Centerfield

Color me completely unsurprised that Congress (or any part thereof) is of the opinion that it is superior in powers to all other branches of the government.

Of course the same think could be said about the actions of the executive branch.

I look at this report as the proverbial “shot across the bow”. If the executive branch doesn't heave to and prepare to be boarded, the USS Constitution will put one into the rigging.

In general I would agree, Tully. But, just a few years ago we had Congress falling all over itself to abdicate one of the very few powers that the constitution gave to them alone (to declare war) in abject deference to the executive.

I think you're right, Bob. It's a shot across the bow of not only the executive but I think across the bow of the SCOTUS, which has been deferential of late, too.

Of course the same think [sic] could be said about the actions of the executive branch.

Absolutely. But you skipped the first few sentences of the summary to go directly to peripheral assessments of hypotheticals.

Whether an NSA activity is permissible under the Fourth Amendment and the statutory scheme outlined above is impossible to determine without an understanding of the specific facts involved and the nature of the President’s authorization, which are for the most part classified.

IOW, even under their own construction and assertion of authorities, they can't say that anything illegal has occured. So they're running ahead of the facts to make speculative assertions based on unsubstantiated hypotheticals. Which assertions, naturally, side with maximum authority for Congress. Just as (surprise!) the assertions of the White House are in the other direction. The difference in this case being that the White House has the realities instead of hypotheticals, and can tailor their arguments accordingly.

The winner in dueling authorities between branches is whoever gets the third branch on their side, of course. And if the odd branch doesn't take sides, it's all hot air. (Shooting one across the bow of SCOTUS is a guaranteed method of losing, BTW. They are the USS Constitution.)

(Shooting one across the bow of SCOTUS is a guaranteed method of losing, BTW. They are the USS Constitution.)

Well, what I meant by that was that it was a pointed reminder that the SCOTUS isn't the only collection of individuals capable of reading and understanding the relevant laws.

This CSR report in relation to the SCUTUS is a preemptive interpretation of the legal situation.

Think Dark Ages and priests being the only one's who understood the Latin in which the only available Bibles were written. The Catholic Church had the rank and file by the shorthairs because almost nobody could even read the Bible much less offer an argument of how it ought to be interpreted.

Here the CSR did what a Dark Ages peasant was simply incapable of doing... it offered a coherent argument using the same criteria available to the SCOTUS.

... the relevance of the analogy is that, unlike the Dark Ages Catholic Church, the SCOTUS can't just offer up a ruling willy nilly knowing that nobody else is in a position to challenge it's logic. Of course that's self-evident and was long before this CSR report. I'm just pointing out that the CSR has offered up a legal interpretation before any part of the judicial branch has offered one.

Gotcha, Kevin.

Not that it would slow down SCOTUS, as there's no doubt at all that they get the last word on constitutionality. To squeeze into your analogy, the Vatican didn't need to respect variant readings, as their reading was the one that counted.

Not even that settles it in practice, though, unless they have another branch on their side. To win an "authorities" argument you still need two out of three, and a one-on-one goes nowhere. ("They have made their decision, now let them enforce it.")

The major advantage Congress has in a one-on-one "authorities" argument with the executive or judiciary is the power of impeachment. Truly the court of last resort, or at least should be.

I certainly agree that the Vatican didn't need to respect variant intrepretations as their's was the only one that counted... in a strict review of history. Yet history also records that once variant intrepretations from scholars fully capable of understanding and dissecting the Vulgate, the Vatican ended up losing a great deal of it's power in Europe. Considering it's starting point, pre-variant_interpretation (ala Martin Luther et al), the Vatican lost enormously.

This gets to the core of what is prehaps my greatest concern about this country and our future: The SCOTUS being too deferential to the executive. It's not about Dems and GOPers or about Libs and Cons. It's about the separation of powers and the absolutely critical role that plays in this experiment of the Founders succeding over the long term in some semblance of what they meant to create.

Which brings us to two things, Kevin. Analogies always break down if examined too closely, because they're just analogies. And after over two centuries, the pendulum still swings. If it ever stops, then we're probably toast.

Which is another analogy, of course, without the benefit of any fun history attached. :-(