The president's authority for what is under Article II? Yes, Article II creates and defines the presidency, but it doesn't except it from the rest of the constitution--such as the Bill of Rights provisions.

I guess the President must have dropped a lot of acid in the 60s and never recovered. He is the Queen of Hearts.

Was anyone watching the President's hands while he made his promise to Congress?

Signing statements, exercising Article authority and finger-crossing are all viable outs.

Everything is contained in Article II if you know how to read between the lines. I can read between the lines. Its very simple actually. Half the people at the Constitutional Convention wanted one thing the other half wanted another. They compromised. This compromise allows the spirit of what both parties originally wanted to live between the lines of the document. Once you understand that you can use the Constitution to justify anything.

An example of the President's awesome Article II authority:

"...he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices...."

Yes, he was intended to have virtually unlimited powers. Even to demand opinions -- in writing!

Why won't my personal info save anymore? I check YES and it reverts back to NO after I post.

JFP

Let me explain. The founders spent months and months crafting the constitution. We, the courts and congress, have spent centuries refining the meaning of each of its words.

President Bush and his crack legal team tell us that all these years everybody has been wrong for all these centuries. They point to three little words in Article II "commander in chief" and claim that those words trump the rest of the Constitution. They justify anything he does. The founding fathers and all 42 administrations since, all the Supreme Court justices up to, but not including some of those setting on the court today, are all wrong. The founding fathers weren't setting up a representative democracy. They were establishing a monarchy in which the King is called Mr. President.

If you don't believe me ask Alberto Gonzales or John Yoo. They will try to gussy things up by saying the President's king like powers are "war time" powers, but they will then tell you we have become embroiled in an eternal war against a political tactic (terrorism.)

I dunno. Why not just cut to the chase and have him declare the 4th Amendment null and void by executive fiat? I mean, a War President can do that, right? Under the doctrine of the unitary executive? Seems like that would save a lot of time and discussion all round.

So, out of distrust for the President, any necessary updating of the law must wait for another Administration. It's anyone's guess if it will be on the agenda two years from now.

Well, let's pray it doesn't adversely affect our intelligence gathering to the point where it costs lives.

So, out of distrust for the President, any necessary updating of the law must wait for another Administration.

Take it up with the administration that salted the fields and poisoned the well.

okay...what happened to my last sentence? It read:

"They are the ones who have made the proposition untenable."

Blue Girl, you feeling better?

Shouldn't you be grading final exams?

I just read my last term paper.

Coffee and a second shower cleared the Maxalt cobwebs - thanks for asking.

What was not asked by the committee is does the Article II provision provide legal cover for not informing the Congress of legal opinions used by the Executive branch in the conduct of government. The Constitution seems to forbid something like that...since that would avoid oversight by either of the other branches.

Sen. Feingold: Please ask the Intelligence folks whether the Executive branch can Constitutionally refuse to inform either of the other branches of legal opinions and reasoning used to conduct any survaillence when questions of the abuse of the Bill of Rights is of concern to the American people. Also, ask them to give specific hypothetical examples based on their own experience or thoughts on the matter.

I think we should all be highly skeptical of anyone who claims that the White House has some sort of hypothetical (antithetical really) to keep their own legal opinions to themselves...or not develop them so they don't have to be stopped by rational Constitutional consideration.

So, out of distrust for the President, any necessary updating of the law must wait for another Administration.

Not so fast, Trashy -- do you want to go on record as saying you trust this President with the kind of authority Yoo and Company claims he has?

let's pray it doesn't adversely affect our intelligence gathering to the point where it costs lives

Trashy, Republicans have no standing whatsoever to claim that their policies save lives -- the death toll from Bush's incompetence is too big to ignore.

And Republicans are the ones saying they're the only ones who can keep Americans safe from terrorists (and yes, they're so incompetent and unpopular they have to resort to that lame bullshit to get votes). Surely you aren't suggesting the Republican claims aren't true?

Shame on you, Trashy.

So, out of distrust for the President, any necessary updating of the law must wait for another Administration.

Who said it was necessary?

The words only mean what Bushies say they mean and over time that meaning may change, so that George will remain dictator so long as he is President.

In short, "F*** you!", a Texas hard-case (like Dubya) never answers to anybody.

Of course, there are about 275 million other people here who might have a way of making life hard for him. We just have to find a good legal way of re-establishing the balance of powers.

Making Republicans look very bad will get Congressional Repubs unelected and they wouldn't like that. So, they might eventually peel off in sufficient numbers to evict the pResident.

It's not much consolation to soldiers dying in the fields and the public suffering from his mis-governance. But, that's the political process.

So, out of distrust for the President, any necessary updating of the law must wait for another Administration. It's anyone's guess if it will be on the agenda two years from now.

Well, let's pray it doesn't adversely affect our intelligence gathering to the point where it costs lives.

Well, we could just impeach and remove the President, and then get right on with any "necessary updating" without delay.

Then again, I don't think there is any necessity to further expand executive authority in this area beyond the already extensive expansion of executive authority responding to, supposedly, the same problems that were already carried out in the last few years while the Republicans had complete control.

In fact, I think those earlier expansions need to be rolled back. And, frankly, I'd be fine with that "necessary update" happening whether or not Shrub is still occupying the office of the President.

The FISA court last year issued over 2800 warrants and denied...one...yeah. That system unfairly ties the administrations hands...

"The President's promise to Congress is meaningless."

Excuse me, but surely this conclusion could have been reached--beyond any shadow of doubt--years ago. All that's surprising is that Congress still hasn't figured it out.

Tyro wrote about possible changes to law about domestic intelligence gathering:

"Who said it was necessary?"
___________________

I certainly didn't, but then, I'm not an intelligence expert. I presume no one else here is either, though I could be wrong. I just wonder at the argument that says the issues should not even be discussed or corrected because they happen to be submitted by an Administration everyone wants to torpedo.

Suggesting that Congress should say "Blame the guys in charge now if we don't do our job" is a pretty thin argument. It's pretty certain that there are at least some technical issues that need addressing. But then, we in government agencies are quite used to necessary actions being postponed or even turn upside down because of politics.

Sometimes it costs lives, more often it just costs us money. Always seems a shame, is all.

The Bill of Rights are just a "technical issue" to you Trashie?

I guess that pretty much sums up the right-wing view.

I just wonder at the argument that says the issues should not even be discussed or corrected because they happen to be submitted by an Administration everyone wants to torpedo.

Um, nobody else made this argument, you invented it in the same post that you started acting indignant about it. Stop beating strawmen.

Suggesting that Congress should say "Blame the guys in charge now if we don't do our job" is a pretty thin argument.

This, too, is a strawman (a slight variation on the other one you present). Complaining to us about the inadequacy of arguments that you've introduced into this discussion is somewhat pointless, don't you think.

It's pretty certain that there are at least some technical issues that need addressing.

No doubt the existing law, like most human creations, is imperfect. But, in any non-trivial sense of need, I would say that this is far from "pretty certain", at least in the sense of "addressing" in terms of expanding government power. Of course, if you've got a basis for your assessment of it as "pretty certain", we'd all like to see it.

But then, we in government agencies are quite used to necessary actions being postponed or even turn upside down because of politics.

Yes, I'm sure you'd prefer a system where a leader would just decide what is necessary and do it without any outside constraints.

"Was anyone watching the President's hands while he made his promise to Congress?"

As usual, he was cupping his balls.

And, Trashy, you don't think mistrust of this president is sufficiently well-founded to at least moderate his ball-cupping for the next 18 months or so? When's enough for you?

I personally find the Bill of Rights to be the worst mistake committed by the founders. First of all a bill of rights is completely unnescessary in a government founded on the principle of government by the people. Its a holdover from tyrranical governments where the dictator owned you ass and a bill of rights is a bone he'd throw to you saying here's a few things I'll let you think you have. Secondly the powers of each branch were specified in the constitution, if it isn't in article I,II, or III they can't do it. A bill of rights filled with things government can't do just implies some powers weren't fully detailed earlier in the document yet do exist. If you don't believe me read Federalist 84 where Hamilton predicts the arguments put forth by Yoo and others.

I personally find the Bill of Rights to be the worst mistake committed by the founders. First of all a bill of rights is completely unnescessary in a government founded on the principle of government by the people. Its a holdover from tyrranical governments where the dictator owned you ass and a bill of rights is a bone he'd throw to you saying here's a few things I'll let you think you have. Secondly the powers of each branch were specified in the constitution, if it isn't in article I,II, or III they can't do it. A bill of rights filled with things government can't do just implies some powers weren't fully detailed earlier in the document yet do exist.

You seem to think that the Bill of Rights does not restrict the government in the exercise of powers granted previously in the Constitution, but only restricts government action beyond those otherwise-granted powers. This is incorrect. The government's actions must be within the scope of its granted powers and must not, even within that scope, infringe on the rights reserved to the people.

Trashauler, so you're saying that your statement is purely hypothetical and has nothing to do with this post. ok, then!

Look, every interest group (and the white house staff is just one interest group among many) thinks their pet demands are "necessary." Congress can decide whether they want to move on them or not. I think than any rational person is going to conclude that the white house's demands are really not worth moving on at this time.

'You seem to think that the Bill of Rights does not restrict the government in the exercise of powers granted previously in the Constitution, but only restricts government action beyond those otherwise-granted powers. This is incorrect.'

How? Is the restriction against a law prohibiting free speech just an extension of their ability to make law?

'The government's actions must be within the scope of its granted powers and must not, even within that scope, infringe on the rights reserved to the people. '

All gov't power is given in service of our rights so it is unnescessary, as I've mentioned, to state that the gov't won't make a law infringing on our rights. To specify some implies power not given. Government power is derived from the consent of the governed. Its absurd to think we would give the power to mess with our rights so its more absurd to state the obvious in the Bill of Rights that there are rights that can't be infringed. What this does is give Harvard professors reasons to state that our rights are not inalieable but are in fact conditional.

'

"So, out of distrust for the President, any necessary updating of the law must wait for another Administration."

Bullshit. The Democrats are simply telling the Bush administration to prove it -- to back up their claims that the changes are trivial and necessary. That is not the same thing as rejecting the changes outright and it's dishonest of you to pretend that it is.

"It's anyone's guess if it will be on the agenda two years from now."

If it's as important and as necessary as the Bush administration claim, it will be. Don't be an idiot.

"Well, let's pray it doesn't adversely affect our intelligence gathering to the point where it costs lives."

See Aesop's Fables. In any case, since we have seen absolutely zero evidence that FISA and other related laws are restricting the Bush administration's intelligence-gathering capabilities in any way, I would say that your gloom-and-doom scenario is not only highly unlikely, it's silly.

Two important points to keep in mind:

- Most of the constraints on intelligence gathering were placed there for damn good reason.

- The FBI has already had to shamefacedly admit that they have been routinely ignoring and abusing what few restrictions still remain.

Given these points, along with the Bush administration's past record, Congressional Democrats would be failing in their responsibilities if they did not pressure the Bush administration for details and justifications.

... Its absurd to think we would give the power to mess with our rights ... jg at 2:47 PM

...that the "Office of President" is "larger than the law"; that "the rule of law is not enough to run a government"; that "ordinary power needs to be supplemented or corrected by the extraordinary power of a prince, using wise discretion"; that "with one person in charge we can have both secrecy and responsibility"; and most of all:
Much present-day thinking puts civil liberties and the rule of law to the fore and forgets to consider emergencies when liberties are dangerous and law does not apply.
"Law does not apply" -- "that is Mansfield's belief, and the belief of the Bush movement. I didn't think it was possible, but Mansfield, with today's article in The Wall St. Journal, actually goes even further in advocating pure lawlessness and tyranny than he did in that remarkable Weekly Standard screed. He begins by describing" "the debate between the strong executive and its adversary, the rule of law." He then says: "In some circumstances I could see myself defending the rule of law," but "the rule of law has two defects, each of which suggests the need for one-man rule."...

George Christian, a librarian from Connecticut knows how a patriot ought to act.

Kevin,

Instead of just repeating the Democratic party line, why don't you try analyzing the proposed legislation to see if it makes sense?

As I understand it, the Administration is saying that the law is outdated because it hasn't kept up with changes in technology. As it stands, the law could be interpreted (and has been so interpreted by the Democrats) to require court approval to intercept communications that may utilize wires or computers located in the US even if the maker and recipient of the communication are located abroad. This makes no sense. My understanding (which is based solely on news reports and so could be incorrect) is that the Administration is asking to change the law so that the NSA can intercept all calls made or received by targets located abroad. What's wrong with this?

Consider the following rather realistic set of facts. Suppose the NSA finds a name in a notebook seized from a jihadist in Iraq or Afghanistan (or London or Paris, for that matter). The person named lives in Spain. The NSA wants to listen to all the phone calls made or received by that person. That person uses some internet telephony or some cell service that routes calls through wires or computers located in the US. Why would it make sense to require a US court to approve that action? I really don't get it, I didn't get it when I read about the Democratic senatorial opposition, and your posting hasn't enlightened me.

Please try harder.

Irony alert: GOP apologist DBL writes your posting hasn't enlightened me.

You don't say.

Gregory,

These comments used to be a place where people with different political beliefs could engage in reasoned debate. Has that changed? Is only DNC cheeerleading allowed now? If so, I'll stop visiting and commenting.

"If it's as important and as necessary as the Bush administration claim, it will be."

I'll even go a step further: if these changes are as important and as necessary as the Bush administration claims, then they will provide Congressional Democrats and Republicans the information they need to demonstrate this. If the Bush administration fails to do this, that pretty much demonstrates that the changes were neither important nor necessary.

"These comments used to be a place where people with different political beliefs could engage in reasoned debate."

You are free to post anything you want, just as people are free to post whatever they want in reply. If you don't like the reply, ignore it.

In any case, when you start your post with: "Instead of just repeating the Democratic party line," you have pretty much given up the right to complain about "reasoned debate."

I was going to respond in more detail to your post, DBL, but unfortunately you failed to back up any of your assertions. You apparently don't really know what the changes are, nor what, specifically, the administration has said about the law and about the changes, nor what, specifically, Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike have objected to (see, for example, Kit Bond). It's also not clear that you understand the historical background on these issues, nor that you really understood Kevin's points. Accordingly, there really isn't anything for me to respond to.

How?

That question is answered in the sentence immediately following the excerpt you respond to: "The government's actions must be within the scope of its granted powers and must not, even within that scope, infringe on the rights reserved to the people."

Is the restriction against a law prohibiting free speech just an extension of their ability to make law?

I'm not sure what this question is supposed to mean. The restriction against a law abridging free speech restricts Congress use of its Article I powers. For instance, Congress can regulate interstate commerce, but that does not extend to regulations which amount to abridgements of free speech even if they do regulate interstate commerce and thus, in the absence of the First Amendment, would be within the grant of power in Article I, Section 8.

But, no, the restrictions in, e.g., Amendment I are not "extensions" of the power to make law.

As it stands, the law could be interpreted (and has been so interpreted by the Democrats) to require court approval to intercept communications that may utilize wires or computers located in the US even if the maker and recipient of the communication are located abroad.

What provision of the law has been so interpreted? Please provide some evidence of the existence of this interpretation. Please, then, explain the conditions in which the interpretation applies, and your disagreement with those conditions.

Of COURSE they can't be trusted!

Remember just before the reauthorization of the "Patriot" Act they were asked about national security letters? They assured Congress that they were not abusing that power. But now that the reauthorization has safely passed, they admit they were abusing those powers on a grand scale.

Nothing these liars say can be trusted. The republic is in serious peril. Do NOT hand any more power to these lying sacks of shit.

"What provision of the law has been so interpreted? Please provide some evidence of the existence of this interpretation. Please, then, explain the conditions in which the interpretation applies, and your disagreement with those conditions."

I suspect he's talking about the fact that so much of the world's communications backbone is on U.S. soil. In his hypothetical, with both parties to the call on foreign soil, technically FISA allows surveillance without court oversight or intervention. Hence, bugging their target's phone would be legal.

However, rather than following their suspect around and bugging various communication outlets, it would be, potentially, easier to trap the communication when it moves through U.S. servers, thereby avoiding the need for covert operations overseas. Is that considered tapping a phone on U.S. soil and would FISA then come into play? Dunno.

In any case, I can see quite a few problems with this hypothetical, assuming that I've laid it out properly, but since DBL didn't see fit to clarify or support any of his assertions, I didn't bother to write a detailed rebuttal.

"....[Sen. John] Rockefeller pressed a demand for documents and was joined by vice chair Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-Mo.). "There is simply no excuse for not providing to this committee all the legal opinions on the president's program," Rockefeller said."

This is the real news here. This is the only rational statement I've ever heard come out of Bond's mouth.

"Well, we could just impeach and remove the President, and then get right on with any "necessary updating" without delay."

While I have no doubt that the man has committed impeachable offenses, I wouldn't follow that path. The only thing that frightens me more than the Bush presidency is the possibility of a Cheney presidency.

Of course, the other problem with DBL's post is that he's making the same fundamental error that Trashhauler did -- implying that the Senators are refusing to support the changes or refusing to negotiate. All I get from the story is that the Senators are skeptical and are demanding more information -- a quite reasonable demand given past history.

Ironically enough, while Kevin was not even remotely "repeating the Democratic Party line," DBL's post was emphatically "repeating the Republican Party line" or, more accurately, "the Bush administration line."

Dr. Morpheus wrote:

"The Bill of Rights are just a "technical issue" to you Trashie?

I guess that pretty much sums up the right-wing view."
_________________

How am I to respond to this, Doctor? You know my post said no such thing, yet you take this tack simply to throw an insult.

Every law and regulation has technical aspects which have nothing to do with support or denial of basic freedoms. One might suppose that language describing technical details of electronic communications should be updated every thirty years or so, together with any adjustments might be necessary in complying with the intent of the Act itself.

You do yourself no credit by acting as if you misunderstood that distinction or by supposing that a professional government employee doesn't know the difference.

Tyro wrote:

"Look, every interest group (and the white house staff is just one interest group among many) thinks their pet demands are "necessary." Congress can decide whether they want to move on them or not. I think than any rational person is going to conclude that the white house's demands are really not worth moving on at this time."
______________________

Well, that's quite true, Tyro, and a very good point. However, I also note that neither Mr. Drum, nor the LA Times article actually describes what changes the Bush Administration had proposed. They could have been highly controversial or fairly routine, we have no way of knowing.

The earlier posts in this thread clearly voiced the belief that Congress was right to reject anything the Administration submitted on the subject - if for no other reason than it was the Bush Administration.

Few here probably have experience in crafting legislative language, much less trying to get it through the relevant House and Senate committees. The task is onerous enough for the professionals down in the agencies who actually work on such things, without artificial, political roadblocks being thrown in simply because all proposed legislation has to come through the Bush White House.

All gov't power is given in service of our rights so it is unnescessary, as I've mentioned, to state that the gov't won't make a law infringing on our rights.

Even granting the premise (which is certainly not express in the body of the Constitution, and arguably conflicts with the preamble, which gives liberty as only one of many motivations), the conclusion doesn't follow, as absent an explicit recitation of what "our rights" are, there is even more room for conflicting understanding of what "our rights" are that define the proper direction of government powers.

To specify some implies power not given.

No, it expresses certain powers as not given that might otherwise be implied from the express grants in the body, it doesn't imply that powers are not given.

Government power is derived from the consent of the governed.

This is true in practice everywhere, true, the government can only effectively command where there is someone willing to obey.

Its absurd to think we would give the power to mess with our rights so its more absurd to state the obvious in the Bill of Rights that there are rights that can't be infringed.

The Bill of Rights does not merely state "there are rights that cannot be infringed".

What this does is give Harvard professors reasons to state that our rights are not inalieable but are in fact conditional.

Rights are, in practice, always conditional; they exist as anything other than theoretical constructs only to the extent that others in practice observe them.

Of course, the other problem with DBL's post is that he's making the same fundamental error that Trashhauler did -- implying that the Senators are refusing to support the changes or refusing to negotiate.

I'm not sure that's the same mistake Trashhauler made; I thought Trashhauler's implication was that people here were advocating that Congress should refuse to consider the changes, not that Congress was, in fact, doing so; he was railing against the argument—though he pointed to no one actually making such an argument—that Congress should not consider the issue simply because this Administration was raising it.

OTOH, there is a similarity, in that both are angry responses to situations which do not appear to exist in reality.

Every law and regulation has technical aspects which have nothing to do with support or denial of basic freedoms.

This clearly isn't true of every law and regulation; laws and regulations have existed which are nothing at all outside of the denial or affirmation of basic freedoms, or which are that at the core and have provisions all of which relate to that core and are not irrelevant to it.

It may be true of most laws and regulations, but that's not your claim. It may be true of the laws and regulations at issue here, which could be demonstrated by pointing to such provisions, but that is clearly not established.

One might suppose that language describing technical details of electronic communications should be updated every thirty years or so, together with any adjustments might be necessary in complying with the intent of the Act itself.

It's a pretty big jump from "one might suppose" to "pretty certain", so I guess this is backing off from your earlier claims. Further, FISA has been altered by amendments in (and this list may not be exhaustive) 1994, 1998, 1999, at least twice (both after 9/11) in 2001, and in 2004, and so even if "one might suppose" that updates are necessary "every thirty years or so", that's no reason to expect that they are, in fact, necessary to FISA now, since it has been updated no less than 6 times in the last 13 years, and no less than thrice since 9/11/2001.

Few here probably have experience in crafting legislative language, much less trying to get it through the relevant House and Senate committees.

That may be true of "most" here. So what?

The task is onerous enough for the professionals down in the agencies who actually work on such things, without artificial, political roadblocks being thrown in simply because all proposed legislation has to come through the Bush White House.

Um, proposed legislation doesn't have to "come through" the Bush White House until it is passed by Congress. While executive agencies may draft proposed legislation and try to sell it to members of Congress, as many any other interest group, they don't have any exclusive right to do so, nor does our Constitutional order of government envision the executive branch as the sole—or even as a privileged—author of law.

Should proposals by a group that has a track record of lying, on the very matters that they have a track record of lying about, be looked at especially suspiciously? Yes, I think they should. Nor do I think there is anything "artificial" about that: not granting exceptional trust to proven liars is about the most natural, most rational behavior there is. It would be irresponsible to act otherwise.

Trashhauler

I just wonder at the argument that says the issues should not even be discussed or corrected because they happen to be submitted by an Administration known to be duplicitous and contemptuous of the rightful role of the legislative branch.

There fixed it for you.

Should proposals by a group that has a track record of lying, on the very matters that they have a track record of lying about, be looked at especially suspiciously? Yes, I think they should. Nor do I think there is anything "artificial" about that: not granting exceptional trust to proven liars is about the most natural, most rational behavior there is. It would be irresponsible to act otherwise.

Exactly right.

cmdicely wrote:

"OTOH, there is a similarity, in that both are angry responses to situations which do not appear to exist in reality."
__________________

Angry? It was a simple observation, cm, nothing more. As to citing earlier posts in the same thread goes, I assume you can scroll up and read as well as the next person.

This is a situation that actually exists in reality: One of the most popular ways of killing a legislative proposal is to claim that more information is needed. This can be done by a Congressman, Senator, or even a committee staffer. This tactic is particularly useful if the person using it does not want to be accused of being obstructionist. After all, all they are asking for is more information. What can be more innocent and prudent?

What follows is a near infinite loop of questions, responses, papers, visits, more questions, more responses, briefings, more visits, letters, rewording of the same questions answered previously, and on and on, until the clock runs out on the Congressional schedule and whatever legislative vehicle was chosen goes to conference without the offending language.

All the burden of this, mind you, is borne of the agency staffs, rather than the White House, which serves as the conduit for all legislative proposals submitted by the Executive Branch, not just those supported by someone in the West Wing.

Another favorite method of killing legislation is to require a study on the subject, with a conveniently distant date for the results to be reported. This often occurs even if the proposed legislation was the result of an earlier study mandated by the same Congressional opponent of the proposal.

Both sides play the same game and recognize it instantly. Still, the kabuki dance must go on, driven by both politics on one hand and real differences of opinion on what should be done on the other. And, too often, needed changes or actions go waiting until the political situation changes or the action is overcome by other events.

This is nothing to get especially angry about. In fact, anger is usually counterproductive unless one is expressing it for political reasons. Sometimes an issue or needed action goes unaddressed and something bad happens. That, too, is nothing more than reality, just as it is reality that the negative impact of inaction is almost never felt by the ones who blocked the proposal.

This is a situation that actually exists in reality: One of the most popular ways of killing a legislative proposal is to claim that more information is needed. This can be done by a Congressman, Senator, or even a committee staffer. This tactic is particularly useful if the person using it does not want to be accused of being obstructionist. After all, all they are asking for is more information. What can be more innocent and prudent?

What follows is a near infinite loop of questions, responses, papers, visits, more questions, more responses, briefings, more visits, letters, rewording of the same questions answered previously, and on and on, until the clock runs out on the Congressional schedule and whatever legislative vehicle was chosen goes to conference without the offending language.

All the burden of this, mind you, is borne of the agency staffs, rather than the White House, which serves as the conduit for all legislative proposals submitted by the Executive Branch, not just those supported by someone in the West Wing.

The job of executive agencies isn't principally to champion legislation, and certainly not to champion legislation that isn't supported by the President. Your apparent belief that the executive branch is and ought to be composed of a bunch of independent bureaucracies that ought to be able to impose legislation without the bother of any "burden" to justify themselves to the people actually charged, under the Constitution, with the job of legislating is interesting, I suppose, at least in how bizarre it is.

Another favorite method of killing legislation is to require a study on the subject, with a conveniently distant date for the results to be reported. This often occurs even if the proposed legislation was the result of an earlier study mandated by the same Congressional opponent of the proposal.

Perhaps. So? Once again, in our Constitutional system, executive branch agencies aren't privileged sources of legislation.

Do you have any point to make here?

No one is arguing against discussing the issue. Plenty of people, in Congress and out, are skeptical of the administration's recommendation. If you have an argument that they should not be skeptical, you can of course make it, but simply pointing out, as if there was a problem, that the executive branch isn't being granted free and unquestioned rein to impose legislation isn't much of an argument for anything.

cm, you have an interesting debating style, fully capable of discerning "belief" from what are normal, declarative sentences. I was stating how things are and how they work. At no time did I give an opinion about how it should work.

I realize that arguing while fact free suits some here quite nicely, but I wasn't even arguing.

I'm very glad that you can certify that no one was arguing against discussing the issue. If I was wrong in that impression, I am happy to know it.