Why can the Pres. act above the constitution during war?

Question

I've already heard more than enough people who are against this. I'm curious as to who feels a President can, in war, do whatever it takes to prevent another catastrophe?

specificially, the wire-tapping

Answer 1

He can't and doesn't without the consent of Congress.

Answer 2

Because The Constitution allows the President to do what GWB did. What GWB did wrong and what drives the Liberals nuts is that he didn't do what he had to do. It, in the scheme of things is such a small thing. All he needed to do was have the White House lawyer petition a Federal judge to allow him to install the wire taps. The judge would not have said no under the circumstances but he might have set some restrictions to protect average citizens. So, he in effect broke the law!! I just can't understand why this is so hard to understand. He pledged to uphold the Constitution when he was sworn in as President---on a BIBLE no less. I think that is probably the reason why we Liberals go a little nuts. What part of this can't the religious Conservatives understand?? The Constitution is to protect this country and our leaders. And there are ways for the executive branch to do things within the Constitution.

Answer 3

I'm no constitutional scholar, and it's been too long since I read the Constitution, but I think it says that the President can suspend some civil liberties during a declared war to aid the furthering of that war. I think those liberties include setting curfews, suspending the right to a speedy trial, and the like. This isn't considered acting above the constitution, but just a recognition that during wartime, exceptional circumstances may arise that require a little looser interpretation of certain rights.

Of course, I think the original thought behind it was that the war would be taking place on American soil. and would be against a specific enemy -- not just a rag-tag band of terrorists with no country or validity. So don't let this trick you into giving up your rights just because we're in a "war against terrorism". Give up those right during the current "wartime" and we're unlikely to ever get those rights back.

Answer 4

According to our history, the president hass always gained more power in war time. Mostly because the checks and balances are out of whack at the time. Take 9/11 as a recent example. Right after the president pushed through the Patriot Act. Which has some of the worst infringments on personal rights ever made to law in it. It was passed without a fight from democrats or republicans. Then up till now the Judical branch hasn't done anything against it either.

Take another example. Civil War, our "great" president Lincoln was in office. During the civil war he threw reporters in jail who were writing negative things about him. To my knowlege that infringes on the 1st amendmant. But to get around it at the time congress passed a law saying that the supreme court does not have authority to rule on it because congress decided that they don't have jurastiction over it. The supreme court agreed and threw out the case because, well they said they didn't have jurastiction.

In history the President has always pushed for more power during war time, in peace time his powers always gets limited more. If we are in a war time now or not is a whole other debate...

Answer 5

We have a consititution in place for a reason. These are to protect our rights as American citizens and to make sure the government does not act out of our best interests. Just because it is war time doesn't mean the president gets to do whatever he wants all willy nilly. If we let one president slide than the next one is going to find a reason to not follow it.

Also by disregarding the constitution is a huge insult on our founding fathers and their struggle to start our nation.

Answer 6

I don't feel a President can do anything, but history demonstrates long before Bush that Presidents have expanded their powers during wartime. Lincoln's actions during the Civil War weren't constitutional, yet everyone calls him a hero today because he restored the union.

Answer 7

The President is NOT permnitted to act above the Constitution during ANY time, even times of war.
The President is currently acting using provisions of the War Powers Act which require him to gain the consent of the Congress to send troops into harms way. He is also required to maintain their permission by requesting it every 18 months.
THEREFORE....
Don't let these Democratic leaders BS you into believing anything. THEY MUCT GIVE THE PRESIDENT PERMISSION TO KEEP THE TROOPS THERE, OR THE PRESIDENT MUST BRING THEM HOME... and they are still there. Do the math.
The Democrats are giving him permission, and thenh they scream and holler about it to keep the liberal vote.

Answer 8

The president is the commander and cheif of the military and has ulitmate control. It is not the place of a soldier to question the orders of the President. That is the duty of the people. Congress couldn't pass gas.

Answer 9

the president can do all he can to prevent another catastrophe, but he cannot by law go above the constitution and infringe on his constituents' rights to do so. this is against the constitution and therefore bush is breaking the law.

Answer 10

(1) Who is acting?

(2) Since you offer no specific complaint I have to ask: What do you have against preventing "another catastrophe"?

Answer 11

Yes, his Highness Sir George can of course do all in his power to protect his serviles.