In a national emergency, the president should be able to obtain extraordinary permission from the Supreme Court to “temporarily” circumvent a law.
However, should Congress elect Federal Judges who have top-security clearance and grant them unrestricted access to all the president’s communications to warn the president that something he (or she) is planning to do is not constitutional?
These special judges would listen in-person to everything the president says in the performance of his (or her) duties, and to everything others tell the president officially; they would also review all the president’s documents. To eliminate error or controversy, government technicians would record all the president’s official communications and save them in secret databases.
If the president executes an unconstitutional action, the judges would report it to Congress and the Supreme Court, and both would listen behind closed doors to the classified recordings made on specific days.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
That sounds like a good Idea!
I think so because I don’t want a corrupted president demanding what he/she wants and being greedy.
No. There is already congressional oversight on decisions, and since congress creates the laws, that should be sufficient.
The president appoints federal judges – congress approves or rejects them. If it can be proved that the president has violated the law, he can be impeached and then if convicted, will be removed from office. If you bother reading the constitution, and trying to understand it, that is how our system works.
There have been no such proceedings against this president, as he has not broken any laws, and all the whining and gnashing of teeth by liberal pukes is not anywhere close to the evidence necessary to bring a conviction. You have a great president right now with George Bush – be thankful for him and shut your mouth.
Absolutely not. First of all, that would be far too much power for the judiciary to have. No one branch is to have peremptory oversight over the other. Second of all, judges might easily see things differently. Some judges think that not Mirandizing a suspect is constitutional while others don’t. You might easily run into a problem where the justices overseeing the President disagree and then you have gridlock – like we need more of those in our government. Also, just because those overseers say it’s constitutional or not doesn’t mean the SCOTUS will agree, so they’re a moot entity. Finally, the President has a chief legal counsel who advises him whether or not something is constitutional – don’t you remember Alberto Gonzalez claiming that torture was constitutional? You say that the judges would report the Prez if he executes an unconstitutional action, but who’s to say they’re right? It must be left to the SCOTUS.
My biggest point is saved for here though: you cannot politicize the judiciary.
It is far too unwieldy. So, no.
No, the Whitehouse has council available AND the US Attorney General. Then there is always Congress who is responsible for oversight.
If you would watch what Congress does with your dollar as close as you are watching every move THIS president makes. We wouldn’t have a deficit!
If it don`t cost Tax payers . SURE!!!!! yeah right
in the imfomus words of stone cold steve austin ol hell yeah
yes
Bush has done screwed us over too much so YES!!!!!!
Yes. That idea has my vote.
That my friend is in place. Not to worry. The problem is who is watching the fall guy if something goes down.
Why bother. Do you mean monitor Bush? Most of them selected him for his current position and he appointed a couple of the new ones. What would be the point?