Today's Article
Bush's lawyers
should know that this
is a nation of laws,
not of tyrants.
should know that this
is a nation of laws,
not of tyrants.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
All The President's Lawyers
By Cliff Montgomery - Apr. 9th, 2008
There is a division of the U.S. Justice Department which performs a single task: this office acts as the legal
counsel for the Executive Branch.
The very fact that the modern-day White House should ever feel the need for an on-the-call, expert team of
high-priced lawyers to defend its actions may serve as a fine article for another time. What perhaps now is
most important is that this legal team has been exceptionally busy for the last seven years of the Bush
Administration.
The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the organ which serves as the legal office for executive branch
departments, has been an influential accomplice in the creation of Bush White House policy.
And being a major part of the Bush team, the OLC also has been a disturbingly secretive and tyrannical office
as well.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) described in a Dec.7th floor statement the sweep of three OLC "legal
opinions" which he had reviewed. He apparently was horrified by his findings.
One of the OLC opinions debated the character of executive orders, and had as its basis a sophistry
magnificent in its absurdity.
Sen. Whitehouse described the false conclusion of this OLC legal opinion as follows:
"An Executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a
new Executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous Executive order."
The sophistry here is based on a falsehood so often used by professional debaters it even has a name: The
Argument from Ignorance.
It is a particular type of Either/Or fallacy, in that it insists that something either must be self-evidently known to
be true, or it must be self-evidently false.
In this case, the OLC falsely claims that since the U.S. Constitution does not definitely state that Executive
Branch offices and agencies are bound to laws created by the Executive Branch, that itself is inherent proof
that they are not bound by those laws in any way.
Of course, one could just as easily argue the same sophistry from the opposite viewpoint--one also could argue
that since the Constitution does not definitely say that Executive Branch offices and agencies are free to
ignore those laws as they choose, that itself is definite proof that they are bound to those executive orders in
every way.
The truth is that the OLC ignores the legally-recognized fact of implicit provisions within the Constitution--that
numerous aspects of American law necessarily are true, even if they are not directly stated.
For instance, it has been recognized that there is no constitutionally-stated balance of power between the
three branches of the U.S. Government. But the very fact that there are three branches of government with
stated separate powers--and that each possesses stated powers of oversight over the other two--necessarily
ensures that a balance of power exists within the American Government, even if the Constitution never
expressly states it.
In the same way, it's clear that the Bush Administration is every bit as bound to expressed American law as the
rest of us. This simply is because any person or group who claims to be above the law claims the "right" of the
tyrant.
It does not need to be stated in the U.S. Constitution that this is a nation of laws and not of tyrants.
The Federation of American Scientists (FAS)--a government secrecy watchdog group--filed a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) calling on the OLC to release to the public its opinion on executive orders. That
reasonable request was flatly denied.
"We are withholding the document in full because it is classified and thus exempt under Exemption 1 of the
FOIA," the OLC claimed to FAS.
But more people are calling such undue secrecy a danger to America.
"Too many Bush OLC memos remain secret, with only a handful of administration officials being privy to their
conclusions," stated a March Washington Post editorial.
"During the Bush administration," the Post editorial continued, "the OLC has become known as a partisan
enabler of legally and ethically questionable presidential policies, including those involving the use of torture."
The Bush boys insist that such secrecy makes Americans secure--but free people are never secure when their
government hides what it is doing in the "name of the people."
History reveals that when any government engages in secrets, the difference between knowledge and
ignorance is the difference between master and slave.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - Apr. 9th, 2008
There is a division of the U.S. Justice Department which performs a single task: this office acts as the legal
counsel for the Executive Branch.
The very fact that the modern-day White House should ever feel the need for an on-the-call, expert team of
high-priced lawyers to defend its actions may serve as a fine article for another time. What perhaps now is
most important is that this legal team has been exceptionally busy for the last seven years of the Bush
Administration.
The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the organ which serves as the legal office for executive branch
departments, has been an influential accomplice in the creation of Bush White House policy.
And being a major part of the Bush team, the OLC also has been a disturbingly secretive and tyrannical office
as well.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) described in a Dec.7th floor statement the sweep of three OLC "legal
opinions" which he had reviewed. He apparently was horrified by his findings.
One of the OLC opinions debated the character of executive orders, and had as its basis a sophistry
magnificent in its absurdity.
Sen. Whitehouse described the false conclusion of this OLC legal opinion as follows:
"An Executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a
new Executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous Executive order."
The sophistry here is based on a falsehood so often used by professional debaters it even has a name: The
Argument from Ignorance.
It is a particular type of Either/Or fallacy, in that it insists that something either must be self-evidently known to
be true, or it must be self-evidently false.
In this case, the OLC falsely claims that since the U.S. Constitution does not definitely state that Executive
Branch offices and agencies are bound to laws created by the Executive Branch, that itself is inherent proof
that they are not bound by those laws in any way.
Of course, one could just as easily argue the same sophistry from the opposite viewpoint--one also could argue
that since the Constitution does not definitely say that Executive Branch offices and agencies are free to
ignore those laws as they choose, that itself is definite proof that they are bound to those executive orders in
every way.
The truth is that the OLC ignores the legally-recognized fact of implicit provisions within the Constitution--that
numerous aspects of American law necessarily are true, even if they are not directly stated.
For instance, it has been recognized that there is no constitutionally-stated balance of power between the
three branches of the U.S. Government. But the very fact that there are three branches of government with
stated separate powers--and that each possesses stated powers of oversight over the other two--necessarily
ensures that a balance of power exists within the American Government, even if the Constitution never
expressly states it.
In the same way, it's clear that the Bush Administration is every bit as bound to expressed American law as the
rest of us. This simply is because any person or group who claims to be above the law claims the "right" of the
tyrant.
It does not need to be stated in the U.S. Constitution that this is a nation of laws and not of tyrants.
The Federation of American Scientists (FAS)--a government secrecy watchdog group--filed a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) calling on the OLC to release to the public its opinion on executive orders. That
reasonable request was flatly denied.
"We are withholding the document in full because it is classified and thus exempt under Exemption 1 of the
FOIA," the OLC claimed to FAS.
But more people are calling such undue secrecy a danger to America.
"Too many Bush OLC memos remain secret, with only a handful of administration officials being privy to their
conclusions," stated a March Washington Post editorial.
"During the Bush administration," the Post editorial continued, "the OLC has become known as a partisan
enabler of legally and ethically questionable presidential policies, including those involving the use of torture."
The Bush boys insist that such secrecy makes Americans secure--but free people are never secure when their
government hides what it is doing in the "name of the people."
History reveals that when any government engages in secrets, the difference between knowledge and
ignorance is the difference between master and slave.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!