The Specter Letter
Has Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter finally reached the end of his rope when it comes to patience with this Administration’s stonewalling? A letter [PDF] he sent to Vice President Cheney yesterday seems to indicate that he’s getting pretty close.
This week, Specter was planning to seek approval from his committee to hold a closed session with telephone industry executives regarding the recent revelation that their companies have provided call data to the federal government. The execs had requested the closed session to avoid being subpoenaed. However, in advance of Tuesday’s 2:30 p.m. committee meeting, Specter writes in his letter to Cheney:
“I was advised yesterday that you had called Republican members of the Judiciary Committee lobbying them to oppose any Judiciary Committee hearing, even a closed one, with the telephone companies. I was further advised that you told these Republican members that the telephone companies had been instructed not to provide any information to the Committee as they were prohibited from disclosing classified information.
I was surprised, to say the least, that you sought to influence, really determine, the action of the Committee without calling me first, or at least calling me at some point. This was especially perplexing since we both attended the Republican Senators caucus lunch yesterday and I walked directly in front of you on at least two occasions enroute from the buffet to my table.”
Specter goes on to note that at a meeting of Republican committee members at 2 p.m. Tuesday, he announced his plan to go ahead with a closed meeting with the telecom execs, with Senator Hatch then “urged” him to delay, “saying he would get Administration support for my bill which he had long supported” (the bill to provide for judicial oversight/sanction of the warrantless eavesdrop program). Specter says that he agreed to this delay, a decision which was not particularly popular with Committee Democrats, who protested Specter’s decision quite vociferously.
The letter continues (and I’m going to quote at length because it’s important):
“It has been my hope that there could be an accommodation between Congress’s Article I authority on oversight and the President’s constitutional authority under Article II. There is no doubt that the NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which sets forth the exclusive procedure for domestric wiretaps which requires the approval of the FISA Court. It may be that the President has inherent authority under Article II to trump that statute but the President does not have a blank check and the determination on whether the President has such Article II powers calls for a balancing test which requires knowing what the surveillance program constitutes.
If an accommodation cannot be reached with the Administration, the Judiciary Committee will consider confronting the issue with subpoenas and enforcement of that compulsory process if it appears that a majority vote will be forthcoming. The Committee would obviously have a much easier time making our case for enforcement of subpoenas against the telephone companies which do not have the plea of executive privilege. That may ultimately be the course of least resistance.
We press this issue in the context of repeated stances by the Administration on expansion of Article II power, frequently at the expense of Congress’s Article I authority. There are the Presidential signing statements where the President seeks to cherry-pick which parts of the statute he will follow. There has been the refusal of the Department of Justice to provide the necessary clearances to permit its Office of Professional Responsibility to determine the propriety of the legal advice given by the Department of Justice on the electronic surveillance program. There is the recent Executive Branch search and seizure of Congressman Jefferson’s office. There are recent and repeated assertions by the Department of Justice that it has the authority to criminally prosecute newspapers and reporters under highly questionable criminal statutes.
All of this is occurring in the context where the Administration is continuing warrantless wiretaps in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and is preventing the Senate Judiciary Committee from carrying out its constitutional responsibility for Congressional oversight on constitutional issues. I am available to work this out with the Administration without the necessity of a constitutional confrontation between Congress and the President.”
This seems to be Specter’s “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take it anymore!” moment. I certainly hope it is. He has been far too patient with this Administration’s stonewalling and back-handed put-offs for way too long. Coming close on the heels of this recent lambasting of a DoJ official by the Judiciary Committee, Specter’s letter may signal a sea change in the way the Commmittee operates from here on out. Let’s hope so.
17 Responses to “The Specter Letter”
At one point I was ecstatic that he blasted the use of signing statements, but then he backed off on investigating them. I’ll believe him when I see action.
The letter reads like a baseball bat to the temple if you take into consideration that it probably only hints at how pissed off Specter really is.
But like JP above, until I see action, it’s all just words.
Yeah, blah, blah, blah. Specter is all talk.
Until Specter retracts his ‘magic bullet theory‘ I’m not too interested in what he has to say.
This, I fear, is a lot of talk designed to position
a politician for reelection. Just the fact that it was made so readily available to the press makes it clear.
JP, Noone – I agree, I hope this is not just talk and I’ll expect action as well.
Brad – That was an awfully long time ago …
J. Dundas – Specter was just reelected in ’04 so he doesn’t have to worry about that again until 2010 … plus he’s just had a rather serious cancer scare so there’s probably little chance he’ll run for another term anyway.
At least Specter is advocating some oversight of the executive branch. Our system of checks and balances has fallen by the wayside since 9/11, with very dangerous consequences. This Congress has negated its oversight duty and basically rolled over and played dead. When they did manage to show some backbone- uniting against torture, Bush negated the move with a signing statement, which he has added to 750 pieces of legislation. Why even have the separation of powers if this is how the federal government functions in reality???
Kim, this isn’t the first time Specter has talked of oversight. The question is whether he follows through this time. This is the strongest statement I have seen from Specter, so I’ll hold some hope that he will follow through in some way. However, if the past tells us anything, this may be all talk and no action.
We need some action here, we need Congressional oversight, so I’ll hope this is a sign that he won’t take it anymore. Just don’t expect me to hold my breath.
He talks big and carries a big stick… made out of nerf foam.
Previous comments stole my thunder.
I loved the letter, but Specter has a well-established record of talking big then folding under the slightest pressure.
Specter’s just trying to find cover, watching Bush descend deeper and deeper into political poison and more and more members of the GOP are having to make tough decisions as to how and when they can distance themselves from him.
I sent a copy of the letter to NPR. We’ll see how much coverage this gets.
Really? Can the Senior Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania cite case law on that?
(insert sound of crickets chirping here)
I thought not.
Specter needs to get his head around the fact that there are three co-equal branches, and if he has a problem with how the Executive conducts itself, then he has the ability to take his concerns to the Judiciary.
IMHO, trying to whipsaw the Executive branch like this is a gross over-reach of the Article II powers granted the Senate onto the Article I powers granted the Executive during time of conflict.
So what you’re saying is Congressional oversight of the Executive branch should not be allowed according to the Constitution? What a unique reading of the Constitution. Seeing as you like to get case law cited even when the letter of the law is clearly violated, could you offer some case law to back up your reading between the lines?
I’ll be waiting…
I’m not saying Specter is a profile in courage, and I have seen him back down , but I haven’t seen much oversight in other committees either. Having both houses of Congress and the presidency in the same hands at war-time is pretty much an invitation for an executive power grab.
Article II doesn’t prohibit Congressional oversight over the executive branch. Even in wartime we have a system of checks and balances. Bush and Cheney have broadly interpreted Article II to give themselves a blank check. 750 signing statements on legislation enacted by Congress has also greatly increased executive power. I might not mind, if we had a competent executive who didn’t mismanage power the way GW has.
I guess that’s your choice but I would mind no matter who was in the White House. The problem is that it sets a precedent. Even if the greatest, most honest and trustworthy person in the world is President, giving that person overreaching power sets a precedent that some unknown person can abuse in the future.
It’s like how I usually respond to people who think Bush should have this power because he is Bush. How would you feel if a President Hillary or President Kerry or President Gore had the same power? Because, once the precedent is established, if one of them gets into office, they will have that power.
Ryan said:
Even if the greatest, most honest and trustworthy person in the world is President, giving that person overreaching power sets a precedent that some unknown person can abuse in the future.
****************************************************
A- bloody -men!