The Law, The Constitution and Warrantless Surveillance
Must the President of the United States obey the law? Ordinarily, the answer of course is yes, unless the law itself is unconstitutional.
It is “uncontroversial,” wrote then-Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger in a 1994 memorandum for the Clinton White House, that “there are circumstances in which the President may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional.”
See “Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes,” Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, November 2, 1994.
However, the President does not have the last word on what is or is not constitutional. That decision belongs to the Supreme Court.
A new bill introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) yesterday would set the stage for the Supreme Court to consider the legality of the Bush Administration’s warrantless surveillance program by granting legal standing to litigants seeking to challenge the program.
“Did the President go outside the ambit of the law about asking for a warrant?” asked Sen. Schumer. “Some think yes, and they are pretty sure of that. Some think no, and they are pretty sure of it. They are pretty sure that he couldn’t. Many are not sure at all.”
“The most logical place for this to be settled is in the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said in his March 29 introductory statement on the new bill (S. 2468).
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on March 28 featuring four former judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and other expert witnesses who testified on issues surrounding the warrantless surveillance program and Senator Specter’s legislative proposal on the subject.
Prepared statements from Sen. Leahy, FISA expert Morton Halperin of the Center for American Progress, and former Justice official David Kris (but not yet the statements of the judges) can be found here.
A rare interview with FISA Court Judge George Kazen of Laredo, Texas appeared in the Dallas Morning News earlier this week.
See “Judge juggles busy docket, secret duty” by Todd J. Gilman, Dallas Morning News, March 28 (free but intrusive registration required).
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.