英语论文网

tapping. In a 2005 speech in Baltimore, President Bush admitted, 'law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, or to track his calls, or to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of the tools we're talking about.'[24]Even though George W. Bush was aware of the restrictions of the FISA law, he continued to take actions that disregard it.

Numerous groups such as the CATO Institute have spoken out against President Bush’s apparent violation of FISA. CATO states that “warrantless surveillance of Americans inside the United States, who may have nothing to do with al-Qaeda, does not qualify as incidental wartime authority. The president's war powers are broad, but not boundless. Indeed, the war powers of Congress, not the president, are those that are constitutionalized with greater specificity.”[25]

Chairman of CATO Robert Levy argues that the president “has considerable, although not plenary, inherent authority under the commander-in-chief power when Congress has approved, or even perhaps when Congress has been silent. But when Congress exercises its own powers and expressly prohibits what the president would like to undertake, the president's power is limited.”[26]Levy continues that “because Article I, section 8, of the Constitution expressly authorizes Congress to ‘make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper' for executing not only its own powers, but also 'all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.’ So the Constitution explicitly provides that the President's inherent authority under Article II is subject to regulation by Congress.”[27]In each circumstance of an alleged executive wartime power; ordering detention by the armed forces, the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, and the use of domestic warrantless electronic surveillance, the main issue is the encroachment of executive power into traditional congressional control. It would be beneficial to understand the constitutional responsibilities of the branches, in balancing each other’s power.

Perhaps the most persuasive argument that Bill H.R 104 must pass is that it is Congress’s constitutional duty to protect and support the Constitution of the United States. Both the President of the United States and the several members of Congress are required by law to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The President is bound by the Oath of Office that he 'solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of my ability; preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'[28] The several members of Congress are also bound by an Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.[29]

The constitution also demands that “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United S