For our own good

The administration has acknowledged eavesdropping on international calls and emails without a warrant. A Federal judge has declared the program unconstitutional. The administrations response? It's legal because we say so; we can prove we have the authority but we can't show you the proof without revealing State Secrets. Here is an excerpt from the article

On May 26, instead of responding to arguments attacking the legality of the NSA's eavesdropping program, the government filed for dismissal of the case. It cited the "U.S. military and state secrets privilege" and argued the government would not be able to defend the domestic spying program without disclosing classified information.


Or, more directly,
The government argued that the NSA program is well within the president's authority but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

Are they suggesting that we have secret laws in this country? Let's look at how that would seem to be impossible not just from a theoretical but from a specific examination of the sources of power and how they are incompatible with the concept of a secret law.

Recently, I mentioned to Craig that the Executive branch derives its power from four places. 1) the U.S. Constitution, 2) Properly passed Congressional legislation, 3) Treaties approved with the Senate's advice and consent, and last and maybe least 4)Executive Orders.

Here is the rundown on those fonts of power. The Constitution is the foundation of our laws. It authorizes the branches of government and defines their roles. The granting of power is limited to very specific area like the Post Office and minting currency. The 10th amendment even specifically says, if it's not in here, you can't do it.

If the Constitution is the foundation, legislation is the rest of the house. The walls, floors, ceilings, and any bread and circuses desired. What would it take to pass a law and keep it secret. The entire membership of Congress, not to mention their staffers, would have to read it, and then put it up for a vote. Then the President has to sign it which would almost certainly involve staff at the White House. So the minimum would be 536 people aware of and keeping said law secret. Even if they were able to accomplish that dubious act, there are problems implementing it. If you were accused of breaking said secret law, how would you defend yourself in court?

Treaties would be the doors and windows of our governmental house. The portals through which we interact with the rest of the world. Submitting a treaty is a pretty formal process. It is hard to imagine concealing the debate of an international treaty especially considering the soverign country who is the other party in the treaty.

That leaves the Executive Order. It is law only to the degree that it directs the Executive branch on how to implement the prior three legislative anchors. I've heard of secret EO's but by their very nature they don't give new authority to the executive branch but define how the existing authority will be used.

I say to Congress, wake up from your stupor! You've been asleep at the wheel, staying the course, for far too long.