Did Bush Repeal the Fifth Amendment?

Remarks from the Fray:

We are all excited about these Presidential Orders now, but a couple of years from now they will seem routine, and nothing to worry about.

At least, this has been the case with many other laws that have chipped away at what were once considered constitutional "rights".

For instance, we have the law that the government can seize you property if it deems it was used in illegal drug activity. But, it does not have to prove in court that you were involved, or even that illegal drug activity took place. This law, which was once controversial, is now routinely applied, extending, in effect, the meaning of "due process" to penalization without trial.

Other examples include the gutting of any meaningful requirement for searches, and arbitrary traffic stops, without cause, for alcohol testing. Again, at the time, these were considered controversial and dubious, but now they are widely defended as good and necessary.

And, of course, we have the Patriot Act, also once controversial but, like earlier laws, gradually slipping into the business-as-usual category.

Most recently, just last week in fact, we have a law that allows warrantless wiretaps if the communication can reasonably be determined (by the Administration, I suppose) to have an overseas component. However, as the Administration itself has pointed out, with modern communications technology virtually any call could be routed overseas before reaching its destination in the US. Therefore, virtually all calls will fall within this rule, even domestic-domestic ones. Also, the law no longer requires any connection to terrorism. Presto! No need to get warrants for any wiretap for any purpose! It seems shocking now--actually, it does not; there has been virtually no outcry over this. (Remember, you first read this penetrating analysis here!)

Thus does "due process" get defined down, indeed, defined away.

And, remember, Bush got elected, twice, and the elimination of wiretap warrants was a bipartisan effort.

--lloyd667

(To reply, click here.)

Ok, I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar, but my understanding of executive orders is they are just directions that the president gives to the executive branch. It doesn't mean it's ok. If they actually carry it out, it can be contested in court, and only the most corrupt of courts could rule this order is legal.

This is similar to the president's signing statements - he does it, but they haven't been challenged yet because the administration has yet to implement one of those statements. The idea that the president can just create laws by attaching a statement to a bill that has passed is ludicrous, it basically means that are bills that are passed by congress are blank sheets of paper for the president to make up whatever law he wants.

--kgsbca

(To reply, click here.)

(8/8)

• Dan Froomkin: What White House Staffers Make
• David Ignatius: Middle East Peace for Dummies
• Robert Novak: Scandal at the Pentagon
• Dana Milbank: Sorry We Asked, Sorry You Told