Just Who And What The Hell Is Obama Talking About?

Barack Obama responded to a constituent inquiry about the censure motion proposed by Russ Feingold. The text of the letter is posted in this aloha and mahalo diary at dailykos. Obama, after agreeing in significant part with Feingold, then makes a sudden swerve into Totally-Made-Up-Shit Land. In his letter, he states - without any specificity whatsoever: "Some constitutional scholars and lower court opinions support the president's argument that he has inherent authority to go outside the bounds of the law in monitoring the activities of suspected terrorists." --- Which constitutional scholars, exactly, say that the president "has inherent authority to go outside the bounds of the law"? Which specific court opinions, exactly, say any such thing? Now, it could certainly be the case that a void exists in my knowledge regarding these matters, and I would welcome edification. But every credible constitutional scholar who has publically addressed the issue, so far as I am aware, has firmly stated that Bush has operated illegally. Indeed, Marbury v Madison plainly established a very long time ago that only the Courts can have judicial review. A bit more recently, the Supreme Court essentially reaffirmed the Marbury decision, with its ruling in Hamdi v Rumsfeld, that the Executive Branch could not unilaterally be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner; that the president had an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution. Just who and what the #%#!! is Obama talking about? What court has ruled Marbury no longer applies? Which alleged "scholars" claim Marbury is no longer operative? Further in his letter Obama then asserts this staggeringly fatuous "frame" of the debate (my emphasis): "The question is whether the president understood the law and knowingly flaunted it, or whether he and his aides, in good faith, interpreted their authority more broadly than I and others believe the law allows. Ultimately, this debate must be resolved by the courts." Well, okay, and the Spanish Inquisition was undertaken "in good faith" too. Witches were burned in Salem "in good faith." The Money Changers at the Church, who Christ chased away (Matthew 21:12-13), acted "in good faith." Maybe Barack also believes in the "good faith" tooth fairy and the "good faith" Easter bunny. And the "good faith" New York City policemen, who "interpreted their authority more broadly" and shoved a broken plunger up Abner Louima's rectum. update: Armando at dailykos is more polite than I am, and also quotes the relevant portion of the Hamdi decision. Anonymous Liberal at Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory drives a stake through the heart of the monumentally dishonest "good faith" defense.