Comments on: Obama’s Use of State Secrets Is More of the Same http://demockracy.com/obamas-use-of-state-secrets-is-more-of-the-same/ Fri, 06 Jan 2012 08:23:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Kevin Van Dyke, Editor http://demockracy.com/obamas-use-of-state-secrets-is-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-689 Kevin Van Dyke, Editor Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:45:33 +0000 http://demockracy.com/?p=4002#comment-689 Good analysis, Mark. I must admit that this news is not too surprising to me. Just as every Congressman who runs on terms limits changes his or her mind, Presidents will change their tune when they start getting their daily national security briefings. I'm not saying that this is the right decision, but simply that it is not surprising. Seeing the threats out there, one would not want to limit one's powers based on a priori campaign trail judgment. In addition, just because he asserts this right doesn't mean he will carry out an extreme approach, but rather he reserves that right in a worst-case scenario. I agree completely that it is not a correct interpretation of the constitution, but that rarely gets in the way of Presidents or even the Supreme Court on occasion (right to privacy = abortion, right to free speech = campaign donations, some good, some bad, etc.). Good analysis, Mark. I must admit that this news is not too surprising to me. Just as every Congressman who runs on terms limits changes his or her mind, Presidents will change their tune when they start getting their daily national security briefings. I’m not saying that this is the right decision, but simply that it is not surprising. Seeing the threats out there, one would not want to limit one’s powers based on a priori campaign trail judgment. In addition, just because he asserts this right doesn’t mean he will carry out an extreme approach, but rather he reserves that right in a worst-case scenario. I agree completely that it is not a correct interpretation of the constitution, but that rarely gets in the way of Presidents or even the Supreme Court on occasion (right to privacy = abortion, right to free speech = campaign donations, some good, some bad, etc.).

]]> By: Mark Wilson, Editor http://demockracy.com/obamas-use-of-state-secrets-is-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-653 Mark Wilson, Editor Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:03:18 +0000 http://demockracy.com/?p=4002#comment-653 I don't think so. There's already legislation pending in Congress to define what is and is not a "state secret." <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.417:" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">S. 417, the State Secrets Protection Act</a>, explicitly states that it is federal courts that will determine what constitutes a "state secret." The issue could be -- and should be -- handled legislatively. The courts would not be the appropriate place to define a lasting standard of "state secrets." Precedents can be overruled by future courts; legislation must be repealed by future legislators, which is a much more difficult process. Besides, there's always the chance that the U.S. Supreme Court will <i>affirm</i> the Obama/Bush administration's stance on the issue. I don’t think so. There’s already legislation pending in Congress to define what is and is not a “state secret.” S. 417, the State Secrets Protection Act, explicitly states that it is federal courts that will determine what constitutes a “state secret.”

The issue could be — and should be — handled legislatively. The courts would not be the appropriate place to define a lasting standard of “state secrets.” Precedents can be overruled by future courts; legislation must be repealed by future legislators, which is a much more difficult process. Besides, there’s always the chance that the U.S. Supreme Court will affirm the Obama/Bush administration’s stance on the issue.

]]> By: br3n http://demockracy.com/obamas-use-of-state-secrets-is-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-643 br3n Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:29:52 +0000 http://demockracy.com/?p=4002#comment-643 maybe it is deliberate overreach to set a precedence in the courts? there is nothing in the constitution to support this position that i recall but i am not a lawyer nor historian.just a person hoping for another reason why obama is disappointing us on this. maybe it is deliberate overreach to set a precedence in the courts?
there is nothing in the constitution to support this position that i recall but i am not a lawyer nor historian.just a person hoping for another reason why obama is disappointing us on this.

]]>