Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
So it's that corporate structure for privilege that applies here?
|
Dunno. You got a better idea? Is a sitting president allowed to escape the unforeseen consequences of his officers' conduct on the ground he has not personally ratified it? We live in a nation of laws, not men, yadda yadda.
It's my analysis that an executive official acting within the course and scope of her authority can do things that bind the President to a particular in a subsequent legal proceeding (such as the enforcement of a subpoena). That does not seem a controversial statement. Maybe the NSA is just an advisor, and maybe this means Rice can't bind the President; I don't know the answer to that. I also can't remember the reason we're arguing about this, so I'm at a disadvantage here. However, the President does things by having his policies executed by officers who answer to him. When they execute those policies, the President does not have a Constitutional Power of Takebacks.
