[Davis Democrats] FW: Sac Bee's Great Editorial against Alito

[John Chendo]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Emily Saur <ecesaur at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:14:01 UT
To: "john c. chendo" <jac07 at dcn.org>
Subject: Sac Bee's Great Editorial against Alito



x - close Recent Stories By


Editorial: Constitutional powers hanging in the balance
Alito nomination gives senators a chance to re-assert the rightful role of
Congress

Published 2:15 am PST Sunday, January 15, 2006
Story appeared in Forum section, Page E6
These are tough times for Congress. In recent years, both President Bush and
the Supreme Court have aggressively claimed powers at the expense of the
legislative branch.

The president has asserted "inherent powers" and "exclusive authority"
regardless of laws passed by Congress and language in the U.S. Constitution
- and has used the purported powers as a reason to withhold information and
exclude Congress from decisions. For its part, the Rehnquist Court began
limiting the power of Congress in the "Revolution of 1995" with a series of
5-4 decisions striking down laws passed by Congress.

Now, with Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito for a lifetime appointment to
the Supreme Court, members of the Senate have an opportunity to reclaim
their constitutional role.

Unfortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was a huge
disappointment, groveling obsequiousness on one side and rote responses on
the other. The questioning belies what is at stake. No issue is more
important right now than unfettered presidential power. Senators of both
parties should look at their decision on Alito through that prism.

The fact is, Alito has been in the front lines of a project initiated during
the Reagan presidency, when he was a lawyer in the Office of the Legal
Counsel, that asserts "unitary executive" powers at the expense of Congress
and the courts. The Bush administration has advanced this project,
undermining the system of checks and balances in our republic.

For example, even as he signed an anti-torture amendment, Bush declared the
executive branch will follow the law only where it fits with his notions of
the "unitary executive branch" and "limitations on judicial power." Bush
claims this authority not just with wartime powers, but with all laws.

As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Alito noted
in a 2000 speech that the Supreme Court has not accepted the theory of the
unitary executive, instead balancing interests of Congress and the
president. His own view, however, was that "The president has not just some
executive powers, but the executive power - the whole thing."

Asked directly this week whether the president can ignore or disobey laws
passed by Congress, Alito testified that "the president must take care that
the statutes of the United States that are consistent with the Constitution
are complied with" (emphasis added). This, of course, is the crux.

Bush's has been to sign laws (instead of vetoing them, which is what he
should do if he believes they're unconstitutional) and then to claim an
exclusive power to interpret the Constitution as he sees fit, ignoring
Congress and the courts. Alito's artful response would seem to support that
and is hardly reassuring.

Equally disturbing, Alito seems willing to go further than the current court
in overturning laws passed by Congress. Alito has shown throughout his
career that he has a cramped view of congressional power and an expansive
view of presidential power. That, surely, is a prime reason why Bush
nominated him.

Are members of Congress of both parties going to stand up against this
corrosive agenda? If not now, when?


---
This message was sent from the MoveOn Operation Democracy system.  If you
no longer wish to be a part of this team, please go to:
http://www.moveonpac.org/team/leave.html?id=-3383235-0.24O_WomE1bPRZh9EMYpw&
team_id=1303

------ End of Forwarded Message