President Has No Power to Permit or Not Permit Constitutional Requirements Having Eternal Force

There's a recurring pattern of the Congress pretending that the President has input whether he will or will not follow the law.

No President has any power to decide or not decide whether legal requirements are enforced and fully implemented. He has no discretion.

It is a false celebration for anyone to believe that the President is "letting" something happen. The outcomes are constitutional requirements, and remained requirements, regardless whether this President agreed with them, "let" them happen, or decided to do what he was always required to do.

* * *

Ref This is the same arrogance Bush had with the FISA court: [paraphrasing] "We will allow that to occur."

No! The President has not power to "allow or not allow" himself to assent to the law.

* * *

This headline recognizes illusory power: "Admin Will Not Oppose U.S. Attorney Law Change"

As with the unconstitutional changes to the FISA Court procedures, the US Attorney appointments, Habeas, or Military Commissions Act: What was not lawfully done, cannot be undone.

It never lawfully happened.

The President has no power to "assent or not assent" to the the Constitution.

The moment the Congress gets into the game of "What can we do to make the President approve this bill which changes the law back to what the Constitution requires, puts the President in the unacceptable position of being a superior branch. This is wrong.

The President has no vote, input, or say on whether the FISA Court or FISA statute is something he will or will not follow; nor can this President's "vote" on the Habeas Restoration bill have any effect.

It is wrong for the Congress to pretend that the President, based on his discretion, can either choose to agree or not agree to "let" the Executive Branch follow the requirement of the law.

They have no choice. IT is wrong for this legal fiction which Congress is assenting to to continue.

TO restate: Congress and the President have no basis to agree or make contingent "following the law" upon the good graces of the President; or whether he, out of the blue' says that he will permit something to happen. He has no choice.

It is a false recognition of illusory power for Congress to engage in "restoration" of requirements which are mandatory; and Congress and the President have no power to oppose.

* * *

This country has illegally assented to unlawful abrogations of the US Constitution, done nothing, and is entertaining the fiction that the President can "permit" something, despite the President having no lawful authority or power to make that call.

The decision was made in 1789, and what this President chooses in 2007 is meaningless. He has no choice; and him "agreeing" to "let" something happen is nothing to celebrate, as it requires us to believe falsely that he was not "approving" something that only he could let happen. He has no power to permit or deny what is required.