This is such a terrible comment that I flagged it. There is no way to go from what 'twoodfin wrote to "I see you're one of those types that think the president can torture children"; you had to make several assumptive leaps, all hinging on identity politics, in order to make that inflammatory and thoroughly stupid claim.

If you actually read what 'twoodfin wrote without immediately flipping the breaker in your head labeled "David Addington", you'll find you can't even discern his take on executive branch powers. What he's saying is on its face so true as to be banal: Congress cannot in fact pass laws that alter the balance of powers erected in the Constitution.

I don't know how much damage Yoo and Addington's misconceptions about the limits of executive power did to the country. Like you, my guess is "nonzero". But I have a pretty clear read on how damaging comments like yours are to the discourse on this site: immense. Stop it.

Congress has the power to declare war. The constitution says nothing about spying, congress can ban it if it wants to. People such as twoodfin and yourself that claim that the president is unrestrained in these types of issues from any congressional oversight are basing their arguments on the convoluted "unitary executive" Bush-era legal doctrine that claims that once congress authorizes war the president can do anything he wants without any oversight, and they say congress authorized the current war in 2002's AUMF in Iraq.

FYI, you're supposed to flag comments for being spam or offtopic, not because you disagree with them, from the site FAQ: "If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."

Oh, look. Now I support the torture of children too! You're not even reading comments; you're just slinging muck.

You seem to be outraged by the idea that these legal theories lead to the conclusion that the president can torture children. That idea has been discussed in several legal and political circles, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#Regarding_torture_of_d...

No, I'm reacting to the fact that you didn't even read my comment, but instead assumed that anyone who would take issue with the way you constructed an argument must believe in Yoo and Addington's interpretation of the Constitution. Just stop digging.

twodfin said about spying: "The President has no obligation to obey laws that impinge on his Constitutional authority." Congress passed FISA to restrain president Nixon's abuses. The statement that the president can ignore those laws doesn't make sense unless you believe the President can not be restrained because he is using his "commander in chief" powers in a war time situation.

You repeated the same idea, again with regard to spying: "Congress cannot in fact pass laws that alter the balance of powers erected in the Constitution."

Maybe you guys aren't coming up with these assertions based on John Yoo's theories, if so I apologize for lumping you together, but it sounds like the same ideas to me: that congress can't restrain the president at this point because we're at war. If it's another legal theory let me know.

> Just stop digging.

What is it about my comments that is so beyond the pale to you?

Whether we're at war or not has nothing to do with it (except insofar as you take the Bush Administration's argument that AUMF implicitly granted wide-ranging foreign espionage authorization under FISA). As tptacek pointed out, my argument is fairly banal and should be uncontroversial: If a law can be interpreted in any way that avoids usurping Executive authority, the Executive can and should interpret it that way. This is not dissimilar from the Judiciary's general practice to read Congressional statutes as constitutional if there's any such plausible reading.

If Congress passed (over a veto) a law tomorrow requiring the President to fire his Secretary of State, that law would be unconstitutional. The President wouldn't need to wait for the Supreme Court to overturn it, he could simply refuse to obey it, and he would be right. That has nothing to do with John Yoo or whether or not we're at war.

(A similar issue actually came up during Reconstruction: The Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional, and Johnson was right to violate it, though it got him impeached.)

You weren't making a generic separation of powers argument, you were referring to the specific case of spying laws: "How much permission from Congress (and oversight by Congress) does the President need to authorize varying degrees of spying?"

I say he needs all permission in the world if congress tells him he can't do it. You seem to know of some constitutional spying power that would allow him to ignore congress. Please inform me what this constitutional clause is.

He's not saying anything like that. You keep doing this: someone makes a technical point about how the Constitution works, and you ask them why they haven't stopped beating their wife yet. Could you please engage with the actual issue?

Again: what do you think happens if Congress passes a bill requiring the President to fire his Secretary of State?

I'm really at a loss, I don't understand why we keep talking past each other. I'm willing to accept that I'm misunderstanding something here but I don't see it.

Yes, congress cannot impinge on the President's constitutional powers, can't force him to fire his Secretary of State. But spying is not a constitutional power, unless you accept the AUMF war-time Commander in Chief argument. Which is what set off my John Yoo detector.

Huh? Where in the Constitution is Congress given authority over "spying"? At all times, not just when authorized to use military force, the executive branch controls the military and governs foreign affairs. Your comment makes no sense.

Congress makes laws that cover the military, its all checked and balanced. There is no special exempt presidential power defined.