Charles Krauthammer's Future Columns...

The New York Times has Times-Select, which grants you access to its op-ed columnists. The Washington Post has Post-Future-Select, which grants you access to its op-ed columnists future writings. Here we have Charles Krauthammer's column from March 23, 2008, with some strange parallels to his column of December 23, 2005:

TERM LIMITS NONSENSE: By Charles Krauthammer: March 23, 2008: The past seven years have already been the age of the demagogue, having been dominated by the endlessly echoed falsehoods that the president has "violated the Constitution." But today brings yet another round of demagoguery. Administration critics, political and media, charge that by running for a third term, the president has so trampled the Constitution that impeachment should now be considered. (Barbara Boxer, Jonathan Alter, John Dean and various luminaries of the left have already begun floating the idea.) The braying herds have already concluded, Tenet-, Powell-, Hegel-, Sununu-, and Kerry-like, that the president's running for a third term is slam-dunk illegal and unconstitutional. It takes a superior mix of partisanship, animus and ignorance to say that.

Is the president constitutionally prohibited from running for a third term? Law professor Alberto Gonzales (one critic calls him the man who "literally wrote the book on today's legal struggles") finds "pretty decent arguments" on both sides, but his own conclusion is that Bush's actions are "probably constitutional." It is true that Congress and the States tried to restrict the ability of presidents to run for a third term with the Twenty-Second amendment but, as Attorney General Harriet Miers wrote, "No president has denied that he retained inherent power to run for a third term and, if elected, to reassume office" if the dire necessity of war demanded it. It is true that no president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has chosen, so far, to run for a third term. But can it possibly be the case that in these perilous times a president has less power than FDR did? And the unwritten prohibition that Roosevelt broke in deciding to run for a third term because of the necessity of World War II was a stronger law--hallowed by the example of Washington, Jackson, and Lincoln--than a dubious amendment that has never been tested.

President Bush's circumvention of the so-called Twenty-Second Amendment is a classic separation-of-powers dispute in the area in which these powers are most in dispute. For the past four decades, presidents have adhered to the Twenty-Second Amendment for reasons of prudence, to avoid a constitutional fight with Congress, and because the times were not so dire as to require, say, a third term for Ronald Reagan. The fact that past presidents have acquiesced in the Twenty-Second Amendment in no way binds future executives to obey its silly restrictions, so dangerous to our country in circumstances like these.

Attorney General Harriet Miers argues that Bush's use of presidential necessity to override the so-called Twenty-Second Amendment with its illegal and unconstitutional restrictions on presidential terms is firmly established by Justice Yoo's decision in Kollar-Kotelly v. NSA. In that opinion, John Yoo deemed legal the NSA "vacuum cleaner" scanning of all electronic communications whatsoever, and allowed the transfer of Judge Kollar-Kotelly to Guantanamo to be held as an "enemy combatant." "The Fourth Amendment cannot stand against the necessities of wartime," Justice Yoo wrote, "and who is a more effective combatant for the enemy than one who tries to hobble America's ability to kill terrorists through pointless legalisms?" It follows logically that the Twenty-Second Amendment cannot stand either if necessity is opposed--and who can doubt that it is, that only George W. Bush is it to helm the ship of state?

This is a war, dammit!

Comments

[BC]

Four more years!

[christo]

Permanent committee for the re-election of the president. I'll put up my bank account routing instructions in a minute to collect your patriotic contributions. And say an extra prayer this weekend for our President who talks to Jesus.

[Bruce Moomaw]

The real goody in Krauthammer's column is the following passages:

"In 1972 the Supreme Court required the president to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on domestic groups but specifically declined to apply this requirement to snooping on foreign agents. Four appeals courts have since upheld presidential authority for such warrantless searches. Not surprisingly, the executive branch has agreed... [T]he distinguished liberal law professor Cass Sunstein finds it 'entirely plausible' (so long as the wiretapping is limited to those reasonably believed to be associated with al Qaeda). Sunstein maintains that 'surveillance, including wiretapping, is reasonably believed to bean incident of the use of force' that 'standardly occurs during war.' "

To quote the whole passage from Sunstein (
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/12/presidential_wi.ht ml ):

"The reason is that surveillance, including wiretapping, is reasonably believed to be an incident of the use of force. It standardly occurs during war. If the President's wiretapping has been limited to those reasonably believed to be associated with Al Qaeda and its affiliates -- as indeed he has said -- then the Attorney General's argument is entirely plausible. (The AUMF [Congress' 2001 Authorization of Military Force] would not permit wiretapping of those without any connection to nations, organizations, and persons associated with the September 11 attacks.)"

The obvious question is: who the hell decides whether the people being wiretapped actually have "any connection", rationally speaking, to nations, organizations, or persons associated with 9-11? The President, entirely by himself? This President? President Nixon? That, of course, is what the entire fuss has been about from the very beginning, and that is the only reason why FISA was created in the first place.

And no sooner had I sent out the above message on E-mail than William Arkin published the following piece of absolute dynamite on the subject in tonight's Washington Post: http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/12/the_pentagon_br.html

[Fred Heutte]

Nice one. Would you care to provide the Future-Select version of Alan Greenspan's farewell column six weeks from now of why the inverted yield curve doesn't mean an oncoming recession is his retirement gift to the world? (2-year T-note at 4.39, 5-year at 4.37, http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html). Oncoming recession . . . oops, not supposed to say that in an election year. "'A flattening of the yield curve stemming from this factor could be an indicator of an easing in financial conditions that would stimulate future economic activity,' Mr. Greenspan wrote recently."

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/opinion/23fri1.html?ex=1292994000&en=58967fb57f7405d5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

December 23, 2005

Mr. Cheney's Imperial Presidency

George W. Bush has quipped several times during his political career that it would be so much easier to govern in a dictatorship. Apparently he never told his vice president that this was a joke.

Virtually from the time he chose himself to be Mr. Bush's running mate in 2000, Dick Cheney has spearheaded an extraordinary expansion of the powers of the presidency - from writing energy policy behind closed doors with oil executives to abrogating longstanding treaties and using the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to invade Iraq, scrap the Geneva Conventions and spy on American citizens.

It was a chance Mr. Cheney seems to have been dreaming about for decades. Most Americans looked at wrenching events like the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal and the Iran-contra debacle and worried that the presidency had become too powerful, secretive and dismissive. Mr. Cheney looked at the same events and fretted that the presidency was not powerful enough, and too vulnerable to inspection and calls for accountability.

The president "needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy," Mr. Cheney said this week as he tried to stifle the outcry over a domestic spying program that Mr. Bush authorized after the 9/11 attacks.

Before 9/11, Mr. Cheney was trying to undermine the institutional and legal structure of multilateral foreign policy: he championed the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Moscow in order to build an antimissile shield that doesn't work but makes military contactors rich....

[Walt Pohl]

That was genius, Brad.

[P O'Neill]

Future Krauthammer also says:

"White House Counsel John Hinderaker has conclusively demonstrated that, since there has never been a legal challenge to a President's decision to run for a third term, there is no controlling legal authority in this area."

[tom f]

Why should we only have carefully-reasoned perspectives free from partisan tempers only on the Washington Post's op-ed pages? Why not the wire services for instance?

NYTimes, 12/23/05
"Daschle Says Congress Did Not Approve Spying Authority"-AP
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Domestic-Spying.html

the story in 4 sentences:

1)"In an article printed Friday on the op-ed page of The Washington Post, Daschle also wrote that Congress explicitly denied a White House request for war-making authority in the United States."

2)"The administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress late Thursday, saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored."

3)" 'This is one where I think if anyone says it's a crystal-clear issue one way or another, that is the only position I regard as wrong,' [former CIA director James] Woolsey said."

4)"[Bush's Assistant Attorney General William] Moschella said Bush's action was legal because the foreign intelligence law provides a 'broad' exception if the spying is authorized by another statute [the Sept. 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force]."

See? Balance, fair-mindedness. 3 sources: an ex-Senate leader, a current Asst. Attorney General, and a dispassionate former CIA official. The NSA program is legal either because of the 2001 AUMF or the inherent power in the executive (Woolsey's formulation for this story). You might disagree, but all right-thinking people agree the issue isn't clear-cut.

[Samuel Knight]

This was also another example of the NY Times just being clueless. In the Sunday Times, two Sundays ago, they ran an article saying how much Krauthammer was a respected crumudgeon.

And that people in Washington were always fascinated in which way he would go on certain issues.

Unbelievable. Who cares what a contrarian neo-con thinks? Who exactly in Washington was so fascinated? Particularly when he has really no specialty in any of the stuff.

Why the Times wasted the ink is a mystery.

[Jay Severin has a small Pen1s]

You forgot the most persuasive part of the arguement.

Bill Clinton wanted to do it, the RNC says.

[Derelict]

This would be funny were it not for the fact that so many (including, perhaps, KrapHammer himself) would eagerly advance exactly such arguments. To these people, the Constitution is "quaint" and "outmoded," and perhaps even a Communist-inspired document.

As one of my Republican friends put it, only liberals think the Constitution has anything to do with either freedom or America.

[Howard]

Samuel, actually, the ny times called krauthammer a respected "public intellectual." it was an amazing sight....

and if Woolsey thinks it's not crystal clear, then we're home free: it's crystal clear all right. we've got a constitutional crisis and the thugs and enablers and scum all simply want to close their eyes.

[Hedley Lamarr]

And, in 2008, it was Alito who tipped the Court to Bush's running for a third time.

[Greg]

Lincoln as an example of the two-term convention? I don't know whether that's Brad's mistake or "Krauthammer's", but it's funny nonetheless.

[catchy]

not to mention Krauthammer selectively quoted conservative legal scholar Orin Kerr who's analysis was that Bush's actions "probably" weren't unconstitutional, but *were* probably illegal (violated FISA).

Delong followed up by a BC comment! hysterical duo!

[BillCross]

If this were attempted wouldn't the dems bring Bill Clinton out of retirement. it would be interesting to see how the SCOTUS could rationalize not allowing Clinton to run while allowing Bush to run.

[jon livesey]

Any news about who he's running against in 2008? I need to start thinking my "Bush rather than who?" internal dialogue in good time.

[tom f]

Any news about who he's running against in 2008?

the terrorists that Hillary refuses to protect the American people from.

[Joel Barciauskas]

Does it occur to anyone else that if Bush were somehow able to run for a third term, the bigger question would be, what level of dementia in the American psyche, what level of self-abuse and battered-wife syndrome, would cause us to have to take his candidacy seriously (i.e. would result in his poll numbers making him a viable candidate)?

[ricky]

It's funny, but I'd give about anything to see Chimpy and his insane clown posse throw out the 22nd Amendment.

I mean, John Kerry, with about zero charisma looked like freaking Cary Grant debating the jibbering, sweaty, stutter Monkey.

Can you picture Incurious George debating Bill Clinton???

I can. It's a little day dream I have, from time to time...

[Dan Nexon]

You forgot to psychoanalyze the various dysfunctions and pathologies of the President's critics. In all other respects, this definitely reads like a Krauthammer piece.

[Satan luvvs Repugs]

Oh, come on. You know that the actual argument will be that GWB's first term didn't count.

Why? because Gore actually won. As for all the appointments Bush made? Well, it was really the Senate confirmation that counted, so it didn't matter that GWB wasn't really president then. He didn't veto any bills, and if they weren't legitimately signed they become law in a week or so anyway. Oh, and those "executive orders"? They were just advisory, not "official".

Either that, or he'll change his name to "George Wingnut Bush", and claim that the term limits apply to this other "George Walker Bush" fellow, not him. Crazy? Sure. But look at Cheney's Texas/Wyoming residence, and the requirements of the 12th amendment.