Convictions: Slate's blog on legal issues

Super-Duper Exclusive!

Can the House really believe the new FISA bill means that it has reined the president in? The New York Times reports, "yes." And here's why:

Perhaps the most important concession that Democratic leaders claimed was an affirmation that the intelligence restrictions were the "exclusive" means for the executive branch to conduct wiretapping operations in terrorism and espionage cases. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had insisted on that element, and Democratic staff members asserted that the language would prevent Mr. Bush, or any future president, from circumventing the law. The proposal asserts "that the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the president of the United States," Ms. Pelosi said.

That was the New York Times, by the way. Not the Onion.

As everyone knows, the last version of FISA said it also was the exclusive means. In fact, it was that language that led so many to think the president's actions were plainly in violation of law, no matter what Rube Goldberg-esque theories of statutory interpretation the administration offered. So, how does immunizing that prior lawbreaking enable anyone to take seriously the claim that this new legislation is now super-duper exclusive?

Someone should ask the president whether he is now conceding that he has no constitutional authority to act in violation of this statute. And someone should ask whether he will commit to not issuing a signing statement asserting a reserved power to do what this exclusive legislation forbids. But, of course, even if he said "yes' to both questions, it would not matter. Presidents can no more bind themselves than they can bind their successors. What actually binds them is a combination of informal and formal checks, such as the specter of intensive congressional oversight, legal liability, or judicial review-checks that this bill diminishes. 

Looking back at this whole affair, if this legislation passes, would you think this new statute is really super-duper exclusive, in fact, or more like kinda-sorta exclusive?

More on the Times FISA Story

I am confused. The New York Times first reports that John McCain now agrees with the Bush administration that the president has the constitutional power to disregard FISA. Now, today it publishes a story saying Bush is alarmed he'll lose the statutory authority Congress recently gave that permits him to get around the old FISA framework. But wait-I thought Bush said he could not be bound by legislation in this area in the first place, so great were his powers as commander in chief. So, why then is he worried about whether Congress does or does not renew the temporary legislation permitting him to get around FISA? Can't he just disregard FISA no matter what Congress does or does not do? And isn't that just the legal position that McCain was supposedly signing on to a couple of days ago?

Of course, one possibility is that the administration actually won't comply with FISA even if Congress fails to reauthorize the current Terrorist Surveillance Program. Sure, it says it will be required to do so, but that's just part of an effort to pressure Congress into granting new powers. When push comes to shove, the administration will do what it did when no one knew what it was up to: just defy the laws on the books by claiming preclusive constitutional powers. But let's assume the administration is serious when it says that if negotiations on the Hill fail to result in a reauthorization, they'll be stuck with the old regime. What has changed that now makes them feel so stuck?

Is it:

1) Lawyers within the Justice Department have rejected the argument that the Constitution gives the president the power to disregard FISA and also concluded that recent legislative developments have rendered illegitimate the controversial claim that the initial Authorization To Use Military Force from 2001 superseded the old FISA regime? If so, that's a big deal, and it would be good to know how this internal legal shift came about.

2) Lawyers for the telecoms have finally balked and are no longer willing to participate in a program that is based solely on the administration's claims of commander-in-chief override power or the AUMF-supersedes-it theory. If so, it would be good to know what has caused the telecom lawyers to feel obliged to say, "No."

3) The FISA court has basically made it clear that it will make even the old regime useless so long as the administration also relies on a parallel, supersecret non-FISA surveillance program that has not been separately approved by Congress, presumably by deeming even requests under FISA fatally tainted. If so, it would be nice to know just what theory of law the FISA court is using and why the Bush administration feels the need to rely on the FISA process for some things in the first place such that it would lose something significant if it lost access to the old regime.

4) The politics of the moment have changed now that the whole supposedly secret program has been made so public that the debate over its legal underpinnings has become a campaign issue. So, even though the administration believes it has the legal power to disregard FISA and the telecom lawyers would comply with requests to do so, it simply no longer feels it can act on what it believes to be correct understanding of the law as a practical matter. But if so, what is it about present politics that are now so different?

For what it's worth, (1), (3), and (4) all seem like weak explanations to me, but this being a state secret and all, I have no idea. What I am interested in is the underlying puzzle: On the one hand, the administration is claiming preclusive constitutional authority, and we are debating the extent to which the Republican nominee shares that same constitutional philosophy. On the other, the administration is bemoaning the fact that Congress is forcing it to comply with an outdated statutory framework. How can both things be true? And if both are, what is the dynamic that makes the administration feel unable to break a law that it believes it has the legal right to break and that it has disregarded in the past?