NYT Op-Ed: Mukasey Must Retract Statement Giving Bush Authority To Break Federal Law

New York Times:

AT his confirmation hearings last week, Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush's nominee for attorney general, was asked whether the president is required to obey federal statutes. Judge Mukasey replied, "That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country."

I practiced before Judge Mukasey when I was an assistant United States attorney, and I saw his fairness, conscientiousness and legal acumen. But before voting to confirm him as the nation's chief law enforcement officer, the Senate should demand that he retract this statement. It is a dangerous confusion and distortion of the single most fundamental principle of the Constitution -- that everyone, including the president, is subject to the rule of law.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[SaintN]

09:22 PM on 10/24/2007

Look at it this way: Only a sleazy,double dealing whore would willing take a job or an appointment from either Bush or Cheney!

[CaptainObvious]

05:03 PM on 10/23/2007

"It is true that a president may in rare cases disregard a federal statute — but only when Congress has acted outside its authority by passing a statute that is unconstitutional. (Who gets the last word on whether a statute is unconstitutional is something Americans have long debated and probably will always debate.)"

The author purports to defend the rule of law, but he obviously doesn't understand how our government is supposed to work? Ok - since there seems to be some confusion on this, let me explain.

Once the congress has passed a law in both houses, and the sitting president has signed it into law, EVERYONE - INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE BOUND BY THAT LAW.

If the sitting president does not like the law, or feels it is unconstitutional, he may veto the proposed law. At this point, congress my override the president's veto by a supermajority vote.

If the congress passes the law over the president's veto, or for whatever reason the president still feels that the law is unconstitutional, he pleads his case before the supreme court. BUT HE STILL IS BOUND BY THE LAW IN THE MEANTIME.

Suppose the supreme court does find the law is in fact Constitutional. The president would be in violation of the law if he were to ignore it in the interim.

[mamacat]

04:53 PM on 10/23/2007

As has been said by others, this man deserves, and needs, to be blocked from confirmation. The attorney general of the United States should be convinced, down to his soul, that preserving democracy is more important than expanding the powers of the president.
Since he has already made his convictions clear on this subject, it is time for the President to look under a rock for another worm to be rejected. If this president is unwilling to nominate someone who believes in the rule of law over the rule of the president, then we would be better off with leaving the office of AG empty until we get a pres who is willing to submit someone for confirmation who is qualified.

[PollM]

03:10 PM on 10/23/2007

.
I don't see any difference between Gonzo the Bozo and Mukasy, their policies are the same. What in the world are we doing even contemplating the thought of confirming him.

In your opinion should Michael Mukase be confirmed by the Senate as Attorney General? ----> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=713.

[scooperss]

02:52 PM on 10/23/2007

Yes sirree you didn't answer the question right the first time so it should be wiped out so you can give the answer that will help you get nominated.

SHEEEEEESH

[gevan]

02:03 PM on 10/23/2007

One might ask Mr. Mukasey which has precedence: the statute or the President's signing statement?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12:28 PM on 10/23/2007

A retraction?

For what?

A way to give Senators a way to vote for him when he has already expressed his views as to whether any law can confine Bush?

The Senators don't need to hear a retraction. They need to block him.

[fourex]

11:53 AM on 10/23/2007

He actually said that GW Bush could be outside or above the law if the law interfered with Bush's policies.

[NYC07]

11:38 AM on 10/23/2007

It's amazing that the Monarchy the Founding Fathers fought so hard to prevent by creating 3 branches of government is being created right before our very eyes by the spineless and duplicitious legislative and judicial branches.

[sugarmoes]

11:27 AM on 10/23/2007

b-b-but bush is the king/fuhrer. the king/fuhrer has divine right to do whatever the hell he damn well pleases. god said so!