My adoring fans: Have no fear, your beloved Frederic is back for another (long, grueling, dispiriting, depressing, etc.) year of law school. Accordingly, let us begin this first weekend of the school year with a "BANG!" Here is the link to an interesting article I read earlier this morning.
Maybe one of the BBL community can enlighten us on the Constitutional issue(s) apparent in the article. I guess I missed the day in ConLaw where the President was allowed to have the powers of Caesar and Cincinnatus in repelling "cyber-attacks."
If Congress authorizes POTUS to act, he can act unless its otherwise unconstitutional. See Youngstown Sheet v. Sawyer. Don't see the problem here.
ReplyDeleteRidiculous proposition, anony supra. Congress does not have the authority to authorize the President to violate the Constitution.
ReplyDelete@Anon 6:08 - If you read what the first Anon (5:17) said, you probably wouldn't be upset. He/she said UNLESS its otherwise unconstitutional. As in he can't do it if it is unconstitutional, even with congressional authorization.
ReplyDelete5:17 here--what Matt said. UNLESS ITS OTHERWISE UNCONSTITUTIONAL is the salient clause. And I don't see why this would be.
ReplyDeleteQuick question: Under what power of Congress does this fall? Moreover, I think a strong argument (according to the plain language of the 5th Amd.) can be made that such a seizure would constitute unlawful seizure of property without just compensation.
ReplyDeletePresumably the commerce clause?
ReplyDelete