

Comments

I remember at the beginning of 1L year when Prof. Dorf predicted that by Thanksgiving we'd be "thinking like lawyers" so much that we'd be sick of all non-lawyers and they'd be sick of us. Largely, I haven't found this to be the case (I can't speak for the non-lawyers around me, of course), but this is one instance where it holds: to my mind, there is no 'gotcha' contradiction in the statements of Bush and Gonzales: it's just alternative pleading. We've done it in moot court brief dozens of times - the Constitution is on my side, but if it's not, a statute is on my side, but if it's not, policy is on my side, etc. I admit that this concept isn't one that's going to win tons of points with folks in the Beltway or the heartland. From a legal perspective, however, I am baffled by the fact that intelligent and educated people think there is some enormous contradiction in the administration's position. Gotcha? Hardly.
John: You have to remember that Baude wants the President to present a "theory of legal interpretation (other than national security purposivism) at work here" in his press conferences. You and I see the back and forth for what it is.

Post a comment

NOTICE TO SPAMMERS, COMMENT ROBOTS, TRACKBACK SPAMMERS AND OTHER NON-HUMAN VISITORS: No comment or trackback left via a robot is ever welcome at Three Years of Hell. Your interference imposes significant costs upon me and my legitimate users. The owner, user or affiliate who advertises using non-human visitors and leaves a comment or trackback on this site therefore agrees to the following: (a) they will pay fifty cents (US$0.50) to Anthony Rickey (hereinafter, the "Host") for every spam trackback or comment processed through any blogs hosted on threeyearsofhell.com, morgrave.com or housevirgo.com, irrespective of whether that comment or trackback is actually posted on the publicly-accessible site, such fees to cover Host's costs of hosting and bandwidth, time in tending to your comment or trackback and costs of enforcement; (b) if such comment or trackback is published on the publicly-accessible site, an additional fee of one dollar (US$1.00) per day per URL included in the comment or trackback for every day the comment or trackback remains publicly available, such fee to represent the value of publicity and search-engine placement advantages.

Giving The Devil His Due

Choose Stylesheet

What I'm Reading

cover
D.C. Noir

My city. But darker.
cover
A Clockwork Orange

About time I read this...


Shopping

Projects I've Been Involved With

A Round-the-World Travel Blog: Devil May Care (A new round-the-world travel blog, co-written with my wife)
Parents for Inclusive Education (From my Clinic)

Syndicated from other sites

The Columbia Continuum
Other Blogs by CLS students

De Novo
Theory and Practice
Liberal Federalism?
Good News, No Foolin'


Althouse
Nancy Pelosi covers her head and visits the head of John the Baptist.
Vlogging in from Austin.
Omikase/"American Idol"


Jeremy Blachman's Weblog: 2007
Happy Passover
Looking for Advice re: LA
Google Books


Stay of Execution
What I've Learned From This Blog, or My Yellow Underpants
The End
Mid Thirties


Legal Theory Blog
Program Announcement: Summer Programs on the Constitution at George Washington
Book Announement: Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy by Whittington
Entry Level Hiring Report


The Volokh Conspiracy
Making the Daily Show:
Civil unions pass New Hampshire House:
Profile of Yale Law Dean Harold Koh:


Crescat Sententia
Hillary II
Hillary
Politics and Principal/Agents


Law Dork
Election Approaches
Following Lewis
New Jersey High Court: 'Same Rights and Benefits'


IrishLaw
Homecoming
Surveying the revival
Birds of paradise


Half the Sins of Mankind
Cheney Has Spoken Religious conservatives who may ...
Does Ahmadinejad Know Christianity Better Than MSN...
Borders as Genocide In discussions of climate chan...


pf.org
Progress
For lovers of garden gnomes...and any China-freaks out there
We Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Programming


Ideoblog
Does SOX explain the flight from NY?
More Litvak on SOX effect on cross-listed firms
What did the market learn from internal controls reporting?


The Yin Blog
Iowa City = Riyadh
Jeffrey Rosen's "The Supreme Court"
Geek alert -- who would win between Battlestar Galactica and the U.S.S. Enterprise?


Letters of Marque
Graduation
And there we are
Oil!


BuffaloWings&Vodka
Signing Off


Dark Bilious Vapors
Jim (The Waco Kid): Where you headed, cowboy?
Bart: Nowhere special.
Jim: Nowhere special. I always wanted to go there.
Bart: Come on.
--"Blazing Saddles"

Technical Difficulties... please stand by....
The Onion should have gotten a patent first....


Legal Ethics Forum
Interesting new Expert DQ case
Decency, Due Care, and The Yoo-Delahunty Memorandum
Thinking About the Fired U.S. Attorneys


Ex Post
Student Symposium- Chicago!
More Hmong - Now at Law School
Good Samaritan Laws: Good For America?


Appellate Law & Practice
Those turned over documents
CA1: courts can’t help people acquitted of crimes purge the taint of acquitted conduct
CA1: restrictions on chain liquor stores in Rhode Island are STILL okay


the imbroglio
High schoolers turn in plagiarism screeners for copyright infringement
talisman
Paris to offer 20,600 bikes at 1,450 stations to rent by the end of the year


The Republic of T.
The Secret of the Snack Attack
links for 2007-04-04
Where You Link is What You Get

Distractions for stressed law students

The Other Side: Twisted AnimationsSomething Positive, a truly good webcomic

Syndicate This Site

Sitemeter

Technologies


Stop Spam Harvesters, Join Project Honey Pot