Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
ditto
Too-shay.

Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
I agree, its tricky. As it begs reason as to what level of autonomy the executive must have to carry into force its Constitutional role. The Judicial branch is the monday morning qback really; their role is solely as a trier of fact, not propositional, some evidence of a wrong must exist, and (this is important) someone must bring such a claim-- as such, their ruling in the case I linked was justly dismissed.

Should Congress elaborate on the intent and extent of the power and process terrorists are brought to justice? Sure, of course they should. But you can't say the executive was wrong for having carried into force their own policy when Congress gave them broad reign over how to combat terror. However, laws can (and should) be adjusted to better fit their prescribed intent; so I don't think its reasonable for COngress to impose their, or the Justice Branch's, participation into the executive function-- separation of powers.
Constitutionally prescribed autonomy which includes the powers that Congress subsequently gives them. The memo they used re: Awlaki was not written overnight and he was a problem for years iirc so there was likely ample time in which a bill could have been introduced in Congress and passed. And in this case there was evidence and there is someone to bring the claim, the dismissal on the father's case was administrative in a way, standing, and didn't speak to the facts and actions. I'll assume that it was decided correctly and that possibly the judiciary is not the forum in which to be tried.

I think in this case it's easy to say that the executive was wrong, because there is failure by Congress shouldn't absolve the POTUS. They haven't released the memo so it's hard to judge the basis for their actions; that's something else to have issue with.