Executive assault

To the editor:

“Congress questions Bush’s claims :” (Journal-World, June 27) sounds like a passing difference of opinion between Bush and a few members of Congress. In fact, it is a constitutional crisis.

This administration refers to its war powers as the basis to reverse laws, not just ignore them. The war on terror is an open-ended “war” without a foreseeable end. This is the executive taking on the Congress’ powers to legislate and to determine the intent of laws. Bush people call this a unitary view of executive powers. There are probably four Supreme Court justices who agree (Elizabeth Drew, New York Review).

The Boston Globe reports Bush “has unilaterally overruled Congress on a broad range of matters” (including) “numerous provisions of appropriations bills”; and “Congress requirement he report back : on how he has implemented (some) : laws”; also “place(d) severe limits on inspector general created by Congress to oversee federal activities”; “refused to enforce laws protecting whistle-blowers”; as well as declaring he can authorize torture (contrary to the McCain amendment) and monitor telecommunications without warrants.

Grover Norquist, conservative organizer, quoted in the New York Review, states: “They’re not trying to change the law; they’re saying that they’re above the law and in the case of the NSA wiretaps they break it.” Norquist adds, “These are all the powers that you don’t want Hillary Clinton to have.”

None of Kansas congressional delegation has opposed Bush’s power grab. Sen. Pat Roberts, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has aided and abetted this executive assault on the Constitution.

Mark Larson,

Lawrence