jurisprudence
columns
- Bad Cop
Why Obama is getting criminal justice policy wrong.
Radley Balko
posted Oct. 6, 2008 - Ten To Toss
Readers nominate the 10th Bush order that the next president should scrap.
Emily Bazelon
posted Oct. 3, 2008 - Where the Trail Leads Next
What does the inspector general's report on U.S. attorney firings really mean for the Justice Department?
Dahlia Lithwick
posted Sept. 29, 2008 - The Downsides of Diversity
What Clarence Thomas might have to say about Sarah Palin.
Dahlia Lithwick
posted Sept. 27, 2008 - All for a Brookstone Massage Chair?
Ted Stevens on trial.
Charles Homans
posted Sept. 26, 2008 - Search for more jurisprudence articles
- Subscribe to the jurisprudence RSS feed
- View our complete jurisprudence archive
Law and OrdersHow should the president's lawyers advise a reluctant White House?
By Dawn JohnsenPosted Friday, June 8, 2007, at 2:55 PM ET
It is not an answer for the White House to assert that the legal checks "worked" in James Comey's case, that the president eventually changed the secret NSA program to comport with the advice of his lawyers. As many as 30 top DoJ officials had to threaten to resign before that happened—and one may have seen his career at DoJ short-circuited over his defiance. Moreover, the program operated illegally for weeks until it was changed. Even today, the public does not know what that original program looked like—what Comey's objections were—but we do know that it must have been extreme, because even as ultimately approved by Comey and others, the NSA program violated the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That's hardly a triumph for the rule of law.
Congress should take the shocking specter of the threatened mass Bush DoJ resignations as a prompt for jump-starting a nonpartisan conversation about how the president's lawyers should safeguard the rule of law. Where is the line that the president should not cross?
A group of former DoJ lawyers has provided a good starting point in developing consensus guidelines based on longstanding bipartisan tradition. (Disclosure: I am a co-author.) These guidelines balance the responsibilities of the president's lawyers to him and his policy agenda with their responsibility to the institution of the presidency and the law itself. Among the best practices: Provide the president with "an accurate and honest appraisal of applicable law, even if that advice will constrain the Administration's pursuit of desired policies"; advice should "reflect all legal constraints, including the constitutional authorities of the coordinate branches of the federal government"; and "on the very rare occasion that the executive branch—usually on the advice of OLC—declines fully to follow a federal statutory requirement, it typically should publicly disclose its justification."
With a handful of admirable exceptions, President Bush's lawyers have failed to live up to these best practices where it has most mattered. They have not provided honest appraisals of the laws relevant to the president's most controversial policies, at least none that have been made public. They have not publicly disclosed executive actions that violate federal statutes, forcing Congress and the public to rely upon leaks for essential information. They have often, in short, behaved as advocates of the president at the expense of the rule of law.
Presidential lapses can be found throughout history, from administrations on both sides of the aisle. The Framers anticipated as much. The objective, going forward, is to deter future lapses from presidents of both parties. And that deterrence rests on the quality of the advice obtained from presidential lawyers. If these lawyers are urged to tell the president only half the story, if they are punished for saying that a proposed program would be illegal, and if they are forced to resort to threats of en masse resignations in order to stop unlawful governmental actions, our very constitutional democracy is in peril. If the president creates such a culture of disdain for the rule of law, Congress must step in.
feedback | about us | help | advertise | newsletters | mobile
User Agreement and Privacy Policy | All rights reserved
- Today's Headlines
- Historical Archives: Opera Lyrics Blamed For Recent Spate Of Regicides
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0400 - Historical Archives: M. Webster's New "Dictionary" Shall Burden Us With A Tyranny Of Words
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:16:40 -0400 - Historical Archives: Benedict Arnold Is A Modern Day's Anthony Babington
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:33:20 -0400 - » More from the Onion
Marcus | Forget Biden. I'd like to see McCain face off against Palin.
Toles: Another McCain SurpriseStumped: Where's Palin's Baby?
- Cohen: How an Economic Crisis Is Like a War
- Froomkin: How's Bush? Put a Fork in Him.
- Milbank: A House Divided Along Twisted Lines
- Robinson: Ugly Politics at Justice | Q&A
- Today's Headlines
- The Candidates' Own Questionable Housing Deals
Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:40:05 GMT - Moral Questions for the Presidential Candidates
Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:44:27 GMT - How to Protect Yourself Financially--At Any Age
Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:46:57 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- I Felt Something
Tue, 7 October 2008 2:43:10 GMT - The MILFy Way
Tue, 7 October 2008 1:43:56 GMT - So Long, O.J.
Mon, 6 October 2008 3:05:47 GMT - » More from The Root

jurisprudence













