Bush Take On ‘State Secrets’ UNconstitutional, Says Law Expert

The ‘Constitution clearly depends on…the system of checks and balances to safeguard national security,’ Louis Fisher declares. Bush Take On ‘State Secrets’ Unconstitutional, Says Law ExpertBy Cliff Montgomery – Apr. 16th, 2008In a March 31st, 2008, letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Attorney General Michael Mukasey stated great Bush Administration opposition to a current bill that would create greater oversight of the so-called “state secrets privilege” often claimed by the White House in civil litigation.Mukasey claimed in his letter that if the proposed “State Secrets Protection Act” becomes law, it “would needlessly and improperly interfere with the appropriate constitutional role of both the Judicial and Executive branches in state secrets cases; would alter decades of settled case law; and would likely result in the harmful disclosure of national security information that would not be disclosed under current doctrine.”The basis for Mukasey’s tortured logic is the simple logical fallacy of the Circular Argument: The White House is the only entity capable of deciding what the people know, because the White House is the only entity capable of deciding what the people know.Besides that fallacy, the asinine notion that George W. Bush is better able to understand and protect information than experienced federal judges with valid security clearances, is so insulting to both the Judiciary Branch of government and simple common sense that it is not worth further consideration.Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), one of the original sponsors of this bill, wasn’t having any of  this nonsense. Kennedy called for Mukasey’s criticisms to be reviewed by Louis Fisher, the renowned expert of constitutional law at the Law Library of Congress.Fisher soon tore Mukasey’s weak sophisms to shreds.”According to Attorney General Mukasey, Presidents are entitled to unilaterally define the scope of their powers under Article II [of the U.S. Constitution], and no other branch has any authority to impose limitations,” Dr. Fisher replied in his own letter to the Senate panel.”The Constitution has been interpreted in that manner at times by some Presidents, but never successfully. Such a reading would eliminate the checks and balances that are fundamental to the U.S. Constitution.”Nothing in the Constitution or in the Framers’ intent gives the executive branch any plenary authority over national security,” Dr. Fisher continued.”The design of the Constitution clearly depends on all three branches and the system of checksand balances to safeguard national security,” he emphatically added.But will Congress eventually pass the “State Secrets Protection Act”, and begin to restore some semblance of democracy to America? Only time will answer that question.Like what you’re reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of thee-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!