Once again the Bush administration is contending it's not subject to oversight laws.
The August 2007 law requires the agency’s chief privacy officer to report each year about Homeland Security activities that affect privacy, and requires that the reports be submitted directly to Congress “without any prior comment or amendment” by superiors at the department or the White House.
But newly disclosed documents show that the Justice Department issued a legal opinion last January questioning the basis for that restriction, and that Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, later advised Congress that the administration would not “apply this provision strictly” because it infringed on the president’s powers.
Several members of Congress reacted with outrage to the administration’s claim, which was detailed in a memorandum posted this week on the Web site of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the move “unconstitutional.” He said Mr. Bush should have vetoed the bill if he did not like the provision, and compared the situation to Mr. Bush’s frequent use of signing statements to reserve a right to bypass newly enacted laws.
“This is a dictatorial, after-the-fact pronouncement by him in line with a lot of other cherry-picking he’s done on the signing statements,” Mr. Specter said in a telephone interview. He added, “To put it differently, I don’t like it worth a damn.”
In an apparent coincidence, the Homeland Security Department’s privacy officer, Hugo Teufel III, issued his annual privacy report on Friday. It said there were 4,184 privacy complaints over a recent six-month period, but gave few details about them.
The Department of Homeland Security declined to make Mr. Teufel available for an interview or to say whether administration officials had edited his report.
“We are not able to comment on this specific report,” said Laura C. Keehner, the department press secretary. She added that the department’s activities to date had complied with the Office of Legal Counsel opinion and the Constitution.
Several law professors said the administration’s legal theory went too far.
Neil Kinkopf, a law professor at Georgia State University who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, called the opinion an example of the administration’s expansive theories of executive power “run amok.”
Peter Strauss, a Columbia University law professor, said the 2007 law was valid because the president is not the “exclusive” source of communication with Congress.
In the Justice Department memorandum, however, Steven G. Bradbury, the principal deputy assistant attorney general and head of the Office of Legal Counsel, argued that presidents of both parties had long objected to bills that would infringe on their ability to control executive branch officials or to protect against the unauthorized disclosure of information to Congress.
“Such interference is impermissible regardless of its purported oversight or other justifications,” Mr. Bradbury wrote.
This administration has shown nothing but contempt for transparency in government. It has consistently put itself above the law, unanswerable to both Congress and the public. They have the gall to talk about "the unauthorized disclosure of
information to Congress" in apparent ignorance of the concept of checks and balances. The primary reason we have three branches of government is to assure no one branch oversteps its authority or abuses its power.
The Bush White House has no respect for the Constitution or our democratic republic. They seem to have forgotten they are employees of the American people.
