Orin points me to today's editorial, which says (among other things) that "The ruling eviscerated the absurd notion on which the administration's arguments have been based: that Congress authorized Mr. Bush to do whatever he thinks is necessary when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan," and refers to the "careful, thoroughly grounded opinion." Whatever the merits of the Times' substantive arguments, it seems to me hard to justify calling the opinion "careful" and "thoroughly grounded," for the reasons various people (including Jack Balkin, Orin, and me, see the posts below) have noted.
UPDATE: Commenter Kazinski rightly points out another problem in the Times editorial. The editorial says:
The ruling eviscerated the absurd notion on which the administration's arguments have been based: that Congress authorized Mr. Bush to do whatever he thinks is necessary when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan.Is that quite a fair way of characterizing the AUMF, which hardly limits itself to Afghanistan, but instead says the following?
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it [r]esolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, ...
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons....
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- NY Times article on NSA wiretapping quotes bloggers.--
- Should We Care About The Reasoning In Judge Taylor's Opinion? :
- Hardly a "Hard-Left" Position:
- The New York Times Praises the NSA Eavesdropping Decision:
- Washington Post Editorial on the NSA Eavesdropping Decision:...
- The NSA Eavesdropping Opinion and the First Amendment:
- The NSA Eavesdropping Opinion and the Fourth Amendment:
- Federal District Court Decision Striking Down NSA Eavesdropping Program,