The Prez Has the Right to Do Civil Disobedience!
Posted by dlw in Uncategorized at 12:18 am | 
Permanent Link
Just like the rest of us, only at a much greater scale and subject to the judgment of the public.
Josh Marshall describes Thomas Jefferson’s implicit appeal to civil disobedience in his justification of his own use of the presidential powers to go against the Constitution.
It is not that the president is above the law or that he can set aside laws, it is that the president may have a moral authority or obligation to break the law in the interests of the Republic itself — subject to submitting himself for punishment for breaking its laws, even in its own defense. Jefferson’s argument was very much one of executive self-sacrifice rather than prerogative.
The long and short of it is that the prez has no right to conceal his violations of the law from the public or to berate the press for revealing them to the public or to claim that he must be, because we’re at war, above censure for his actions. However, it is up to us to decide how serious the actions of not getting approval for wiretapping were and what the appropriate punishment should be. And the fact of the matter is that we really can’t do that, as of yet, without more information.
dlw
The 21st of December, 2005 at 9:14 am
Unfortunately, we probably won’t get any more information. I’m sure the President will cry “Executive Privilege” and “National Security” when Congress begins asking for information about who was spyed upon and what was the result. All the evidence is going to be classified.
The 21st of December, 2005 at 1:11 pm
I’ve read some recent articles on the judge that resigned that hinted at the real underlying issues for why they chose not to seek approval.
dlw
The 29th of December, 2005 at 5:02 pm
I cannot consider civil disobedience to fall in the perview of a public official using their position to keep their actions in the dark. Civil disobedience involves a public act to challenge a legal order that subverts justice. I don’t think that because we “lack details” that we have to suspend judgment about Bush Jr.’s actions; he’s been all about keeping truth from the public, period.
The 30th of December, 2005 at 2:02 pm
I agree that not going through the proper channels in getting approval for wire taps is not civil disobedience.
I think the details matter in terms of the seriousness of the violation and what it’s rightful punishment ought to be. I’d like to see Bush out of office very much, but I don’t want jump to conlusions about whether that can be justified based on the wire-tapping fiasco.
dlw