A small editorial about recent events.

[Steven M. Bellovin]

In message <87wti2szpd.fsf at snark.piermont.com>, "Perry E. Metzger" writes:
>I have been unable to find any evidence in the text of said
>resolutions that they in any way altered or amended the law on this,
>even temporarily.  Perhaps it is the argument of the President's
>lawyers that something analogous to a state of war was authorized, but
>the fact that there is a time limit even when an explicit declaration
>of war exists leads me to disbelieve such arguments on their face.
>

The resolution very clearly did not change the text of the law.  As you 
noted, it's easy to verify that.

There's ample legal precedent that says that a president can't just 
ignore a law he doesn't like.  One case that comes to mind is the 
Youngstown steel seizure case.  Truman nationalized the steel companies 
to head off a threatened strike.  There was a law on the books that 
would have let him stop the strike.  For political reasons -- the 
Taft-Hartley Act was passed over his veto -- he didn't want to use it.  
The Supreme Court didn't buy it, even though the U.S. was at war 
(Korea) and steel is obviously a vital war material.  

There's a good summary of the case, including most of the Court's 
opinion at http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/59.htm
-- ironically enough, a State Department web site where their own 
commentary says


	From a constitutional standpoint, Youngstown remains one
	of the "great" modern cases, in that it helped to redress
	the balance of power among the three branches of government,
	a balance that had been severely distorted by ... the
	subsequent postwar search for global security.

The Court reject Truman's contention that he had the power as head of the
military:

	we cannot with faithfulness to our constitutional system hold
	that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate
	power ... This is a job for the Nation's lawmakers, not for its
	military authorities.

The Court also noted that "Congress rejected an amendment which would
have authorized such governmental seizures in cases of emergency."
Given that the Patriot Act did amend various aspects of the wiretap
statute, it's hard to understand how the administration's reading is
justified in any way, shape, or form.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com